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

Skip to comments.

HillaryCare Phase I Complete: You now have a medical I.D. #
Health Sciences Institute newsletter ^ | 4/14/03 | Jenny Thompson

Posted on 04/16/2003 7:24:39 AM PDT by webstersII

This is my first try at posting.

I subscribe to a health newsletter and I received this in my email yesterday. The newsletter is published by an organization of healthcare professionals.

I believe this subject concerns everyone. The privacy of our medical information is now about to be available to many more people and we will have very little say about how the information is distributed in the future.

Any healthcare officials that care to post, please offer your comments.

-- Health Sciences Institute e-Alert

April 14, 2003

**************************************************************

Dear Member,

If you're a U.S. citizen, as of today you now have a medical identification number.

Some will tell you that your new ID number helps protect your privacy. And while to some extent it does, the protections are largely superficial. The disturbing truth is that your medical privacy is now beyond your control.

-------------------------------------------------------------- Just sign here... --------------------------------------------------------------

The next time you visit your doctor, you may notice some changes.

For instance, you might see privacy screens placed around the edges of computer monitors to prevent someone from glancing at your personal medical information. And once you've received your new medical ID number, the receptionist may call you in from the waiting room by your number instead of your name - a procedure designed to protect your privacy from others in the waiting room. (Speaking for myself, this completely impersonal and unnecessary procedure is not a protection that I've been longing for.)

More importantly, you'll be asked to read a description of the new federal regulation that, in theory, is designed to protect the privacy of your medical records in this new age of electronic record-keeping and file transfer. And you'll be asked to sign a document, stating that you've read about the new regulation, understand it, and agree to the new procedures.

Ready for the kicker? If you don't sign the form, your doctor is allowed to refuse to treat you and your insurance company is allowed to refuse coverage.

If you're wondering why this new "privacy" that's granted to you is, in effect, being forced down your throat, the answer lies in the fact that these regulations actually weaken your ability to restrict access to your medical history.

-------------------------------------------------------------- Regs running roughshod --------------------------------------------------------------

The source of the revised federal medical privacy rule is the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), passed by Congress in 1996. And I'll offer this benefit of the doubt: the original idea that led to this act may very well have had a good intention to protect the privacy of our medical records. But something went awry as this good idea passed through the massive Congressional and regulatory maze. If you roll a snowball down a long muddy hill, you end up with a muddy snowball.

As the rule now stands, doctors, dentists, pharmacists, hospital personnel, and even psychotherapists have to abide by new requirements that can be as simple as providing a secure area for private consultations, or as high tech as encryption software for computer programs. The government estimates that healthcare providers will spend as much as $4 billion to comply with these measures. And do you imagine those costs will be passed along to the patients? You can be absolutely sure of that.

So what will we get in return for all of this bureaucratic effort and exorbitant expense? Here are a few of the realities of the new "privacy" rule:

* Doctors and insurance companies may now share a patient's health information with third parties (including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) without asking the patient for permission. * A patient cannot withhold medical information from HHS. * Doctors and insurance companies are not required to give patients an accounting of third parties with whom their information is shared. * A patient's request for such an accounting can be denied. * Doctors and insurance companies can share a patient's medical records with the FDA as well as foreign governments who may be collaborating with U.S. health officials. * If the privacy of a patient's medical records has been violated, the patient can issue a complaint to HHS, but the department is not required to investigate the complaint. Furthermore, the patient cannot bring a lawsuit against a doctor or an insurance company for a breach of privacy.

To say that these regulations shamefully contradict the ethic of doctor/patient confidentiality is to put it mildly. That age-old standard is now out the window. But I saved the best one for last: HHS may now access a patient's phychotherapy notes. That's right: the most sacrosanct area of all - the health of your psyche - is now open to government examination. They don't have to ask for your permission, and they don't have to tell you if they're sharing your most private thoughts with third parties.

Welcome to "1984" - just 19 years late.

-------------------------------------------------------------- Speak now --------------------------------------------------------------

What can you do about all this? Frankly, not much. The Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information rule officially went into effect on April 14, 2001. The "enforcement" of that rule goes into effect today.

Normally I don't report to you about situations in which you have no course of action. But even though this new rule is signed, sealed, and (as of today) delivered, there is one way you can make your voice heard.

