HIPAA and Individual Rights

I know that HIPAA requires compliance from health providers and health insurance providers. It requires them to request that WE sign away our control over the privacy of our personal health records. It requires the establishment of a national database of health information about each of us and requires providers to share that data with others especially with government agencies for "official government purposes." It requires that the national database of individuals' health information be readily linked with the existing national database of individuals' financial records through the Social Security Number.

Somehow I just won't feel comfortable when President Hillary! has access all of this information on everyone in the US for her "official government purpose".

Now my question: What happens when I decline to sign the forms releasing my private personal health information? I don't think the law took away my right to refuse to sign the release. So, then what happens? Can every health provider and health insurance provider in the country refuse me access to health care and health insurance? Does this odious law give us any authority over our own health records?

Really good question! I have been asked to sign a form acknowleging that I "received" the brochure from the pharmacy. I have not signed any documents whatsoever allowing such use of records. What I have read so far is that they state that they WILL NOT forward any information unless I specifically allow it. Which is the case -- is the storage of information automatic, or only upon authority of the patient?

http://www.aapsonline.org/

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, unlike the AMA, is truly concerned about patient privacy. Go here if you want to read about what the government and olliemb would like you to believe about HIPPA, vs the reality.

What you failed to mention is that the federal government indeed does have access to your medical records and no patient consent for this use is required. The HIPAA regs are anything but privacy regulations.

Orwell would be proud.

I just finished implementing HIPAA privacy procedures for a large insurance company, and offer that point of view here.

The HIPAA Privacy ruling is often misunderstood or ignored by people reading the notices. Also, while the expense to send the notices was high, response is extremely low: there have been only about 300 requests to copy or restrict health information from a Privacy Notice mailing of over 3 million at this company.

The way I understand the HIPAA Privacy "regulation" (administered by HHS and the Office of Civil Rights) is that a health-care provider or similar entity, or its business associate, can look at, use and transfer your personal health information during normal business procedures to support treatment, payment or health-care operations. This cannot be restricted unless you choose to not use the health services.

The stickler is that entities are required to turn over your info for "certain public policy and national priority purposes", including law enforcement, anti-terrorism activities, the FDA, "research institutes", etc. without your consent at all.

In my opinion, the ruling is intended to drive larger entities out of business by imposing laborious "protection" procedures, make health-care consumers dissatisfied that they now have to do things differently at the pharmacy or as POA's, and open the door to "national health care" over the current system of care.

For those of you with the patience to read the Federal Register's "final rule" on the despicable 93-page HIPAA Privacy regulation conceived and enacted during the Clinton administration, see 45 CFR Parts 160 and 164

Warning: Understanding this ruling may cause nausea and vomiting.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.