Hundreds of Manx patients affected by data error
More than 430 patients on the Isle of Man have been subject to a data error resulting in their home addresses being changed to UK ones, Manx Care has said.
The island's healthcare provider said NHS England had incorrectly recorded temporary UK residences as permanent addresses for island residents who were receiving treatment there.
A spokeswoman said that so far about 446 patients had been affected, with further cases likely to be confirmed as "awareness increases".
She said Manx Care was "actively collaborating" with UK healthcare bodies and integrated care boards to "improve how address changes are managed, particularly for patients moving between the Isle of Man and the UK".
NHS systems on the Isle of Man and in the UK work independently, but data is shared when address changes are made.
The Manx Care spokeswoman said: "In some cases the UK system assumed a permanent relocation rather than a temporary visit."
This led to "unintended updates to patient records", she added.
Manx Care said it was contacting GP practices to verify permanent addresses to all of those affected by the error and had reiterated "the importance of not replacing records" to UK health providers.
Meanwhile, the health body has urged anyone who has been treated in the UK and expected correspondence from Manx Care, to get in touch with their GP practice to "review your records".
Potential impacts on care could mean people miss or have delayed invitations for routine screenings or appointments at Noble's Hospital.
Manx Care said that despite the error, patients would not lose their places at their Manx GP practice.
The healthcare body apologised for "any confusion or disruption" and said people's "health and peace of mind [were] top priorities".
Read more stories from the Isle of Man on the BBC, watch BBC North West Tonight on BBC iPlayer and follow BBC Isle of Man on Facebook and X.
Rising costs ignite review into off-island care
Society outlines concerns over Manx Care mandate
Patients 'in limbo' over health cuts, MHK says
Manx Care
NHS England
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
'My husband died suddenly, leaving me with three kids – but I'm turning things around now'
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. 'I was sitting in my dining room, and I just started crying – I couldn't stop the tears,' begins Lucy Melville, 56. 'The grief that had built up over the previous 15 months came pouring out in one evening. 'My husband had died a little over a year before, I had lost my job, my three kids had all moved out of the house, and to top it all off, I was perimenopausal. I felt I was becoming invisible, shrivelling up, and that the world was telling me my time was up. 'I sat there, snot oozing out of my throat and nose, and briefly wondered how many paracetamol tablets it would take to stop all of this. This wasn't the life I had planned – a life without Brian and without my work family. 'We'd been married for just over 25 years when Brian was told he had stage four small cell carcinoma in May 2024. It had established itself in his lung and metastasized into his liver. "Doctors said it was inoperable – that he was facing a terminal diagnosis. Soon after, he was given weeks, possibly only days to live. 'Not even six weeks after initially visiting the doctor, Brian died. My son called to tell me the news whilst I was out of the house searching for pain relief for him. "I knew it was my responsibility to take care of our kids. I went into control mode – planning his funeral and doing his probate." 'After he died, I only took one week off work. I was a global publishing director at the time, having worked for the same company for 14 years. I threw myself into work, delaying my grief, pretending my world wasn't falling apart. 'Because Brian's life insurance policy had just matured out, I only had my salary after his death, and the sudden sole responsibility for putting three kids through college on my own. 'When I was informed of my redundancy in August 2024, I felt betrayed. I was signed off work and had my salary deducted for a brief period. I had worked so hard for that company, and it had formed part of my identity – an identity that was now gone. "How was I meant to provide for myself and my college-age children without a job?" 'At the same time, I was experiencing perimenopause. Aside from the physical symptoms, menopause made me feel I was becoming redundant as a woman too. All the tropes about growing old felt true. 'To top it all off – the death of my husband, the evidence of ageing, and the loss of my job – I had become an empty nester, no longer extensively needed for my children's daily needs, and not enjoying the period of life my husband and I had planned together. I had never felt so isolated. 'That evening in my dining room, as I cried uncontrollably, a friend called me. I told her I couldn't do this anymore. She phoned one of my daughters out of concern, asking if someone could come to visit me. Another friend came to my door, and silently she entered and just held me." 'It was this evening in October 2024 – my lowest point – when I knew I had to do something to turn things around, and the spark lit again. 'The next day, I started networking on LinkedIn with publishing contacts to find work as a consultant. "I found consultancy work, and was invited to a meeting with a client to set up my own publishing company with them because of my vast experience. When I said I couldn't put up the investment, the client offered to invest in me. I've now co-founded my own publishing company, River Light Press, with these wonderful business partners. 'For someone to say, in the depths of my despair, that they believed in me felt so affirming. 'I started paying for grief therapy, too. Although extraordinarily expensive, it was money well spent. My therapist saw such a huge transformation after a few months that she eventually suggested we conclude our regular meetings. 'In the last 18 months, I've pursued my love of acting and poetry. I've landed a part in The Importance of Being Earnest at my local playhouse in Oxford, read my poetry – which touches on grief and loss with a bit of humor – in front of crowds at a local venue, and sung in some concerts." 'All of this living has been done with Brian in mind. Right before he died, he told me I would go on to live, to be loved, and to love again. "I want to go on living, because he can't. He didn't have a choice. "I owe it to him, my kids, and myself to live the best possible life – to be fulfilled."
