Posted on 03/21/2002 7:01:34 PM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
Doctors could disclose patient information without written permission and parents would get more access to their children's records under medical privacy rules announced Thursday by the government.
The first comprehensive federal protections for health privacy, which will take effect in April 2003, will apply to nearly every patient, doctor, hospital, insurance plan and pharmacy in the nation.
They were developed under former President Clinton and allowed to go forward last year by the Bush administration, which at the same time promised changes. It was these revisions that were announced Thursday.
The rules prohibit health care providers from disclosing patient information for reasons unrelated to health services, and set civil and criminal penalties for violators. They give patients the right to inspect and copy their records and to ask for corrections.
Written consent, not now required, would have been necessary under the Clinton rules to disclose patient information even for routine matters such as treatment and payment.
The Bush revision does away with that requirement, saying providers must notify patients of their privacy policies. Also, doctors, hospitals and others who directly treat patients must make a "good-faith effort" to get written acknowledgment from patients that they have been notified.
The changes also make clear that incidental releases of private information are permitted - a conversation at a hospital nurses' stand or names listed on a sign-in sheet at a doctor's office, for example.
"These are commonsense revisions that eliminate serious obstacles to patients getting needed care and services quickly, while continuing to protect patients' privacy," Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson said in a statement.
Health care providers welcomed many of the changes. Privacy advocates expressed concern about eliminating the consent form requirement, as well as changes to privacy rights for minors.
"It's really unfortunate that HHS is proposing to eliminate the consent requirement," said Janlori Goldman, who directs the Health Privacy Project at Georgetown University. "If people don't know what their rights are, how are they going to protect themselves?"
Business groups said the consent forms add to paperwork, and federal officials said they are not very meaningful because people who did not sign the form could - and probably would - be denied care anyway.
HHS officials said the forms would have been a burden for people being treated in emergency rooms and could have caused problems for those who have prescriptions called into pharmacies and picked up by family or friends.
"The forms would have been a paperwork hassle without providing any additional privacy rights or protections for patients," the American Hospital Association said in a statement.
But Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said consent forms were "a core part" of the rules.
The rules still allow minors to retain privacy rights specifically granted under state law.
The Clinton rules said minors who have the right under state law to access to mental health, substance abuse, abortion or other services without parental approval should retain that right if they seek those services.
Under the Bush revision, minors would not have the right to privacy from parents in these cases except when state law explicitly allows it.
"It's a real step back," Goldman said. "Anything that creates a barrier to teen-agers getting services is a problem."
The Bush regulation also clarifies the rules concerning marketing of products to patients. Personal information cannot be sold or given drug companies or others wanting to market a product or service without patient permission.
Doctors, hospitals and insurance companies can communicate with their patients about benefits, new treatments and products without permission as long as the information is meant to benefit a patient's treatment.
The revised rules will be published next week and are subject to a 30-day public comment period before becoming final.
Tommy Thompson is a moron, and Bush is a liar. These so-called privacy regulations are a monstrosity. I have advised patients to consider using an alias when getting medical treatment. I know I will.
Moving on to the 35 billion for borders ... the secure and open sort he promised in El Paso?" What's Ridge's budget up to now? He must be getting a damned god-complex.
Ridge said the administration might do some reorganizing of the federal government that would require new laws."We may make some recommendations about the integration or consolidation of some of these departments that will certainly need congressional approval," Ridge said.
The ex-Marine and former Pennsylvania governor predicted, however, that he would not seek legal authority for his own office because the president's personal support is enough for Ridge to do his job coordinating homeland security operations.
"I've got all the authority I need," Ridge said. "I've gotten $38 billion in (budget) authority in four months," Ridge said, referring to funds in Bush's budget proposal. "That is not so bad."
Interesting... How would you do this? The thought has crossed my mind in the past, but it seems rather difficult to implement. How do you pay? Check, credit card, and health insurance are all out since that would identify you. Cash? Money order? You wouldn't get any reimbursement from your health insurer since they would require a diagnosis/receipt with your name on it.
I pay cash for my prescriptions, which are written to be filled to a pseudonym. This is not a problem with non-narcotic drugs, but could be with narcotic or other schedule drugs, I suppose. Have'nt had to cross that bridge yet. I get my routine medical care using pseudonym. My physicians don't care. I pay them in cash.
True, any big major medical expenses I would have to use my real name if I wanted my insurance to pay. But I have been putting away cash for last several years for medical expenses...I could pay for heart bypass if I needed to, using my pseudonym. At this point in my life, privacy is more important to me than payback on insurance payments for health care. I consider that policy as catastrophic coverage for huge bills, such as cancer treatment.
Yes, but why? Because he was dead or a terrorsit?
Unfortunately, the medical records of minors who got court-ordered abortions under Bush's so-called "Parental Consent" legislation still are afforded every protection from prying parents who wish to know who slaughtered their grandchildren alive.
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.