The Citizens' Council on Health Care (CCHC - a non-profit organization that promotes the right of each individual to control his health care decisions) has prepared a form titled "Declaration of Medical Privacy Intent." You can print out this form from their web site (cchconline.org), fill in the appropriate information, and then instruct your doctor, psychologist, pharmacist, and insurance companies to include the form with your permanent records. Or, if you don't feel comfortable using the CCHC form, you can write a letter declaring that you do not wish to have your private medical information shared with any third parties without your written consent.

What authority this letter or the CCHC form might carry is questionable. It's certainly possible that someone might see it and respect your wishes. And I imagine that at some point push will come to shove and the legality of this new rule will be tested in court. In that case, a written declaration insisting that your medical records remain private could carry weight in a legal proceeding. I should know better, but I find it hard to believe that any judge sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution would deny a patient his right to doctor/patient confidentiality.

But then, I find it hard to believe that this new rule is being allowed to trample our basic right to privacy in the first place. Laura Sherrill, a hospital administrator in charge of medical records, told the Honolulu Star Bulletin last week, "From now on, it's going to be a new world." I hope she's wrong, but I'm afraid she's right.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: healthcare; privacy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 last
To: mabelkitty
I'd like to cancel mine as well. Unfortunately, one major surgery without some kind of coverage will wipe me out. Even with coverage, the out of pocket expenses could cause a foreclosure should a person need ongoing prescriptions or treatment. Once the insurance is cancelled, you have to hope you never need it again which is a huge gamble with all the "pre-existing" clauses. Its bend over time.
41 posted on 04/16/2003 8:52:41 AM PDT by okiesap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter
Yes, but Thommy Thompson could have just killed the entire legislation.

When it was passed during the Clinton "era", some conservatives managed to put in a clause to delay putting into effect, during which time it could have been modified or canceled all together.

Unfortunately there was no public outcry against it, and the Bush administration went along with this.

In my opinion this is far worse than anything in the Patriot act, by several orders of magnitude.

People just don't realize it yet.

42 posted on 04/16/2003 8:55:23 AM PDT by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
"The frog is still cooking."

----

You are absolutely right! By the time it would wake up, it will find itself on the dinner table.
We are still marching undeterred towards socialism and full government control.

(In case anyone is not familiar with the frog story:
If you take a frog and put it in boiling water, it will jump out. If you take the frog, put it into cold water and slowly turn up the heat, it will just sit there, until fully cooked.)

Maybe after Iraq becomes a democracy, we can move there -- note there they do allow people to carry guns too. It may end up being closer to democracy, than we are.
43 posted on 04/16/2003 9:00:31 AM PDT by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: webstersII
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons has been working againt this and Congressmen Ron Paul introduced a bill to overturn these invasion of privacy requirements.

http://www.aapsonline.org/

http://www.aapsonline.org/alerts/pauladalert.htm

On Thursday, April 10, Dr. Paul introduced a new bill in Congress to overturn the privacy regulations and permanently abolish the national patient id. Called the “Patient Privacy Act,” Dr. Paul introduced bill number HR 1699 with these words on the floor of the House:

“Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Patient Privacy Act. This bill repeals the misnamed Medical Privacy regulation, which goes into effect on April 14 and actually destroys individual medical privacy. The Patient Privacy Act also repeals those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 authorizing the establishment of a ``standard unique health care identifier'' for all Americans, as well as prohibiting the use of federal funds to develop or implement a database containing personal health information.

“Both of these threats to medical freedom grew out of the Clinton-era craze to nationalize as much of health care as politically possible.

“Establishment of a uniform medical identifier would allow federal bureaucrats to track every citizen's medical history from cradle to grave. Furthermore, as explained in more detail below, it is possible that every medical professional, hospital, and Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) in the country would be able to access an individual citizens' record simply by entering the patient's identifier into a health care database.

“The dangers to liberty inherent in the "uniform health identifier" are magnified by the so-called "medical privacy" regulation.

“Many things in Washington are misnamed; however, this regulation may be the most blatant case of false advertising I have come across in all my years in Congress. Rather than protect an individual right to medical privacy, these regulations empower government officials to determine how much medical privacy an individual ‘needs.'

“…The so-called ``medical privacy'' regulations and uniform health identifier scheme not only reduce individuals' ability to determine who has access to their personal medical information, but actually threaten medical privacy and constitutionally-protected liberties. For example, these regulations allow law enforcement and other government officials' access to a citizen's private medical record without having to obtain a search warrant…”



SUPPORT DR. PAUL'S BILL

Tell your Member of Congress to support H.R. 1699, "The Patient Protection Act." Call the local congressional office or email at www.house.gov.
STAY UP TO DATE
Send us your email address so we can send you alerts about bills in Congress and other efforts that need public support.