Fox News
2 hours ago
- Fox News
Rep. Steube slams Senate parliamentarian for gutting Trump's legislative agenda
An unelected Senate parliamentarian should not be deciding what stays and what doesn't in the so-called "Big, Beautiful Bill," Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla., told Fox News Channel in an interview that earned President Trump's approval. Conservatives were furious on Thursday morning after learning Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ruled several key reforms and tweaks to Medicaid in the Senate GOP's version of President Trump's bill did not pass muster with Senate Rules. One senator, Roger Marshall, of Kansas, called for MacDonough to be replaced. Steube was a guest on FOX Report on Sunday morning, when host Jon Scott asked him where he stood on whether the parliamentarian should have been overruled or even fired. He agreed with Marshall. "Yeah, I had called for her to be fired," Steube said. "I don't think that one person who's unelected, who got appointed over a decade ago, should be the one deciding what stays in and what doesn't." Lawmakers across the U.S. were elected by their constituents to make those decisions; not the parliamentarians, he said. At the moment, Republicans hold majorities in the House and the Senate. MacDonough was appointed by the late Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who was a Democrat. Steube questioned why current Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., would not replace MacDonough with a Republican appointee. "We've certainly called for that," Steube said. "Thune has said he's not going to do that, so they're going to move forward." Scott noted that MacDonough has said she is supposed to be call balls and strikes, not make political decisions. When Scott asked Steube if he thought MacDonough was working for the Democrats, the lawmaker noted she was appointed by one. "What House lawmakers that have been elected by the people passed by a majority of the House of Representatives and sent over to the Senate are now getting struck by one person who was appointed by Harry Reid," Steube said. "I certainly don't think that's what the American people voted for. Trump later posted about Steube's interview on Truth Social. "Great Congressman Greg Steube is 100% correct," the president wrote. "An unelected Senate Staffer (Parliamentarian), should not be allowed to hurt the Republicans Bill. Wants many fantastic things out. NO!"
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
Physician Perspectives On Prior Authorization Reform
Many physicians believe prior authorization gets in the way of sound patient care. New reforms from ... More the insurance industry aim to address these challenges. Will they make a difference? You learn a lot in medical school. About human biology, medical ethics and how to make a diagnosis. One thing they don't teach you about—but which rears its head all the time in the actual practice of medicine—is prior authorization. Prior authorization is what is known in healthcare as a utilization management tool. Physicians submit requests to insurers, who respond with determinations about whether they will cover the proposed procedures, services, or medications before the patient receives them. The goal is to steer customers toward modalities of care that have been demonstrated to produce the best outcomes at a reasonable cost. During office hours, between procedures, even in the middle of consults—prior authorization is something physicians have to deal with constantly. Last week, amid scrutiny from lawmakers and regulators as well as public outrage over the practice, health insurers working with the trade association AHIP (on whose board I sit as CEO of SCAN Health Plan, a not-for-profit health insurance company) announced a set of voluntary commitments aimed at simplifying prior authorization and 'connecting patients more quickly to the care they need while minimizing administrative burdens on providers.' The commitments include faster turnaround times, greater transparency, and reduced requirements for routinely approved services. These reforms are sensible and—let's be honest—probably overdue. But will they make a difference? 'Administrative Hurdles' Despite its daily impact on the practice of medicine, prior authorization isn't something physicians talk about very much. So, in order to gauge how prior authorization affects their work and their patients and what effect the voluntary reforms might have, I reached out to several colleagues in different specialties to hear their stories about prior authorization. What I heard were honest reflections on their experience with the practice—and an urgent call to reimagine a system that too often gets in the way of care. Jay Patel, an orthopedic surgeon in Orange County, CA, specializing in hip and knee replacements, describes a system that increasingly delays care for no clear reason by putting up 'administrative hurdles to surgeries that are appropriate.' Patel notes that some payers require that he submits imaging reports in separate documents that duplicate the information contained in previously submitted medical records. 'Most of the time there's some minor piece of information they need that's already in the record, and they reflexively approve it.' But not always. And when delays occur, he says, they disrupt care and diminish trust between patients and their doctors. 