Medical Privacy Madness

HIPAA, the stringent new federal medical-privacy law, took effect in April, and soon had what may be some rather drastic unintended consequences in the town of Craig, Colo.: "To protect the privacy of those needing medical help, 911 dispatchers stopped mentioning residents' names in radio calls to emergency response teams. That made it more difficult for the teams to find addresses," which critics charge may have contributed to the death of a local heart attack victim. Moreover, thousands of doctors "have stopped sending out appointment-reminder postcards, figuring the cards could be read by someone other than the patient. Some doctors have stopped leaving messages on patients' telephone answering machines, fearing that other family members might listen to them. Wives have been told they no longer could verify dental appointments for their husbands" -- even though a federal official says such postcards, phone messages and spousal verifications do not violate the law. (Laura Parker, "Medical-privacy law creates wide confusion", USA Today, Oct. 16).

Medical errors often arise from miscommunication, and the law has also made medical providers more reluctant to share information with each other about patients. Medpundit Sydney Smith (Oct. 20) comments: "Part of the problem is that the penalties are so stiff (they include time in prison) that no one wants to risk any breach, no matter how nonsensical and impractical complying with it may seem. I've heard colleagues say that they've had requests for old medical records from other practices or hospitals rejected because their request form was deemed 'non-HIPAA compliant,' and I've heard nurses ask one another if they're allowed to tell another nurse in another department -- say dialysis -- details about the patient they're sending over for care. Most see the law as punitive -- one that will be used by the disgruntled and unhappy as one more weapon in their attack arsenal (along with laws on disability, sexual harassment, equal opportunity, etc.). That makes people -- especially those who manage large organizations -- very nervous. And that's another reason they abandon common sense so readily."

(scroll down the link for the article)

I have been tracking this bizarre legislation and its evil effects. The new law imposes outrageous expenses and policies as noted above.

At the same time, this law gives no privacy for all your most intimate medical records from law enforcement, bureaucrats, and Hillary Clinton.

Two days ago I was getting ready to go to a job interview. I have been out of work for over a year and I need a job or I will be soon selling out my IRAs to pay the mortgage.

My phone rings. It is Stanford University Medical Center Blood bank. They have a baby getting a heart lung transplant the next day who needs three units of platelets and I am the only A- Cyclo Meglo Virus Negative donor they can get. I am a regular monthly blood products donor at Stanford Hospital, but sometimes I get a call from them that sounds desperate.

I call the company that I have the interview with. I reschedule the interview and I go to the blood bank and spend two hours hooked to the aphaeresis machine with a needle in each of my arms. I get to watch a movie, but I can't scratch my nose or move for two hours.

I emerge from my ordeal, but I would like to meet the parents of the baby getting the blood products I donated on short notice. I got a cookie and a glass of juice, but a thank you would have been nice as well. I have also been a recipient of blood products and it can be reassuring for a blood product recipient to know that the donor has a very boring life. Blood donors at Stanford cannot even travel outside of Canada and the USA.

Stanford Children's hospital is across the street from the blood bank. After running to all the nurses stations to find the right one for babies about to get heart lung transplants I am told by the nurse that I cannot meet the parents of the baby because of medical privacy.

I just wanted to wish them the best, reassure them that my body fluids are safe, and maybe get a thank you for my efforts.

Maybe sometimes there is too much medical privacy.

Since the act has gone into effect,I have had two occasions where I had to go to the pharmacy to get a prescription for oral antibiotics and antibiotic eye drops-for our old dog. The prescription is obviously for a pet,as it was called in by a veterinarian. Before I could get the meds,I had to give the pet's date of birth. Then, I had to sign a form,stating that I was the pet's guardian and some other release,before I could get the prescription.This happened at two separate pharmacies and I was told that it was part of the new Medical Privacy Act. Another aspect that should be upsetting the Sierra Club,is the massive volume of wasted paper, this act entails. Everytime you go to get something simple done,like having your teeth cleaned or your child's braces adjusted,they give you a one page hand out, on the privacy act.Which I am sure most people throw away. Not only are we tangled in the red tape,we are drowning in the wasted paper.

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.