U.S. hospitals 'wouldn't have to disclose Hitler'

WorldNetDaily ^ | July 9, 2009 | Joe Kovacs

[Jet Jaguar]

Whether Obama or anyone else, facilities keep their lips sealed

Federal law regarding the release of health records is so restrictive and intimidating, U.S. hospitals could conceivably refuse to confirm or deny if Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler were born in their facility.

That's the conclusion of some experts who deal with HIPAA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, enacted by Congress in 1996 to help protect the privacy of patients.

SNIP

"It's splitting a hair that most hospitals will not take a chance with," she told WND. "You have invasion of privacy issues other claims that can be brought against the individual releasing the information."

Concerning Obama specifically, she said even a denial of his being at one hospital is "backdooring into that."

"Hospitals are not going to take that risk," she said. "They cannot confirm or deny because by process of elimination they would indeed be giving the answer."

SNIP

"We can't confirm or deny it – even though all the information out there says he was born at Kapi'olani Hospital," said hospital spokeswoman Claire Tong. "Our hands are tied."

As far as what's protected information, HIPAA law says, "The Privacy Rule protects all 'individually identifiable health information' held or transmitted by a covered entity or its business associate, in any form or media, whether electronic, paper, or oral."

[conservative cat]

Don’t quite understand how HIPAA covers a birth from the 60s.

[trumandogz]

Wow, I was quite sure the HIPAA Law included a Hitler exemption.

[Jim from C-Town]

It covers all Medical related situations for all people. It is a monster of a bill that inundates so many aspects of business and life than you can immagine.

[TheCipher]

"Hospitals are not going to take that risk," she said. "They cannot confirm or deny because by process of elimination they would indeed be giving the answer."

"You have invasion of privacy issues other claims that can be brought against the individual releasing the information."

In that letter he released, he is acknowledging that he was born in the hospital. There is no invasion of privacy in this case. I don't see where it would be a violation of HIPPA to confirm it. They are not releasing any private info. on him. By his releasing that letter, he is, in effect, giving them consent to release that specific part of his record which he himself has already released. No details. Just a simple "yes" or "no" - was he born there.

[Rudder]

It’s not just the HIPAA, credentialing boards for medical professionals and institutions also have strict prohibiton against divulging medical records. Also, there is a historically strong, but informal, code of ethics shared by most medical professionals which says, ‘The patient controls, or owns, the records.’

[2ndDivisionVet]

Employment law is very similar: If your present or former employer gives someone a reference of ANY kind (good, bad or indifferent) they are leaving themselves open to all kinds of lawsuits and EEO complaints. About the only thing they can safely do is give your official title and dates of employment.

[CzarNicky]

at least Hitler had a birth certificate

[snowsislander]

In that letter he released, he is acknowledging that he was born in the hospital.

Worldnet is now reporting that some questions have been raised about the letter, and that it's been pulled from the hospital's website: Obama's birth letter: Is this thing for real? See what hospital posted on website for 6 months, then pulled down an hour after this story broke.