Posted on 12/23/2003 7:42:00 AM PST by Hillary's Lovely Legs
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - Prosecutors can examine Rush Limbaugh's medical records to determine whether he should be charged with "doctor shopping" for prescription painkillers, a judge ruled on Tuesday.
Palm Beach Circuit Judge Jeffrey A. Winikoff denied the conservative commentator's request to keep the records sealed.
Limbaugh's attorneys had argued that the seizure of the records from doctors in Florida and California violated the radio host's privacy. Investigators obtained the records last month after discovering that Limbaugh received more than 2,000 painkillers, prescribed by four doctors, at a pharmacy near his $24 million Palm Beach mansion.
Doctor shopping refers to looking for a doctor willing to prescribe drugs illegally, or getting prescriptions for a single drug from more than one doctor at the same time.
The Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office began investigating Limbaugh last year, after his former maid told them she had been supplying him prescription painkillers for years.
Limbaugh recently admitted his addiction, stemming from severe back pain, and took a five-week leave from his afternoon radio show to enter a rehabilitation program.
What caused me to write first was your statement:
That law specifically says that a doctor or hospital must release your medical records in response to an "administrative request" by a law-enforcement agency. No warrant required. A phone call by a secretary will suffice.
I disagreed and you cited 42 CFR 164.510(f) as proof. I still disagreed and you responded:
I guess the plain English of the law means something different in your world than it does to us mere citizens.
I think from your reference to "mere citizens" that I offended you by suggesting that I could interpret the regulations better because I was an attorney. I didn't mean to offend you and I apologize. In my world, there are no such things as "mere citizen," despite the prevailing liberal concepts of themself as royalty. In this case, I didn't write HIPAA, but I know that you have to read the entire set of regulations (and, sadly enough, the commentary contained in the Federal Register) to interpret them.
For example, the subsection of 164.512 you cite has to be read in conjunction with the very first paragraph of 164.512, which says that the covered entity MAY disclose information. It doesn't say MUST. The 164.512 disclosures are referred to throughout the government's commentary as the "permitted" disclosures.
Second, the section you cite permits disclosures to a "law enforcement official." That term is defined in 164.501 and does not include a secretary UNLESS there's some statute outside of HIPAA that empowers him or her to conduct the investigation or to prosecute it.
Third, HIPAA contains a "minimum necessary" provision that would apply to limit the information that HIPAA would permit the District Attorney to obtain.
All I'm saying is HIPAA does not give law enforcement officials the right to waltz in and take your medical records, and a phone call by a secretary does not give them the right to the records.
Of major regulations published in the last several years, HIPAA is one of the best at promoting the idea of federalism. HIPAA's pre-emption provisions provide that if a state's law is more restrictive (i.e., protects an individual's right to privacy in his or her protected health information), then the state law trumps HIPAA. HIPAA is a floor on medical records privacy, not a ceiling.
As to your last comment, the fact the officials walked in and demanded records does not mean that HIPAA gave them the right to do that. HIPAA may be a pain in the rear in many respects, but if state law limits law enforcement access to documents more than HIPAA, then state law prevails.
HIPAA is Big Brother in many respects, but increasing law enforcement access to records isn't one of them.
What is curious is that HIPAA provides generally that, if a state's laws permit access to protected health information, then HIPAA will permit it (164.512(a)). However, there are a couple of exceptions -- and one is for law enforcement. To get the support of certain key Democrats (Conyers and the like), who were not trusting of law enforcement treating minorities correctly, HIPAA 164.512(a)(2) provides that you have to meet at least the requirements of HIPAA for law enforcement disclosures -- states can't give law enforcement greater rights to your protected health information than HIPAA.
160.203 says that state law, not HIPAA, prevails when "[t]he provision of State law relates to the privacy of health information and is more stringent than a standard, requirement, or implementation specification adopted under [HIPAA]." Federalism in action -- if the state law is more protective of privacy, then it trumps HIPAA>
They wouldn't give him a pass if he were a non-celebrity citizen -- so unless he subscribes to a two-tier justice system, the point is irrelevant.
No, actually that one is lost due to Congress passing the bill and W signing it. Do you not blame them?
The SCOTUS merely kept their mouth shut.
The same place the witchhunt was when Bill Clinton was committing perjury, suborning perjury, etc....
A crime is a crime and not a witchhunt. (So you won't complain if the maid goes to prison for bribery?) However, medical records are always kept private, or so I thought. DNA is not private, but everything else is. If Rush is an exception to that rule because of his politics, then it's a witchhunt.
Were prosecutors allowed to see Bill Clinton's medical records?
Getting addicted to prescription painkillers is more common than lying about sex. If Rush committed a crime then he will pay -- more than Bill Clinton paid for far more serious crimes. But he should not face an unfair judicial procress, nor should he be treated as though these were illegal drugs. He became addicted through no fault of his own. It is EASY to get addicted to these drugs. What he did from that point on might bring sad but just consequences. Still, the hypocrisy of Democrats is astounding.
Rush needs to take a lesson from Imus, who readily admits that he was a druggie and has done some bad things, takes FULL consequences for his actions and doesn't make any excuses or blame anyone for anything other than himself. He's also not afraid to interview people and ask tough questions, which Rush rarely does because we might figure out that Rush with half his brain tied behind his back isn't the brightest bulb in the socket.
Like Morton Downey and Derryl Strawberry.
the other way to do this is to go on the all cash plan for medical treatment you can afford. An assumed name to a doc for minor ailments, real name for another doctor for major problems. Just don't confuse your doctors!!
It is a new law, just adopted in 2002.
I don't know what the law or practice is in your part of the world, but in California the medical board will suspend your license if you don't keep proper records. It is a part of the professional responsibility
I never treated Rush Limbaugh, and I have no idea who he is. But for some reason this guy named Patient #3281172 looks a lot like him. If you have any interest in arresting this kind of patient, he's going to get away very easily unless you slip the handcuffs through the loops of the "8".
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.