Replies

My guess is they have found someone who claims that Sarah Palin inquired about an abortion of the baby. Assuming that it was true who ever gave the story to the NY Slime would have broken a number of federal laws notably HIPAA. Interesting thing about the law. Here is the criminal part:
“”WRONGFUL DISCLOSURE OF INDIVIDUALLY IDENTIFIABLE HEALTH INFORMATION

“SEC. 1177. (a) OFFENSE.—A person who knowingly and in violation of this part—

“(1) uses or causes to be used a unique health identifier;

“(2) obtains individually identifiable health information relating to an individual; or

“(3) discloses individually identifiable health information to another person,

shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

“(b) PENALTIES.—A person described in subsection (a) shall—

“(1) be fined not more than $50,000, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both;

“(2) if the offense is committed under false pretenses, be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both; and

“(3) if the offense is committed with intent to sell, transfer, or use individually identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal gain, or malicious harm, be fined not more than $250,000, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.”

There isn't an exception for the press or the fact that someone gave you the info. Not only that the NY Times would be publishing the info for commercial advantage, personal gain and depending on if it could be proved in a court of law malicious harm.

If it isn't based on actual health record info you'd have to have something far more than “he said she said” to go with a story. Oh, wait, we are talking about the NY Times who ran the story about McCain having an affair that was so well sourced and documented.

I must respectfully disagree with your conclusions regarding the NYT and violations of HIPAA.

First and foremost, the NYT is neither a “covered entity” nor a “business associate” of a covered entity. HIPAA’s Privacy Rule doesn’t apply.

Second, even if the NYT were a covered entity (and it’s not) the possibility of increased newspaper sales or advertising revenue, or helping in the election of the newspaper’s favorite son (as if the newspaper had a vote) is not what HIPAA means by commercial advantage, personal gain, or malicious harm.

Other healthcare privacy laws (most states had state privacy laws before the enactment of HIPAA) are unlikely to affect the NYT given its First Amendment protections unless the NYT retained somebody to obtain the information. If the NYT simply received it and published it . . . the NYT is unlike to be in violation of any state healthcare privacy law.

However, the human slimewad who accessed the medical records and passed on the information violated state and federal privacy laws.