Posted on 08/09/2002 3:28:25 PM PDT by TomGuy
Bush Administration Decides Not to Require Written Patient Consent for Sharing Medical Records
By Janelle Carter Associated Press Writer
Published: Aug 9, 2002
WASHINGTON (AP) - Hospitals and physicians can share private information about a patient's health with HMOs and insurance companies without the patient's permission, the Bush administration said Friday in a decision denounced by privacy advocates.
Finalizing rules on the handling of medical records, the Department of Health and Human Services set aside a Clinton administration proposal that would have required a patient's written consent before that information could be released.
However, doctors and other health care providers will have to notify patients of privacy policies and make a "good faith effort" to get written acknowledgment under the new policy. Health care providers had complained that requiring written permission could stall needed treatments.
The Clinton version "would have forced sick or injured patients to run all around town getting signatures before they could get care or medicine," said Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson.
He said the Bush administration's approach "strikes a common-sense balance by providing consumers with personal privacy protections and access to high quality care."
"Patients now will have a strong foundation of federal protections for the personal medical information that they share with their doctors, hospitals and others who provide their care and help pay for it," Thompson said.
The regulations take effect April 14, 2003.
The Clinton version of the proposal, which was never put into effect, would have required signed consent forms from patients even for routine matters such as billing statements to insurance providers. The Bush administration announced in March that it planned to strip the written consent requirement from the medical privacy regulations.
Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, promised to introduce legislation to reinstate the mandatory consent forms.
"These regulations are a serious setback for medical privacy," Kennedy said Friday. "Insurance companies and HMOs are given broad access to highly sensitive personal medical information. Action by Congress is clearly needed to guarantee all Americans that the privacy of their medical records will not be abused."
The regulations clarify that personal information cannot be sold or given to drug companies or others that want to market a product or service without patient permission. The final version includes more explicit language to ensure that companies don't use business associate agreements to circumvent marketing rules.
--
On the Net:
Health and Human Services regulations: http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa
AP-ES-08-09-02 1759EDT
Do you realize under the status quo, insurance companies and HMO's can distribute your information to third party firms who can then market to you, things like Depends and pharmacueticals? They wont be allowed to do that, without your written permission once this goes into effect.
So your choice is do you want to have third parties knowing your medical history or not. If you want legal protection against third parties getting access to and using your info, then you have to support what Bush just did.
The Bush administration is as interested in writing intrusive regulations as the Clinton administration was. I didn't need the government telling me how to handle medical records for the last 20 years, and I don't now.
Actually, I may opt out of the system. Unless they changed this option in the final rule, physician offices with less than 10 people who use paper billing instead of electronic billing can opt out.
Pretty ridiculous isn't it? In order to free myself and my patients from the requirements and obligations of these regulations, I have to give up using a computerized system and go back to paper.
These rules, by the way, really do nothing to "protect your privacy" from insurance companies. Your insuror and all of the Tom, Dick's, Harry's and Jane's can still require all of your medical information they want. Now, that information can be gotten by the government, as well, if this provision hasn't been changed.
When you want to buy a gun in 4 years, when Hillary is president, and your new federal permit application is denied because your physician treated you for depression one time, then you will understand the unintended...or intended, perhaps...consequence of these Bush pro-government regulations.
Your analysis is strong, with the exception that you missed the economic reasons for their behavior. I can summarize it best by simply saying "Oracle".
Well Bimbo, then welcome to the Brave New World of 1984 because your records have already traveled far beyond your physician. You have no privacy unless you pay cash.
I stand by my statement. And a simple solution would be to have in your records on file that no other party should have your information if it is not medically necessary, insurance and physician. Other than that the patient having easy access to logs that show listings of all inquirers to medical records for any given time period; and recourse if privacy has been breached. The alternative would be to not seek any medical attention because of fear of who could access your records.
You'll never compete with the giant $ of Big Business and foreign governments. The only chance we have is to outlaw lobbies. And they'll never do that. I'll vote Republican for the Senate this time, but from here on out, I'll go independent and write in all the way. I'm sick of this two party rip off. I'm convinced its the only way things will change. Independents are growing in number almost daily. If we can find a viable third party candidate and all unite behind him, we can take back this country.
Go back and read that post again. Let me ask you something. If I wanted to make political points running for office and the person supported items I DID NOT ENDORSE don't you think I could find an issue that I could say was good and NOT LEAVE THE IMPRESSION I AS Well SUPPORTED THIS AGENDA? The words were from Georgewbush.com not AP it was his own press release in his own site. That says it all.
You will find very simular misconceptions in the forum that Bush is Pro second ammendment. He is not and he never was. After reading his press releases on the matter clarifies his positions of restrictions after restrictions on gun ownership.
But the article I posted has Bush PRAISING SUNDQUIST FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE
and not the other way around.
And I am the husband and sole care giver to a quadriplegic spouse of 17 years who has fought HMO's the state paid to take over Medicaid tooth and nail. No outside help given BTW I do the care. Don't tell me about paper work and run arounds. I fought against this type of program happening tooth and nail. The truth is congress should not be protecting HMO's. The truth is Medicaid since money for services has been taken needs to be returned to it's origional intent and under scrunity of the state department of health under the state inspector generals office and not some politicans politically connected HMO.
I understand a lot more about this issue than you think I do. I want HMO's held liable in court for their malpractice do you? If they so choose to make a medical decession of life and death then they should as you Doctor answer for it. No I'm not saying I'm lawsuit happy. What I'm saying is the prior approval crap needs to stop. Write the rules and codes out in simple terms. This-this is covered period. This is not covered period. No questions, no begging, no prior approvals needed. Now would that or would that not stop most of it? If procedure A-R is covered then the doctor and only the attending doctor should say yes it needs done or no it does not.
But this issue only serves to side track addressing that ongoing abuse and like so many other Bush ideas justifies the abuse instead of addressing it. Get it now? Why should you Doctor be asking Hey MOE can I do this when the terms should be spelled out in laymans terms and be legally binding. No reason would be needed to violate privacy now would there?
Regardless of which side of the issue is right, does the executive branch actually have constitutional authority to be even making such decisions?
I understand what you're saying. My state senator is a pharmicist at a local hospital. He also sits on the Tenn Care Oversight Committee and has been consistant in pro-HMO policies up to and including support of a state income tax to fund an HMO Universal Health Care System in our state. He BTW is also a Republican. I will not be voting for him in November. No not even for the sake of the GOP. I've had it and will not help such programs continue. Till people take off their party hats and start holding both parties elected responsible nothing good is going to happen in health care reform. But actually It's not near so much health care reform needed as it is a crack down on Health Care Insurance Industry abuses. Both parties are up to their necks in this and covering it up.
Now, we have to get active to kick loser GOP incumbents out. We need the real conservative and strong guys in.
That's why I'm supporting Bill Simon.
Its not just ads for Depends. They sell info the credit agencies like Experien and Equifax. The credit agencies sell your info to anybody with 30 bucks.
I'd rather die than put up with this sort of BS.
You are not in "control". They sell info the credit agencies like Experien and Equifax. The credit agencies sell your info to anybody with 30 bucks. I'd rather die than put up with this sort of BS.
Whatever, in connection with my professional practice or not, in connection with it, I see or hear, in the life of men, which ought not to be spoken of abroad, I will not divulge, as reckoning that all such should be kept secret. While I continue to keep this Oath unviolated, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art, respected by all men, in all times! But should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse be my lot!
So the first thing I know about my Doctor is that he is a liar. Why should I let this person treat me?
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.