Establishing the legal framework of telehealth in the Philippines

The National Telehealth Service Program aims to address the inequity in health, and to utilize the advancements in information and communication technology to improve health outcomes in the country, primarily through telemedicine. There are no laws that directly govern the practice of telemedicine but the implementation of the National Telehealth Service Program has legal implications. The Round Table discussions were effective in identifying key issues such as the nature of the practice of telemedicine, liability issues for stakeholders, and the privacy concerns in Telehealth. Based on an analysis of these issues in the context of relevant laws and jurisprudence, it is established that those who practice telemedicine will have a duty to exercise diligence in managing patients or providing specialty advice. The standard of care for physicians practicing telemedicine should take into consideration the limitations of technology and the inherent differences between telemedicine and face-to- face doctor-patient consultations. The National Telehealth Center has a responsibility to put in place internal policies and procedures that would improve the delivery of health services through telemedicine while safeguarding the patient's right to privacy. Current laws, particularly the Data Privacy Act of 2012, puts emphasis on obtaining patient's consent and requires putting in place organizational, physical and technical security measures in the collection and processing of personal and sensitive information.

Health information privacy in the Philippines: Trends and challenges in policy and practice

CONTEXT: Evolution of the scope and context of privacy and confidentiality brought about by use of information and communications technology in healthcare. OBJECTIVE: To review the legal, professional and ethical landscape of health information privacy in the Philippines. METHODOLOGY: Systematic review of literature and policy frameworks. RESULTS: Philippine laws jurisprudence recognize and protect privacy of health information as a general rule; impose upon individual practitioners and institutions the obligation to uphold such right; and may apply in both the traditional and eHealth milieu. There is no existing policy framework that addresses issues relating to [a] access to health information by non-health professionals, [b] use of health information for non-health purposes, and [c] rules relating to collection, storage and utilization of electronically-derived or -stored information. A privacy culture, on either the provider's or client's side, is also lacking in the country. CONCLUSION: Technological developments have outpaced policy and practice. There is a need to unify the patchwork of regulations governing the privacy of health information; advocate for a privacy culture among professionals and patients alike; fortify the evidence base on patient and provider perceptions of privacy; and develop and improve standards and systems to promote health information privacy at the individual and institutional levels.