<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

[IP] more on ] Wow... no privacy left, is there?




-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Deifik <kenneth.d@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 10:20:06 
To:dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] Wow... no privacy left, is there?

At 08:27 AM 2/12/2004, you wrote:
 Citing federal case law, the department said in a brief that there is no 
federal common law protecting physician-patient privilege. In light of modern 
medical practice and the growth of third-party insurers, it said, individuals 
no longer possess a reasonable expectation that their histories will remain 
completely confidential.
 Dave,
 I work for a company that produces HIPAA notices and forms.  The guy I work 
for has had to live and breathe HIPAA for the last couple of years, and he 
quotes long passages of the law perfectly.  As the writer who has been hired to 
reduce the legalese in the forms, I've had to trudge through a bunch of the law 
myself.  I've also read through a bunch of the state law that preempts HIPAA.  
(It beats sleeping pills.)
 
 When I heard the quote above on NPR yesterday I called my boss to tell him.  
(There aren't too many amusements in the HIPAA business.)  He was completely 
unsurprised that the justice department would say what they said, even in light 
of HIPAA which, on its face, appears it say that we have a greater expectation 
than ever concerning confidentiality.
 
 He pointed out that just about every privacy right that is granted under 
HIPAA, and under state medical privacy laws, contains these huge exceptions 
like except where required by law, except when the request is made by law 
enforcement officials, and except in cases involving national security.
 
 Under the Bush administration we've been trained to look at the law as Orwell 
would have.  If the law is named the Save The Trees you can bet trees are going 
die, etc.  It seems that HIPAA, developed during the Clinton administration, 
but by the functionaries of a GOP congress, is a cover for codifying all kinds 
of invasions into our medical privacy.
 
 By the way, I do recommend that the next time you receive a HIPAA notice from 
a health care provider that you read it carefully, as there actually are some 
decent protections available.  My wife tried to get her contact lens 
prescription from her optometrist and he refused, as he probably makes his 
house payments and his vaction home payments on contact lens profits. Well, 
under HIPAA you are entitled to copies of ALL your medical records.  (I guess 
if Ashcroft is entitled, you should be too.)  I pointed this out to the 
Optometrist, who probably thought no civilian would EVER know this law.  My 
wife can now order contact lenses at competitive rates.

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
At 08:27 AM 2/12/2004, you wrote:
Citing federal case law, the department said in a brief that "there is no federal common law" protecting physician-patient privilege. In light of "modern medical practice" and the growth of third-party insurers, it said, "individuals no longer possess a reasonable expectation that their histories will remain completely confidential."

Dave,
I work for a company that produces HIPAA notices and forms.  The guy I work for has had to live and breathe HIPAA for the last couple of years, and he quotes long passages of the law perfectly.  As the writer who has been hired to reduce the legalese in the forms, I've had to trudge through a bunch of the law myself.  I've also read through a bunch of the state law that preempts HIPAA.  (It beats sleeping pills.)

When I heard the quote above on NPR yesterday I called my boss to tell him.  (There aren't too many amusements in the HIPAA business.)  He was completely unsurprised that the justice department would say what they said, even in light of HIPAA which, on its face, appears it say that we have a greater expectation than ever concerning confidentiality.

He pointed out that just about every privacy right that is granted under HIPAA, and under state medical privacy laws, contains these huge exceptions like "except where required by law," "except when the request is made by law enforcement officials," and "except in cases involving national security."

Under the Bush administration we've been trained to look at the law as Orwell would have.  If the law is named the Save The Trees you can bet trees are going die, etc.  It seems that HIPAA, developed during the Clinton administration, but by the functionaries of a GOP congress, is a cover for codifying all kinds of invasions into our medical privacy.

By the way, I do recommend that the next time you receive a HIPAA notice from a health care provider that you read it carefully, as there actually are some decent protections available.  My wife tried to get her contact lens prescription from her optometrist and he refused, as he probably makes his house payments and his vaction home payments on contact lens profits. Well, under HIPAA you are entitled to copies of ALL your medical records.  (I guess if Ashcroft is entitled, you should be too.)  I pointed this out to the Optometrist, who probably thought no civilian would EVER know this law.  My wife can now order contact lenses at competitive rates.

You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/