Bush Administration Decides Not to Require Written Patient Consent for Sharing Medical Records

ap ^ | August 9, 2002 | Janelle Carter

[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

[Clara Lou]

Read this article. It explains a lot. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A198-2002Aug9.html

[11th Earl of Mar]

I don't get it.. the Democrats wanted us to have 'smart cards' with all our history on them, available to every government agency (and a few others, too) yet now they act as if they are the wonderful guys in white hats trying to protect our privacy?

You are correct. I can't believe the nation is letting them get away with this game they are playing.

[Iwo Jima]

I do not understand. Why is this a proper function of the federal governement? What existing problem are we trying to solve? I have not heard of many problems with getting consent when needed for medical treatment. If the Clinton regulations are bad, GET RID OF THEM. Don't replace them with another set of federal regs which may be better and may be worse. Get the federal government out of it . Period.

Please tell us how our medical care is going to be better once the federal government puts out these regulations REGARDLESS of what they say or who puts them out.

[MassRepublican]

I agree - the Federal Government has created so much red tape in hospitals in the name of fighting Medicare Fraud, that now MILLIONS of Health Care dollars are spent trying to be "Compliant", to bill "corectly", to meet "regulations", and now this nonsense of HIPPA (hospital improvement of privacy protection act). They throw in buzz words like Privacy and Fighting Fraud and other gems that get the public to buy into all of this. If you really knew how much money was being spent to meet all these regulations you would be appalled.

[11th Earl of Mar]

I can show Bush is an HMO ran Universal Health Care Suoporter. The Universal Health Care in the article below is HMO controlled.

"... Governor Sundquist has initiated unprecedented reforms in Tennessee...the first state in the nation to connect every public school and library to the Internet and to offer universal health care coverage to all children."

That's it? That's the best you have?

Bush is endorsed by a RINO governor from Tennessee who instituted socialized medicine. Therefore, "Bush is an HMO ran Universal Health Care Suoporter."

Do you Bush bashers actually think before you post?

[Iwo Jima]

Let's focus on the substance instead of turning this into a Bush vs. Clinton issue. Why is this any business of the federal government at all?

[GWfan]

Because of medicare/medicaid.

[My Favorite Headache]

I actually think this serves in the best interests of our country and our well-being. No sarcasm either. Some of the stipulations and rules you have to follow right now for things to get done with doctors are borderline insane, if not there already.

[Iwo Jima]

"if you want the x-ray technician to know why you are in his office, he needs to see some of your medical records."

You don't know anything about medicine, do you? The doctor gives me a slip of paper to give to the x-ray technician telling him to take an x-ray of my right knee (or whatever). The tech never sees my medical records. Doesn't want to. Doesn't need to. He doesn't know or care why the doctor wants an x-ray. I don't sign any consent for the tech.

[dalereed]

If I ever see a doctor from now on it will be in Mexico. As far as i'm concerned, you as a doctor don't even have a right to keep my records after your bill has been paid. No one has a right to know anything about my health!

[Iwo Jima]

"Because of medicare/medicaid."

I still don't get it. What has that got to do with patient confidentiality and consent to treatment?

Also, I'm not Medicare or Medicaid. Do these rules apply to my private insurance? If so, why? Why is this a federal issue? What problem are we trying to solve?

[GWfan]

The ignorance and paranoia on this thread is astounding. Of course it is a good idea for healthcare workers to communicate concerning patients. It is beneficial to the patient. For those of you who are so concerned about privacy, what in the heck are you doing on the internet???

[BluesDuke]

As if Medicare/Medicaid were any of the State's legitimate province, either...

[GWfan]

Medicare has federal as well as state regulations for privacy and for submitting claims, just as any government agency does. As for your private insurance, they also have claim forms, etc. which are mandatory if your doctor is paid directly.

If you have ever signed a claim form, you have signed a release of medical records to your insurance company because you want your doctor to be paid. You can avoid it all by paying cash and not turning in a bill to your ins. co.

[Iwo Jima]

"Of course it is a good idea for healthcare workers to communicate concerning patients.

You are setting up a straw man. Healthcare workers communicate concerning patients all of the time. Why on earth would you imagine that they don't? Haven't you ever gotten health care before?

State law and long-established medical ethics have contolled these interactions for decades or more. Why do we need the federal government butting in?

Once again, WHAT PROBLEM ARE WE TRYING TO SOLVE? Give me a concrete example of the way things have been done throughtout our entire lifetimes that you think is so totally unsupportable that we have to get the federal government to come in and straigthen us out?

[GWfan]

I should add that medicare requires that if you use a participating provider, that a claim is submitted.

I did not make the rules, I just know what they are. If you don't like them, vote to change them.

[arkfreepdom]

Suit youself, and you are wrong about doctors not wanting to protect your privacy. We have tried for years to tell people what was happenning to the medical system and no one would listen...people just thought we were/are money grubbers. Live with it now.

[Iwo Jima]

Of course I sign consent forms to send records to my insurance company. That has nothing to do with the federal government or the Clinton/Bush regulations. The insurance infomation is controlled by state law. It has nothing to do with the federal government and needs no "assistance" from it.

Once again, WHAT PROBLEM ARE WE TRYING TO SOLVE? Give me a concrete example of the way things have been done throughtout our entire lifetimes that you think is so totally unsupportable that we have to get the federal government to come in and straigthen us out?

[GWfan]

I am not here to tell you that the government's guidelines are right or wrong. Your anger is misdirected.

The federal government IS in healthcare, it is a reality. I would prefer that it not be, but it has been since medicare/medicaid and the VA benefits were established. To try to make me give you reasons why it is, is to blame me personally for an institution that is decades old. The HIPPA guidelines have been in the works for 20 years, they are to be implemented this year. This is apparently only news to you.

I suggest you visit a site called hippainfo.net. It may give you some answers.

[arkfreepdom]

These are rules TO BE IMPLEMENTED in 4/03. Bush is just stopping some of the insanity before it starts....I gave an example above of what would happen if they are not stopped.