44 posted on 04/16/2003 9:09:34 AM PDT by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: webstersII
Guys, this article is more than a bit misinformed. No medical id number. That idea died years ago. Doctors are supposed to give you a notice, just like your bank does, listing what might happen to your personal info.

And since doctors want to be paid, too, they will send your name, and what they did to you, to your insurance company.

Yes, there used to be an option to opt out and not allow the doctor to use your private information. This really meant that you refuse to let the doctor bill the insurance company, so doctors were required to either treat you for nothing, or not treat you at all. Last August Secretary Thompson deleted this from the HIPAA privacy requirement, as it was not a realistic protection.

I will admit there is a lot of confusion among the doctors about this law, but this ain't Hillarycare.
45 posted on 04/16/2003 9:24:16 AM PDT by AdSimp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Administrative Simplification
How about the other provisions in there about not controlling your own records? What about the inability of the patient to limit access to their medical records?

46 posted on 04/16/2003 10:18:44 AM PDT by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: webstersII
You don't control your medical record. Get over it.

Show up at the emergency room with a gunshot wound, they'll call the police. Have a funny skin infection that looks like anthrax, they'll call CDC. Go to the bank with 100G in cash, they'll report it to Treasury.

I don't know where you can move to in the US where this is not the law. Maybe some other country.
47 posted on 04/16/2003 10:25:54 AM PDT by AdSimp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Administrative Simplification
Up until now there has been no centralized scheme for keeping medical records. It looks like this could be the basis for that. Do you agree?

Once a database is established it will become available to anyone who wants the info, just like financial and criminal records.
48 posted on 04/16/2003 10:29:50 AM PDT by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: webstersII
"Up until now there has been no centralized scheme for keeping medical records. It looks like this could be the basis for that. Do you agree?

Once a database is established it will become available to anyone who wants the info, just like financial and criminal records. "

No, sorry, I do not agree. Where do you get the centralized database of medical information? The law just says that you can expect information to go from your doctor to your insurance company, and each entity has to make efforts to protect it.

If you suspect the doctor printed the record out and left it in the dumpster, and can prove it, you can run to your lawyer and make a fortune. Plus the feds can tag the doctor with a penalty. This is a vast improvement over the lack of control that ruled before Monday.
49 posted on 04/16/2003 10:39:55 AM PDT by AdSimp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Administrative Simplification
"Where do you get the centralized database of medical information? "

I thought that was the whole point of the individual number for everyone. Was the number only supposed to concur invisibility and not allow database keeping?

Do you know if it's true that under this new rule you can't refuse to give your medical records to HHS or any other applicable entity that requests them? That would be a departure from the previous system.
50 posted on 04/16/2003 11:24:00 AM PDT by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: mabelkitty
I do believe there are three lawsuits pending against HIPAA.

The "government", read Hillary and everyone following behind her, state that socialised medicine is their goal. Seriously. They actually state that it would be a good thing to have the goobermint control healthcare such that "...all people may enjoy the benefits of medical care."

Hillary and her goonies also stated that in 1995 when they were going for this as part of their National Health Plan.

51 posted on 04/16/2003 1:08:44 PM PDT by PatrioticAmerican (If the only purpose of assault weapons is to kill lots of people quickly, why do police have them?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: okiesap
I have been saying that for the last 25 years, no other solution makes sense... the only difference between Mexico and Iraq are the WMD's... Mexico has no infrastructure nor does it care about its people. Thanks for the response!
Stay well, and best wishes...
Terri
52 posted on 04/17/2003 10:53:42 AM PDT by Terridan (God, help us deliver these Islamic savage animals BACK into hell where they belong...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: webstersII
bump
53 posted on 04/17/2003 10:55:18 AM PDT by Lady Eileen (The rights of the people come from God. The powers of government come from the people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mabelkitty
lol..I had to cancel my medical insurance because we couldn't afford to pay the $1650- per month premiums. Then, I had to take my daughter to the hospital for some routine, outpatient blood work. They asked me for my insurance card and I told them I had none, and that I'd be paying cash. LOL They refused me, saying that they didn't know how to accept cash.
54 posted on 04/17/2003 11:30:23 AM PDT by IamHD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 last

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.

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