Sorry, but it doesn't say anything about being CURRENTLY hospitalized.
After HIPAA, it was no longer legal to disclose that information.
This is simply a ridiculous excuse. HIPAA didn't make previously disclosed information illegal to disclose. What a stupid, stupid, stupid thing to suggest.
No permission was required then.
I just told you the law in Hawaii required permission to disclose the address. That permission would have been obtained at the hospital if that was where the birth occurred. It's the exact same kind of permission that would be needed to disclose directory information under HIPAA.
Here is what HIPAA says
Thanks for biting the bullet and proving my point.
Don't think any of those apply to Sheriff Arpaio's investigators.
Only when you ignore the parts about administrative requests, identifying suspects and suspected victims of crime (which would include suspected birth certificate fraud) ...
Fines up to $250,000 and up to 10 years in prison seem like a darn good reason to me.
No one can be fined for permissible disclosures, so despite your melodrama, let's focus on the facts once again. There is NO LEGAL REASON this information cannot be disclosed to the investigators. And no government agency is going to fine a hospital for confirming the president was born there. You know this is true, so be honest and just admit it. Enough stupid excuses.
Thanks, Edge. I wrote my comment before I read yours.
Everybody: I have no clue why this system double posts. I make sure to click only once after the preview. I have tried every which way and combination I can think of but it still double posts. If anybody knows how to avoid this, I’d appreciate the tip.
As for the directories: As Edge says, it says nothing about “current” patients. The log discussed by Zullo is a directory. It is in the hospital library and was available to the public even after HIPAA laws.
There is an abundance of medical information on the Internet in the form of death certificates (with details of medical conditions), birth records, birth announcements, burial permit records (with causes of death), newspaper articles with medical information. We see news conferences all the time where doctors give out detailed information about crime victims’ medical conditions.
Vital records were published in newspapers regularly, directly from hospital information. If HIPAA grandfathered all this data out of public view, then why is it still on the Web, in libraries, in archives?
Why did the hospital give me my ancestor’s lab reports? Why do hospitals and doctors regularly give me information about a person’s medical status, when I’m only there visiting the patient when the doctor comes into the room?
There’s said to be a handwritten log of babies that Dr. Rodney West delivered, right in the Hawaiian state archives. That’s medical information. Probably most of these people are still living. Why is that log book in the archives?
There’s nothing in what you linked that talks about current patient directories. If a current directory is open to the public, then why wouldn’t a previous patient directory be open to the public, especially after it was open to the public for years?
As Edge pointed out, Stanley Ann gave permission for the fact of her child’s birth to be announced (snark), so there’s nothing private about that log of patients. Even if you’re going to argue that because it’s a log of mothers going into delivery, it discloses medical information that she was being “treated” for being “punished with a baby,” the FACT that she was in the hospital should not be private. It’s directory information at its scantest.
So the hospital ought to be able to disclose to anyone, but especially to law enforcement, whether or not she was there on August 4, 1961.
HIPAA was designed to try to assuage our concerns about having personal medical records stored in databases and transmitted to clerks at insurance companies. I’m not assuaged, especially now that Obamacare’s going to have this humongous database in DC. Are you comfortable knowing that your data will be there? I’m not. Do you believe it will be kept from prying eyes, especially politically motivated ones? I’m not.
Linda Tripp’s personnel records were protected, for all the good it did her. By the way, if Romney has anything in his IRS records that would damage him, do you think it wouldn’t have been leaked by now, especially considering Obama’s history with getting hold of his opponents’ divorce and custody records in IL? Ha! Dream on.
I should have remembered from our previous discussions that you read things to say what you want them to say, rather than what most people would see. Let’s break it down for you
This is simply a ridiculous excuse. HIPAA didn't make previously disclosed information illegal to disclose. What a stupid, stupid, stupid thing to suggest.
It seems stupid, but you don’t understand HIPAA – that’s the way it works. Hospitals are not allowed to disclose, whether it’s in the public domain or not. Even if the patient discloses the information, the health care entity is still not allowed to publicly release or discuss the information.
Healthcare providers have a continuing obligation to protect PHI following treatment of a patient, and this obligation is not destroyed by a patient’s self-disclosure of the PHI to an online audience. A provider who discloses PHI it obtained or created in treating the patient without the patient’s specific authorization to do so violates HIPAA, even if the patient has publicly discussed the same or similar information with numerous others.. So the fact that the information may have been previously disclosed, even by the patient, has no effect on the hospital’s duty to keep PHI confidential. Unless there is express written permission, it can’t be released.
I just told you the law in Hawaii required permission to disclose the address. That permission would have been obtained at the hospital if that was where the birth occurred. It's the exact same kind of permission that would be needed to disclose directory information under HIPAA.
Wrong. A release signed by a parent for the Hawaii DOH to release an address in 1961would not be sufficient for the hospital to now release information. The hospital would have to have a signed release form that was HIPAA compliant to release it now.
Only when you ignore the parts about administrative requests, identifying suspects and suspected victims of crime (which would include suspected birth certificate fraud) ...
Read a little more carefully, especially the part early on that says “subject to specified conditions” and think about what you read. Hospitals are very wary about disclosing PHI. They usually want a subpoena or court order. The posse has one of those? Has it been presented to an administrative tribunal? Try telling a hospital in Hawaii that a Sheriff’s posse from Arizona can make an administrative request that they should honor. Further, identifying a suspect is not persuasive – if forgery is proved, everyone knows quite well who the suspect is, and doesn’t need PHI. The hospital will be well within its rights to demand a court order, and this has ultimately been thrown out every time it’s brought to court. Good try. No one can be fined for permissible disclosures, so despite your melodrama, let's focus on the facts once again. There is NO LEGAL REASON this information cannot be disclosed to the investigators.
Wrong again. You obviously are not familiar with HIPAA, and how concerned hospitals are with regard to violations. You declare it legal – I’m sure hospitals are rushing to listen based on your well-known expertise litigating HIPAA… what’s that, you have none? Not surprising you don’t understand the law.
Present Kapiolani with a court order or subpoena, and they should comply. Absent that, I doubt they will disclose PHI, and are undoubtedly concerned about violating HIPAA and the fines.