Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: edge919
You are wrong, and do not understand HIPAA. (Not the first time you are wrong, as our past discussions show.) I have linked to the the HIPAA privacy rule, have you bothered to read it?

The hospital log would NOT be protected by HIPAA.

Sorry, your assertion does not trump the clearly written information on the HHS HIPAA page. A hospital log is protected, because "the provision of health care to the individual," is protected health information. What do you think a log shows? It shows that health care was provided to an individual.

t is standard directory information and FURTHER, the Obamas would have HAD to give permission before the birth could be listed in the newspaper.

The amount of misunderstanding and time confusion here is staggering. Read the directory exception, and you will discover it is for patients CURRENTLY hospitalized, and that the patient must agree to be listed. Are you claiming that it is currently 1961? As to the Obamas giving permission to list in newspapers in 1961, HIPAA did not exist in 1961, so the information was legal to publish then, even if it came from the hospital. After HIPAA, it was no longer legal to disclose that information.

That address was published, hence permission was given, hence that permission was obtained at the hospital and would exempt the Obamas from any disclosure restrictions regarding directory-style information.

Again, HIPAA wasn't passed at that time. No permission was required then. It is now. And directory information is only permitted for currently hospitalized patients.

FURTHER, HIPAA ALLOWS disclosures to law enforcement agents.

Yes, in specific circumstances only, not just because they "really want to know." Here is what HIPAA says

Law Enforcement Purposes. Covered entities may disclose protected health information to law enforcement officials for law enforcement purposes under the following six circumstances, and subject to specified conditions: (1) as required by law (including court orders, court-ordered warrants, subpoenas) and administrative requests; (2) to identify or locate a suspect, fugitive, material witness, or missing person; (3) in response to a law enforcement official’s request for information about a victim or suspected victim of a crime; (4) to alert law enforcement of a person’s death, if the covered entity suspects that criminal activity caused the death; (5) when a covered entity believes that protected health information is evidence of a crime that occurred on its premises; and (6) by a covered health care provider in a medical emergency not occurring on its premises, when necessary to inform law enforcement about the commission and nature of a crime, the location of the crime or crime victims, and the perpetrator of the crime.
Don't think any of those apply to Sheriff Arpaio's investigators.

There is NO LEGAL REASON for the hospital to withhold information that would prove Obama was born there.

Fines up to $250,000 and up to 10 years in prison seem like a darn good reason to me.

874 posted on 07/19/2012 11:17:21 PM PDT by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 872 | View Replies ]


To: sometime lurker
Read the directory exception, and you will discover it is for patients CURRENTLY hospitalized, and that the patient must agree to be listed.

Sorry, but it doesn't say anything about being CURRENTLY hospitalized.

After HIPAA, it was no longer legal to disclose that information.

This is simply a ridiculous excuse. HIPAA didn't make previously disclosed information illegal to disclose. What a stupid, stupid, stupid thing to suggest.

No permission was required then.

I just told you the law in Hawaii required permission to disclose the address. That permission would have been obtained at the hospital if that was where the birth occurred. It's the exact same kind of permission that would be needed to disclose directory information under HIPAA.

Here is what HIPAA says

Thanks for biting the bullet and proving my point.

Don't think any of those apply to Sheriff Arpaio's investigators.

Only when you ignore the parts about administrative requests, identifying suspects and suspected victims of crime (which would include suspected birth certificate fraud) ...

Fines up to $250,000 and up to 10 years in prison seem like a darn good reason to me.

No one can be fined for permissible disclosures, so despite your melodrama, let's focus on the facts once again. There is NO LEGAL REASON this information cannot be disclosed to the investigators. And no government agency is going to fine a hospital for confirming the president was born there. You know this is true, so be honest and just admit it. Enough stupid excuses.

875 posted on 07/20/2012 12:57:29 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 874 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson