Posted on 12/23/2003 7:42:00 AM PST by Hillary's Lovely Legs
FASCISM... is an Authoritarian political movement.
Thanks for the definitions, they are right on and should be applied widely now. Would trial lawyers that are so instrumental in enabling the Democratic Party fall under Fascism or Socialism?
What pisses me off about the people supporting Rush in this case is that their support is baseless. Doctor-shopping is a crime in FL. It is a brand spanking, shiny new law. The FL legislature has been harping about doctor shopping and oxy abuse for a couple of years now. What better way to make a point about how strictly they will enforce this law than with a high-profile celeb.
That said, Rush's medical records are absolutely relevant to the crime of doctor-shopping. I see no way he is going to protect his records in this case. With the fact that he acquired 2000 oxy pills from 4 doctors out there, he has problems and will be lucky to avoid a dealing sentence.
Well, what happens if you are unconscious or can't remember your name?
2. What pharmacy is going to fill a prescription made out to a number?
Guess what -- most pharmacies these days do exactly that. It's not as if CVS or Rite Aid knows exactly who you are. As far as I know, there is nothing that would prevent me from changing my name, getting a new doctor, and "starting over" as a new customer at a pharmacy.
3. Forget about insurance.
Absolutely. That's exactly why a patient would be interested in using a doctor under these terms of anonymity in the first place -- all cash payment, no insurance companies, etc.
4. If it is done to circumvent laws then it is a conspiracy to commit fraud.
It is absolutely not being done to circumvent laws -- it's being done to protect patient confidentiality. A doctor who operates under these terms is no different than a retail store that only accepts cash -- is you local convenience store presumed to be "conspiring to commit fraud" just because it has no way of knowing if your money was earned in a legitimate manner? As long as all income is reported for tax purposes, there's nothing wrong with this kind of arrangement.
The good news is I just got an email about a confidential source for Viagra. Would you like me to forward it to you?
The better news is that I don't need it. LOL.
Custom made just for Rush? Let's not forget that the LA Times (and therefore the democRAT party) probably knew about Rush's problem two years ago, when he lost his hearing.
Nobody in the history of the world has ever been prosecuted for "doctor shopping", although it happens all the time.
The DA is just trying to make make a name for himself down there in hanging-chad-land.
You are so very very wrong. Many 'doctor shopping' cases have been prosecuted in the US and Florida. There are cases cited all over these threads.
The law isn't 'custom made' for Rush. Florida has a huge problem with Oxycontin and junkies doctor shopping for their fix.
I went back and re-read this entire thread, and found no references to any prosecutions for "doctor shopping". Post 216 had some links to "arrests", but not prosecutions. You understand the difference, I'm sure.
All of Rush`s supporters and his detractors, including all those FReepers who have personal disdain for Rush, will have to be patient and wait for the final outcome. From the beginning I've said, if Rush is found guilty of breaking the law, he should pay the price.
Having said that, its quite clear this entire situation involving Rush`s health problems, has developed beyond the original parameters of drug trafficking and possible money laundering. Now the authorities are attempting to make the case against Rush of "doctor shopping".
Most fair minded folks see this for what it really is, a fishing expedition of sorts, with obvious political overtones.
Since you are drawing distinctions, let me point out that Limbaugh hasn't been prosecuted or arrested either. All the DA has done is obtain some records to see if there is a case. Arrest and prosecution would come only if he believes there is a case.
If it were "custom-made" for anyone it probably would have been Noelle Bush, whose problems were known before the law was passed in the summer of 2002.
You'd have to be a dyed-in-the-wool conspiracist to believe that the Republican-controlled Florida Legislature had secret knowledge of Rush's drug addiction and passed a law just to persecute him.
Most of us carry wallets with identification. Printing your secret medical number right next to your name would end the secret, so it would be pointless to carry an identification number card.
Guess what -- most pharmacies these days do exactly that. It's not as if CVS or Rite Aid knows exactly who you are. As far as I know, there is nothing that would prevent me from changing my name, getting a new doctor, and "starting over" as a new customer at a pharmacy.
