Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: caddie
The danger here, in my opinion, is that persons with STDs, depression, etc., which are charged diagnoses, will not be able to protect their privacy.

Not true. The regulations, even as revised, enact stringent privacy protections. What the revisions do is drop the original requirement to get written consent to a doctor's privacy policy before the doctor can give a patient treatment. The regs still require the doctor to inform the patient what the office's privacy policy is, still require stringent protections of confidentiality. And if a patient disagrees with some aspect of the privacy policy, they can request a change for the use of their records, and the doctor must acknowledge that request in the patient's file, and follow their request.

Your objections seem to be unnecessarily hysterical, and overtly partisan.

33 posted on 08/09/2002 4:39:47 PM PDT by My2Cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]


To: My2Cents
You are incorrect in your interpretation of HIPAA. The original concern posted was correct and is indeed what is occuring.
86 posted on 08/09/2002 11:27:30 PM PDT by bonesmccoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson