Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Does a vaccine passport violate HIPAA? Experts weigh in
Becker's Hospital Review ^ | March 31, 2021 | Hannah Mitchell

Posted on 03/31/2021 7:09:09 PM PDT by buckalfa

HIPAA protects a patient's personal health information, leaving many concerned that a vaccine passport would violate those protections.

HIPAA is used to protect sensitive medical information but only applies to how physicians, hospitals and health insurers share a patient's information with third-party entities, according to a report by The Washington Post.

A vaccine card would qualify as protected health information, but an airline is not a healthcare provider. HIPAA also doesn't protect medical information that a patient shares about themselves.

An airline still has to follow state privacy and identity theft policies.

"Once they get the data, they have to protect it," Jeff Drummond, a healthcare regulatory lawyer who has been working with HIPAA for nearly 20 years, told Dallas-based WFAA. "They have to notify you if there's a breach, but other than that, that's the end of their obligation under either HIPAA or Texas state law."

"Just because you carry around some health information with you in the form of your vaccine card, that information doesn't bring all the HIPAA protections with it," Erin Fuse Brown, a law professor at Georgia State University in Atlanta, told WFAA.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Health/Medicine; Society
KEYWORDS: hipaa; passport; policestate; privacy; vaccine; vaccinepassport
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 next last
To: stanne

Guess reading is not one of your strong points.

Where in any of my posts did I say I approve of any of this?


21 posted on 04/01/2021 4:13:03 AM PDT by Starcitizen (So Indian H1B crybaby trash runs Free Republic moderation??? Seems so. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: buckalfa

Unmentioned is “Why?”

Once vaccines are widely available, then anyone who wants vaccination can get it, and would thus be protected. Anyone who doesn’t want it is on his own.

What MEDICAL purpose would this “passport” serve?


22 posted on 04/01/2021 4:20:43 AM PDT by SauronOfMordor (A Leftist can't enjoy life unless they are controlling, hurting, or destroying others)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Starcitizen

Already here. My company set up the policy last month that getting the vaccine was a condition of employment. Everyone has to get the jab in the next couple of weeks, or have a sit down with HR


23 posted on 04/01/2021 6:40:58 AM PDT by ready2brd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Miltie

Yoy must have experience in health information management!


24 posted on 04/01/2021 6:42:07 AM PDT by buckalfa (I have forgotten more than I ever knew.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: stanne

Wrong. Already a condition of employment at my work. Watch for airlines to require it by summer.


25 posted on 04/01/2021 6:43:03 AM PDT by ready2brd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ready2brd

I don’t believe you


26 posted on 04/01/2021 6:48:52 AM PDT by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: stanne

Company wide email went out a couple of weeks ago. All non-essential workers that were at home are called back to work, and have to provide proof of vaccination. I got my first jab a month ago, and get the second next week. I’m not going to stain my career and rock the boat. Only exclusions are true religious or medical exemptions, which have to be discussed with HR. I was a bit surprised. I should post the email with company info blacked out on FR


27 posted on 04/01/2021 7:01:33 AM PDT by ready2brd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ready2brd

They are not allowed to do that.

It has not been approved by the FDA

About half health care workers are not getting it


28 posted on 04/01/2021 7:25:42 AM PDT by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: stanne

Ok. Well, Stare agencies and private companies are doing it. There is a CO in NM suing over it, and I’m sure there will be more lawsuits. I would bet anything that all Heath are companies will require it once they can afford to lose employees


29 posted on 04/01/2021 7:29:17 AM PDT by ready2brd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: buckalfa
I asked this question the day the pResident Xiden administration announced they were considering CCP Virus Passports:

"Isn't this a HIPAA violation?"

Don't remember the thread and I noticed others started posting the same question at around the same time (I'm thinking we all had the same thought.)

This is absolutely a HIPAA violation. It was a rhetorical question and I'm glad to see it being discussed.

30 posted on 04/01/2021 7:29:23 AM PDT by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buckalfa

Yes, something I’d thought of myself.


31 posted on 04/01/2021 7:30:13 AM PDT by jdsteel ("A Republic, Madam, if you can keep it." Sorry Ben, looks like we blew it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stanne

Also, my employer has over 11,500 employees, so isn’t exactly a mom and pop. I’m sure that some people will fuss a bit, but if they sue, it’s uncharted waters. And career suicide


32 posted on 04/01/2021 7:34:36 AM PDT by ready2brd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Starcitizen
Scary shit as every public assessable building will soon require it

They have no legal right to ask for it, and you have every right to NOT COMPLY.

That's the piece that's missing in all this. None of us can be compelled to disclose medical status information to anyone, period. Each of us still maintains the Constitutional Right to be secure in our own persons (privacy) and to control our privacy. That's in the Fourth Amendment.

At least until pResident Xiden and the CCD (China Controlled Democrats) eliminate it.

Supporting Link

Supporting Paragraph:
The idea that privacy means secrecy is too narrow even when we think only about personal information, like the contents of a journal. Suppose I give you my diary and urge you to read it. No one would think you are violating my privacy when you do so. The reason is that privacy is not about the information itself, no matter how personal it may be. Instead, this aspect of privacy – informational privacy – is about my right to control what other see, and in this example I have given you my permission.

33 posted on 04/01/2021 7:38:05 AM PDT by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: stanne
Here is the email. I posted on FR. We will see if it is approved: To All Office Employees: Effective Tuesday, April 20, the Company’s office locations will return to full capacity operations, effectively ending remote work in connection with the Pandemic. An e-mail was sent to you and all employees on March 17 and a subsequent e-mail reminder on Monday, March 22, regarding the Company’s requirement that all employees receive a COVID vaccination. As a reminder, we stated that all employees must be vaccinated as an ongoing condition of employment. So, you must be vaccinated as soon as possible. As a further reminder, please communicate your progress toward being vaccinated to in Human Resources. The Company remains concerned about the health and well-being of our team and will continue to support and enforce existing COVID-19 safety protocols and procedures to provide a safe workplace. This includes, but is not limited to, continuing to wear face covers, practicing social distancing and washing your hands frequently. Completion of your vaccine does not exempt you from 100% compliance with these protocols. Note that we will also continue to provide hand sanitizer in the offices. If you have questions regarding this process, please reach out to your supervisor, in Human Resources. Thank you,
34 posted on 04/01/2021 12:08:08 PM PDT by ready2brd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ready2brd

Oh what does it matter?

No one complained when companies would not hire smokers.

Or required random drug tests as a condition of employment...

First they came for the Socialist...and I did not speak out because I was not a Socialist.........

Then they came for me...

Freedom. It’s so fleeting. And disappearing right before our eyes.


35 posted on 04/01/2021 12:27:41 PM PDT by saleman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: saleman

And some Freepers are still saying don’t comply, don’t comply.

You work at the pleasure of the employer if they demand a vaccination shot, you have 2 choices. Get it or quit.

Now when it’s an increasing condition of employment, you had better have self-wealth, run you own business, or retire.

Those three do not apply to a vast number of Americans.

There was a trial balloon sent up requiring all unemployment insurance recipients to get vaccinated to keep getting benefits (part of being able to work requirement)


36 posted on 04/01/2021 8:21:28 PM PDT by Starcitizen (So Indian H1B crybaby trash runs Free Republic moderation??? Seems so. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: greeneyes
It's worse than that. For the record:

Under 21 U.S. Code § 360bbb–3 the Emergency Use Authorizations violate federal law.

"(c)Criteria for issuance of authorization The Secretary may issue an authorization under this section with respect to the emergency use of a product only if, after consultation with the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, the Director of the National Institutes of Health, and the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (to the extent feasible and appropriate given the applicable circumstances described in subsection (b)(1)), the Secretary concludes—

[snip]

"(3)that there is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating such disease or condition;

I'm not the first to cite that anywhere, probably here as well. But I frame it as a conspiracy and doctors are complicit, just as they've been for decades on numerous issues, including Oxy (one of the latest preceding the 'virus crisis').

