Thanks, Edge. I wrote my comment before I read yours.
Everybody: I have no clue why this system double posts. I make sure to click only once after the preview. I have tried every which way and combination I can think of but it still double posts. If anybody knows how to avoid this, I’d appreciate the tip.
As for the directories: As Edge says, it says nothing about “current” patients. The log discussed by Zullo is a directory. It is in the hospital library and was available to the public even after HIPAA laws.
There is an abundance of medical information on the Internet in the form of death certificates (with details of medical conditions), birth records, birth announcements, burial permit records (with causes of death), newspaper articles with medical information. We see news conferences all the time where doctors give out detailed information about crime victims’ medical conditions.
Vital records were published in newspapers regularly, directly from hospital information. If HIPAA grandfathered all this data out of public view, then why is it still on the Web, in libraries, in archives?
Why did the hospital give me my ancestor’s lab reports? Why do hospitals and doctors regularly give me information about a person’s medical status, when I’m only there visiting the patient when the doctor comes into the room?
There’s said to be a handwritten log of babies that Dr. Rodney West delivered, right in the Hawaiian state archives. That’s medical information. Probably most of these people are still living. Why is that log book in the archives?
There’s nothing in what you linked that talks about current patient directories. If a current directory is open to the public, then why wouldn’t a previous patient directory be open to the public, especially after it was open to the public for years?
As Edge pointed out, Stanley Ann gave permission for the fact of her child’s birth to be announced (snark), so there’s nothing private about that log of patients. Even if you’re going to argue that because it’s a log of mothers going into delivery, it discloses medical information that she was being “treated” for being “punished with a baby,” the FACT that she was in the hospital should not be private. It’s directory information at its scantest.
So the hospital ought to be able to disclose to anyone, but especially to law enforcement, whether or not she was there on August 4, 1961.
HIPAA was designed to try to assuage our concerns about having personal medical records stored in databases and transmitted to clerks at insurance companies. I’m not assuaged, especially now that Obamacare’s going to have this humongous database in DC. Are you comfortable knowing that your data will be there? I’m not. Do you believe it will be kept from prying eyes, especially politically motivated ones? I’m not.
Linda Tripp’s personnel records were protected, for all the good it did her. By the way, if Romney has anything in his IRS records that would damage him, do you think it wouldn’t have been leaked by now, especially considering Obama’s history with getting hold of his opponents’ divorce and custody records in IL? Ha! Dream on.
Because the HIPAA laws don't apply to the past newspapers, libraries, etc. It applies to "covered entities". As to doctors giving medical information when you're in the room with the patient, if the patient gives permission, it's entirely legal for the doctor to discuss it in front of you.
As Edge pointed out, Stanley Ann gave permission for the fact of her child’s birth to be announced (snark), so there’s nothing private about that log of patients. Even if you’re going to argue that because it’s a log of mothers going into delivery, it discloses medical information that she was being “treated” for being “punished with a baby,” the FACT that she was in the hospital should not be private. It’s directory information at its scantest.
Sheesh. It doesn't matter what Stanley Ann gave permission for in 1961. What matters is post HIPAA permission. Whether she thought she was "punished with a baby" or not, has nothing to do with it. Talk to a lawyer who deals with HIPAA, rather than making assertions about a law you're not familiar with.