News and Document archive source
copyrighted material disclaimer at bottom of page
NewsMine security bigbrother databases Viewing Item | Medical info { August 13 2002 } Subject: Fwd: There Goes Our Right of Consent for Personal Medical Info (fwd)
> >BUSH ADMINSTRATION ELIMINATES RIGHT OF CONSENT FOR PERSONAL MEDICAL >INFORMATION >August 13, 2002 > >Tomorrow, the Bush Administration will publish in the Federal Register >amendments to the current Health Information Privacy Rule that will >eliminate >the right of privacy for health information for all Americans. The >following >are the > >1. The final rule eliminates the right that each citizen has under the >pre-amendment rule (which is also the Bush rule) to not have identifiable >health care information used or disclosed without consent. This change >effectively eliminates the right of medical privacy for all citizens for >treatment, payment and health care operations, which is most uses. > >2. The loss of medical privacy inevitably leads to a loss of access to >quality health care because patients will not seek health care or make >medically necessary disclosures if they do not believe the information will >remain private. > >3. The amendments go beyond simply eliminating the right of consent in that >they substitute "federal permission" for the use and disclosure of >identifiable health information. Thus, the federal government will provide >consent on behalf of each citizen for all covered entities to obtain their >identifiable health information, regardless of the individual's wishes. > >4. The Administration misleads the public in its press release by stating >that the amendments provide the public with "more control" over their >health >information when, in fact, they eliminate the only meaningful control the >public has under the current Privacy Rule. > >5. It is important to remember that the Administration is reversing its >position on this vital privacy issue despite the fact that it put these >regulations into effect on April 14, 2001 after an additional comment >period >announcing them as a "great victory" for consumers. The right of consent >under federal law vested in every citizen effective April 14, 2001. That >right will be extinguished on August 14, 2003. That will clearly be a dark >day for quality health care and the civil rights of all citizens. > >> > > > > >________________________________________________________________________ >________________________________________________________________________ > >Message: 6 > Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 12:12:45 -0400 > From: "Kate Berman" >Subject: Giraffe's medical records are confidential but yours will soon be >up for grabs > > > Dear Friends and Colleagues, > FYI---from insure.com---the latest on our destroyed medical privacy. >Feel free to share. > Deborah Peel, MD > Past President, NCMHPC > > Giraffe's medical records are confidential but yours will soon be up for >grabs > http://www.insure.com/health/privacy402.html > By Vicki Lankarge > insure.com > > "All medical records will be treated as if they are government property, >not individual property." > > Medical records of panda bears, pachyderms, and other popular animals at >the National Zoo in Washington, D.C., are confidential but your medical >records will soon be available to data-processing companies, researchers, >pharmacists, and your insurance company - without your consent.Sound crazy? >Consider this: The National Zoo turned down a Washington Post reporter's >request for the medical records of Ryma, a 17-year-old male giraffe who >died in February 2002, citing the animal's right to privacy and saying that >the release of his records violates the zookeeper-animal relationship.Yet >the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has >eliminated the requirement to get your consent to release your medical >records. > > "All medical records will be treated as if they are government property, >not individual property," says Dr. Deborah Peel, past president of the >National Coalition of Mental Health Professionals and Consumers. And the >scariest part is that you'll never know who requested your records or why - >and there will be little you or your doctor can do to stop it.When did this >happen? > > Until now, no one could access your personal health information without >your written consent. However, on Aug. 9, 2002, the Bush administration >announced it has revised the medical privacy rule to the federal Health >Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). According to HHS, >effective April 2003, "key health care players" will now have the >"regulatory permission" to use and disclose all your personal medical and >mental health treatment information in order to "facilitate" your medical >treatment. > > Tipping the scales > In revising the medical privacy rule, regulators used variations of the >word "balance" 17 times to describe why patient privacy did not take first >place in their considerations. Among other factors, HHS says patient >privacy interests were balanced against: > Public health and safety. > Researchers need to access data for studies. > "Legitimate needs" that health insurance plan sponsors have for medical >information. > Administrative burdens. All health care entities affected by HIPAA must >be in full compliance with established privacy guidelines no later than >April 2003.Source: Citizens' Council on Health Care > > The American Association of Health Plans is lauding the final privacy >rule, saying HHS has "adopted a balanced, workable approach that protects >the privacy of patients without undermining their health care."But patient >advocates are outraged. "If Enron or WorldCom executives had distorted the >truth the way HHS has about the federal medical privacy rule, they would >probably be charged with false advertising," says Sue Blevins, president of >the Institute for Health Freedom. According to Blevins, public comments >made by HHS about the medical privacy rule are misleading because HHS >claims the new rule maintains privacy protections without mentioning that >the new rule does not prevent government or the medical industry from >compiling and sharing an individual's personal health information - >including genetic information - without the individual's permission. > > Blevins and other patient advocates are not exaggerating, according to >James Pyles, a Washington, D.C., health care attorney who worked for six >years in the Office of the General Counsel for the U.S. Department of >Health, Education, and Welfare. "This is a serious blow," says Pyles. >"Privacy will be meaningless. There is no accounting for [routine] >disclosures in this rule, so there will be no paper or electronic trail to >follow if your information gets into the wrong hands."If this seems >far-fetched, consider this: Select individual and small group health >insurers already have access to medical information on more than 16 million >people contained in files warehoused by the Medical Information Bureau >(MIB). The MIB provides more than 600 insurers with medical information >from databases that serve as a repository of information that insurers use >to compare notes on applicants - and uncover those who've "lied" on their >insurance applications - without having to contact one another directly. > > Consent catch-22 > Although HHS insists that your doctor will still have the "option" to >allow you to give or withhold consent to release your medical records, the >option will be at the discretion of your doctor, not you. And your doctor >will be put in a very difficult position. Will it be in his or her best >interest to serve you, the patient, or the insurance company that is >cutting the checks? > "This is a serious blow. Privacy will be meaningless." > > Let's say your doctor refuses a regulatory request from your insurer for >your records. There is nothing stopping the insurer from claiming that it >cannot properly conduct its health care operations without your records and >dropping your doctor from its network of providers for failing to comply >with federal regulations.Since your doctor won't be able to protect you >from disclosure against your will, patient advocates say you will have to >start making terrible choices when you're ill. "Who will get genetic >testing if the results are used to deny applications for life or health >insurance policies?" Peel asks. "These scenarios sound impossible, but they >aren't." >
|
| Files Listed: 32 |
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been
specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material
available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political,
human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.
We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with
Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research and educational purposes. For more information,
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use
copyrighted material from this site for purpose of your own that go beyond
'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
|