37 posted on 05/21/2021 2:00:13 PM PDT by logi_cal869 (-cynicus the "concern troll" a/o 10/03/2018 /!i!! &@$%&*(@ -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: logi_cal869

It’s worse than that. For the record:
Under 21 U.S. Code § 360bbb–3 the Emergency Use Authorizations violate federal law.

“(c)Criteria for issuance of authorization The Secretary may issue an authorization under this section with respect to the emergency use of a product only if, after consultation with the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, the Director of the National Institutes of Health, and the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (to the extent feasible and appropriate given the applicable circumstances described in subsection (b)(1)), the Secretary concludes—

[snip]

“(3)that there is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating such disease or condition;

I’m not the first to cite that anywhere, probably here as well. But I frame it as a conspiracy and doctors are complicit, just as they’ve been for decades on numerous issues, including Oxy (one of the latest preceding the ‘virus crisis’).
***********************************************************************************
That’s actually the same information I referred to which had already been posted several places. I cited the US Code which makes it illegal, a violation of the Nuremburg Protocols, and that EUA depends on having no other therapy available- I noted that was the reason they would not recognize the benefit of HCQ or ivermectin.

I simply did not label it as conspiracy - I basically give the facts, let the facts speak, and leave such conclusions up to whoever reads what I wrote.


38 posted on 05/21/2021 6:26:01 PM PDT by greeneyes ( Moderation In Pursuit of Justice is NO Virtue--LET FREEDOM RING)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: buckalfa
Legal letter:

Dear Boss,

Compelling any employee to take any current Covid-19 vaccine violates federal and state law.

First, federal law prohibits any mandate of the Covid-19 vaccines as unlicensed, emergency-use-authorization-only vaccines. Subsection bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) of section 360 of Title 21 of the United States Code, otherwise known as the Emergency Use Authorization section of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, demands that everyone give employees the “option to accept or refuse administration” of the Covid-19 vaccine. This right to refuse emergency, experimental vaccines, such as the Covid-19 vaccine, implements the internationally agreed legal requirement of Informed Consent established in the Nuremberg Code of 1947. ( [http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/nuremberg/] ). As the Nuremberg Code established, every person must “be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision” for any medical experimental drug, as the Covid-19 vaccine currently is. The Nuremberg Code prohibited even the military from requiring such experimental vaccines. (Doe #1 v. Rumsfeld, 297 F.Supp.2d 119 (D.D.C. 2003).

Secondly, demanding employees divulge their personal medical information invades their protected right to privacy, and discriminates against them based on their perceived medical status, in contravention of the Americans with Disabilities Act. (42 USC §12112(a).)

Third, conditioning continued employment upon participating in a medical experiment and demanding disclosure of private, personal medical information, may also create employer liability under other federal and state laws, including HIPAA, FMLA, and applicable state tort law principles, including torts prohibiting and proscribing invasions of privacy and battery. Indeed, any employer mandating a vaccine is liable to their employee for any adverse event suffered by that employee. ( [https://www.osha.gov/coronavirus/faqs#vaccine] ). The CDC records reports of the adverse events already reported to date concerning the current Covid-19 vaccine.( [https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/vaers.html] )

With Regards,

Employee of the Year
39 posted on 05/21/2021 6:27:30 PM PDT by Enlightened1 ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: greeneyes

I may have read what you posted prior, which dovetailed with my own research.

I do frame it as a conspiracy after expending thousands of hours to research my books and continually finding what is known today as a corrupt medical establishment after over a century of disservice to the American public.


40 posted on 05/21/2021 7:27:18 PM PDT by logi_cal869 (-cynicus the "concern troll" a/o 10/03/2018 /!i!! &@$%&*(@ -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

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