'Patients often don't understand how the process works,' he says. 'They usually think we dropped the ball because we're the person they can get ahold of.' Patel believes the system could be improved by reducing prior authorization requirements for physicians who consistently provide appropriate care. 'Good actors should be able to request surgery and have it approved.''Delays Matter' A Northern California interventional cardiologist I know sees firsthand how delays in care can lead to worse outcomes. 'For every test, you have to wait a week for authorization,' he says. 'And when it comes to cardiac conditions, delays matter.' He laments that the delays can push patients to seek emergency care when they experience shortness of breath or other symptoms. 'Put yourself in their shoes. When your heart hurts you may be afraid you will die.' He says that some of his patients have decided to go to the emergency room rather than wait for approvals. In these cases, the patients are admitted and treated as inpatients, which he notes is ultimately more expensive for the plan, the patient and the health system in general. The cardiologist also notes that in his field, denials are rare. Though he often has to pick up the phone to advocate for a patient, he says that in 11 years of practice, not once has a health plan denied a procedure that he's called about. Knowing this, he wonders if artificial intelligence or other technologies could offer ways to improve the system. 'There must be ways to optimize this. If they're authorizing the procedure 99% of the time, why can't there be instant authorization?' Internist Jonathan Dinh says insurers often use prior authorization as a 'delay tactic.' He says that in his experience, some payers intentionally make the practice burdensome, knowing that some percentage of physicians will become frustrated and give up on the time-consuming prior authorization process. 'If there's a poor clinical outcome, the health plan maintains plausible deniability. They'll say, 'We never said 'no.' We left the decision strictly up to our providers.'' As an internist and medical group leader in Southern California, Dinh believes that the efficiency of prior authorization reflects the quality of the organization itself. 'In a well-run group, 80% to 90% of requests should be auto approved,' he explains. "The primary function of prior authorization should be to ensure patients are referred to the correct in-network provider, helping them avoid unnecessary medical bills—not to act as a barrier to care." Dinh says delegated models in which payors assign certain administrative and clinical responsibilities—like utilization management, care coordination, and prior authorization decisions—to a provider organization or medical group can reduce the friction of prior authorization. However, he cautions that this model alone isn't enough. "Delegated entities can still improperly delay or deny care. There must be safeguards—such as expedited appeal processes—to protect patients.' Dinh also says that patients often mistakenly blame delays in seeing a specialist due to the prior authorization process when the real underlying issue is a shortage of physicians. "People often blame delays in seeing a specialist on the prior authorization process,' he says. 'But in many cases, referrals are issued promptly—the real bottleneck is a shortage of physicians. Specialists are overwhelmed and simply don't have the capacity to see patients quickly. Of course, any delay in prior authorization only makes the situation worse.' To address the broader issue of physician shortages, Dinh and his colleagues launched a new internal medicine residency program focusing on training more primary care internists. The initiative aims to expand access to care and improve outcomes, particularly in underserved communities. 'A well-trained internist can help offset the shortage of specialists by managing complex conditions at a high level. The true value of a primary care physician emerges when a patient's care requires coordination across multiple specialties. The ability to lead multidisciplinary care while keeping the patient and their family informed is what ultimately drives the best clinical outcomes and enhances patient satisfaction.' A Starting Point When a draft of AHIP's plan initially crossed my desk, I was skeptical. Voluntary reform isn't something that necessarily has a great track record in healthcare. And yet more than 50 plans (including my own) that provide coverage to tens of millions of Americans have signed on and made a public commitment to reform. After speaking to my physician colleagues and hearing their earnest frustrations, there's no doubt in my mind that the system needs reform and the association's proposals—which are not insubstantial and would address many of the problems —are a great place to start. After all, none of the physicians I spoke to are asking for a blank check. They're asking for a system that trusts their judgment, respects their time, and puts patients first. Reforming prior authorization isn't just about efficiency. It's about dignity—restoring it to the people who give care, and the people who need it—and AHIP's plan, acknowledging some of the challenges my physician colleagues face every day, is a meaningful step in the right direction.
