The EHDS prescribes a comprehensive and uniform assessment by the HDAB. A separate ethical assessment adds nothing and hinders science.
A persistent EHDS misunderstanding
Letter from the Dutch Minister of Helath
On January 20, 2026, the Dutch Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport sent a letter to the House of Representatives, informing it about the current status of the EHDS implementation. This letter was largely excellent and clear. However, it contained a persistent misunderstanding regarding the EHDS Catalogue and the Permit application process (DAAMS = Data Access Applications Management Solution).
On page 6, the letter lists four items or functions that must be developed in the coming years to ensure a well-functioning Health Data Access Body (HDAB)—the new government body where permits can be requested to reuse health data for public health purposes. The Minister describes the first of these as a national dataset catalog that provides insight into the location of data available for secondary use. This description is incorrect, as one can also apply for a permit concerning data that are not included in the catalog. Describing the catalog in this way would make the EHDS significantly less useful to science than the EU intended.
What should be included in the catalog?
To understand the difference between the EHDS Catalogue and the Permit DAAMS, we must first look at what belongs in the catalogue. Every entity (except micro entities) that holds EHDS data collected in a set is legally required to register those sets in the national catalogue. These datasets are defined as a “structured collection of electronic health data.” They must be labeled according to the Health DCAT-AP metadata standard so that researchers can more easily search throughout Europe for reusable datasets. The National Catalogue will hereto be linked to a European Catalogue.
What can you apply for at the HDAB?
However, what one can request from the HDAB, as a researcher, encompasses more than what is listed in the catalogue. One can apply for a permit to work with “data,” and this is defined separately in the EHDS (a definition that stems from the Data Governance Act). Data concerns: “any digital representation of acts, facts or information and any compilation of such acts, facts or information, including in the form of sound, visual or audiovisual recording.”
The difference is that datasets are “structured collections” of data, while “data” also includes all kinds of unstructured data that have never been collected in a structured set. Does it matter whether or not the application procedure (DAAMS) is restricted to the catalogue? Absolutely, it makes a big difference.
Dangers of limiting DAAMS to the Catalogue
Does it matter whether or not the application procedure (DAAMS) is restricted to the catalogue? Absolutely, it makes a big difference. Limiting the system creates three major obstacles:
- You cannot label unstructured data: It is often mistakenly thought that data holders must register all unstructured data in the catalog. Healthcare institutions would have to inventory all healthcare data, regardless of scientific interest, which is highly inefficient and practically impossible to implement. Furthermore, providing metadata for unstructured data so that others understand it is extremely difficult. Because including all unstructured healthcare data in a catalog cannot be effectively implemented, it won’t work.
- Unstructured data cannot be applied for: If not all EHDS data are in the catalogue, and the application process is limited to the catalogue, many types of data cannot be requested. Limiting the DAAMS to the catalogue means secondary use is restricted to data that has already been used for research or statistics. Extracting previously uncollected and unstructured data from the healthcare system will not be possible. Instead, it is more logical to search for data only when requested through a separate permit procedure.
- Rare and new data cannot be collected: Existing datasets contain very little rare data, as scientists often choose readily available data to advance their careers. The EHDS licensing system is designed to solve the problem of data being difficult to find. If data holders must submit datasets annually and the application is limited to this, we could not request newly generated data during a pandemic. This contradicts the fact that the EHDS is explicitly intended to make fast data collection possible in such situations.
Split catalogue and application process for greater impact
The EHDS introduces a permit for both requesting data from society and reusing existing datasets. Article 67 of the EHDS contains a list of everything that must be submitted when applying for a permit. Notably, this article does not mention the catalog at all. It requires “a description of the requested electronic health data, including their scope, time range, format, sources and, where possible, the geographical coverage”. The word “data holder” surprisingly does not appear there.
Moreover, recital 73 states that the HDAB should assist health data users in the selection of suitable datasets or data sources for secondary use. This means the scientist, together with the HDAB, has to locate the data. A general indication of the sources is enough for the application, after which the HDAB must further assist.
To make scientific progress in new directions possible, the system must be designed correctly. The EHDS Permit DAAMS therefore should not require an applicant to designate a dataset that is already neatly listed in the catalogue. Only by splitting the catalogue and the application process can the EHDS achieve its true potential.
How does the EU define 'scientific research' in the Digital Omnibus? There has been criticism of this, but it is unjustified.
Many people are afraid that their jobs are at risk due to AI. I decided to turn the question around and asked Gemini: which jobs are you going to take over, in a way that make us happy? Here is her own optimistic answer.