I think even internet pharmacies would notice that someone is claiming to be "#12354928," rather then "Jane Smith." I don't know if there are any laws against giving a false name to a pharmacist, but I'd guess there are.
It is absolutely not being done to circumvent laws -- it's being done to protect patient confidentiality. A doctor who operates under these terms is no different than a retail store that only accepts cash -- is you local convenience store presumed to be "conspiring to commit fraud" just because it has no way of knowing if your money was earned in a legitimate manner? As long as all income is reported for tax purposes, there's nothing wrong with this kind of arrangement.
I agree, so long as you are not doing it to circumvent a law, like the ones forbidding "doctor shopping" and prescription drug fraud. I have gone to little neighborhood clinics to get flu shots or similar minor medical care. They don't really care who I am and I don't necessarily fill in all the blanks on their forms. No problem.
Add to that the fact the government has made several 180-degree flip-flops on its proposed and final regulations (at one point in the proposed regulations, a physicians was PROHIBITED from getting written authorization to release certain medical records, and could automatically do it).
One thing that is clear from HIPAA's privacy regulations is that when State law protects the privacy of an individual's medical records more than HIPAA, then State law is supposed to govern.
In the final privacy rule, published at 65 Fed. Reg. 82462 (Dec. 28, 2000) by the Department of Health and Human Services, DHHS explains part of preemption of State law by saying: "[This section] contains a preemption provision that provides that contrary provisions of state laws that are more stringent than the federal standards, requirements, or implementation specifications will not be preempted." That's at page 82471.
At page 872480, DHHS says there are three kinds of laws that are NOT preempted by HIPAA, and that one kind is "state laws relating to the privacy of individually identifiable health information that . . . are contrary to and more stringent than the federal requirements."
At page 82483, DHHS says: "As discussed above, our reading of the statutes together is that the effect of [HIPAA] is only to leave in place state privacy protections that would otherwise apply and that are more stringent than the federal privacy protections."
Skipping ahead to page 82765, DHHS says: "This regulation is designed to meet these goals {uniformity and minimum standards for privacy protection} while allowing stricter state laws to be enacted and remain effective."
At 82797, DHHS says: "The final [privacy] rule would establish national MINIMUJM standards with respect to the collection, maintenance, access, use, and disclosure of individually identifiable health information. The federal law will preempt state law only where state and federal laws are "contradictory" and the federal regulation is judged to establish "more stringent" privacy protections than state laws." The emphasis is mine.
There are many, many more references to HIPAA setting minimum standards and to State law that gives greater privacy rights not being preempted. Finally, 160.202 lists among the kind of State laws not preempted, a State law that: "provides greater privacy protection for the individual who is the subject of the individually identifiable health information."
I don't know all of the facts in this case, but if anyone gained access to Rush's medical records pursuant to a HIPAA provision that gave LESS protection than Florida law, they clearly don't understand the framework of privacy under HIPAA.
I apologize for targeting you, snopercod. I became frustrated reading all of the misstatements about HIPAA and simply seized on your comment about HIPAA mandating disclosure if a government secretary called asking for medical records.
I'm not licensed in Florida and I know little about Rush's case. However, I know HIPAA's privacy regulations and the fraud provisions pretty well.
In this case, if doctor-shopping is against the law in Florida, I would be stunned if Rush's medical records were undiscoverable. However, the Florida law that's been quoted certainly make it look as if he should have had opportunity to object.
Any Florida healthcare (including med mal defense and plaintiffs' attorneys) attorneys out there have a comment about it?
893.13 (7)(a)8 To withhold information from a practitioner from whom the person seeks to obtain a controlled substance or a prescription for a controlled substance that the person making the request has received a controlled substance or a prescription for a controlled substance of like therapeutic use from another practitioner within the previous 30 days.Title XLVI CRIMES Chapter 893 DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONTROL
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.