Your Confidential Medical Records Are an Open Book

NewsMax.com ^ | Monday, July 8, 2002 | Phil Brennan

[PatriotReporter]

Your Confidential Medical Records Are an Open Book

Phil Brennan, NewsMax.com

Monday, July 8, 2002

Thanks to new federal regulations designed by President Clinton and backed by President Bush, all kinds of people can now access your most private medical records without your say-so, just as NewsMax.com repeatedly warned.

A lawsuit has revealed that a pharmacy company got its hands on the medical records of a woman and sent her junk mail containing samples of one of its drug products, Prozac Weekly, as a remedy for her medical problem, depression.

The lawsuit made Page One of the New York Times this weekend. Why the surprise? This is exactly the sort of privacy invasion NewsMax.com warned about just before the new so-called medical privacy regulations went into effect earlier this year.

In a March 13, 2001, heads-up, NewsMax.com reported that the regulation allegedly intended to improve the confidentiality of medical records contains a sleeper provision that gives health care providers the right to sell a person's confidential medical information to marketing firms and drug companies.

Under the proposal, NewsMax warned, doctors can even share the information with a "business partner," who can conduct marketing on behalf of a provider.

"It's perfectly legal under the rule for someone to knock on your door and say, 'I've learned from your doctor you have hemorrhoids; would you like to buy this treatment?' " said Bob Gellman, a medical privacy consultant and former congressional staffer.

"You can only opt out after you have been marketed to. I've been working on this issue for 20 years, and it's the worst anti-privacy thing I've seen."

President Bush told Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson to allow the new rules to go into effect in April last year despite a storm of protests including the tens of thousands of readers who signed a NewsMax.com petition opposing the Clinton regulations.

In the new lawsuit the unidentified plaintiff alleged she got the Prozac, which is used to treat anxiety and depression, in a hand-addressed manila envelope from a Walgreen's drugstore that contained a "Dear Patient" form letter which said "Enclosed you will find a free one-month trial of Prozac Weekly. Congratulations on being one step [closer] to full recovery."

The form letter appeared to have been written by a Lilly sales representative and was signed by the plaintiff's doctor and two other local doctors.

"We are very excited to be able to offer you a more convenient way to take your antidepressant medication," the letter said. "If you wish to try Prozac Weekly, stop your antidepressant one day before starting Prozac Weekly, then take Prozac Weekly once a week thereafter." According to the New York Times' Adam Liptak, that mailing angered the plaintiff, "a 59-year-old home caregiver who filed a class-action lawsuit this week in a state court in Fort Lauderdale, Florida."

"They're going after me because I have a problem," the woman, told the Times.

She agreed to an interview in her lawyer's office, providing her name would not be revealed. "It bothers me to think that somebody could get into my medical records and start sending me dangerous medications."

The lawsuit says plaintiff, identified only as S.K., has had a diagnosis of depression, "which she maintains in the strictest of confidence due to potential public embarrassment and employment repercussions." It states that she did not have a prescription for Prozac.

"I hadn't been using Prozac for seven years or better," she told the Times. "It was a matter of a few months. It didn't agree with me."

Misuse of Records Charged

The lawsuit names Walgreen's, a local hospital, three doctors and Eli Lilly, which makes Prozac, charging they misused patients' medical records and invaded their privacy. It also accused Walgreen's and the drug company "of engaging in the unauthorized practice of medicine," the Times reported

The plaintiffs' lawyers told the Times they didn't know how many people in addition to their client received the junk mailings. "It could be anywhere from several dozen to several thousand," Gary M. Farmer Jr., one of the lawyers, told the Times.

Dr. Lise Lambert, one of the doctors who signed the "Dear Patient" letter and the plaintiff's physician, is a defendant in the suit. She did not return the Times' calls and her medical group referred the Times' questions to Holy Cross Hospital, which is also named as a defendant.

A hospital spokeswoman said the hospital did not comment on matters in litigation. In early June the hospital issued a statement to the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel that said, "This particular effort was the result of well-intentioned, respected physicians being given an opportunity to arrange for some of their patients to receive sample medications, at no cost, through proper, licensed pharmacy channels."

The plaintiff told the Times that Dr. Lambert admitted signing blank letterhead, which the Lilly representative added text to and delivered to the drugstore for mailing. Whether or not Dr. Lambert reviewed the letter before signing, the mailing was improper, Dr. David L. Pearle, a professor of medicine at Georgetown University, told the Times.

"It's highly unethical," he said, "because it's clear that the letter is not an outgrowth of the doctor's relationship with the patient."

According to what legal experts told the Times, sending drugs through the mail could be criminal if the recipient does not have a prescription.

Debbie Davis, a Lilly spokeswoman, told the Times that sending unsolicited drugs through the mail was against company policy and inappropriate.

'Appears to Go Beyond'

"While Lilly supports informing people about new treatment options and encouraging them to discuss these options with their doctor, what occurred in Florida appears to go beyond this," she said.

"It is inappropriate for Lilly sales personnel to support programs in which medicine is mailed to patients without the patient's request," she said in a statement.

"We understand why people should be concerned about receiving unsolicited prescriptions in the mail. To the extent Lilly personnel may have participated in this program, Lilly apologizes to those patients affected by it."

Medical privacy advocates have been critical of mailings of targeted marketing materials based on information in patients' pharmaceutical and medical records. They say the mailing of drugs is an unwelcome innovation.

"This is appalling in every possible way," Dr. Pearle told the Times. "It's an escalation of a deplorable practice."

Joy Pritts, senior counsel at the Health Privacy Project in Washington, added that "this is one step beyond what we normally see." She told the Times the Prozac mailing was part of "the increasing trend for the commercialization of health care information."

"It's being bought, sold and used like any other commodity," she said, referring to patients' medical information. "This has nothing to do with treating the patient. This has everything to do with generating profits."

And even more to do with the Bush administration's new rules that allow this sort of thing to happen without the patient giving permission to his or her doctor to release private medical data to every Tom, Dick and Harry.

[cva66snipe]

Why am I under spelling police arrest? Here it is to you in a simple form. The medication which she had previous reaction to {Prozac} can produce Serotonin Syndrome. That may have well been the reaction but most doctors are clueless to the problem. The doctor had no right to write it without patient consultation. The doctor had no right to refer it without patient knowledge. Walgreens and Eli Lilly are Schmucks as well for sending it.

If one type anti-depressant is mixed with another death can occur. Namely MOA inhibitors and SSRI's can not be used together. Some SSRI's as well if too much Serotonin is displaced from the stomach cavity to the brain causes Serotonin Syndrome.

[Robert A Cook PE]

The "privacy rule" allows/requires ANY federal or state official to get your medical records whenever they want them.

The rest of the 1500 pages merely conceal that little fact.

[DLfromthedesert]

According to Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, Mr. Cook is 100 % correct. HIPAA was a Teddy Kennedy creation supported by RINOS whose goal was to implement HillaryCare piece by piece.

The Feds have NO business in our health care. i hope LBJ is rotting in hell for starting this ball rolling.

[SierraWasp]

"Kennedy creation supported by RINOS"

Yes, she was Nancy Kasabaum! It was called the Kennedy/Kasabomb bill and it was an abortion! (and that's being polite, although a bit crude)

Our government is breaking faith with the people to a greater degree than all the Auditors and CEO's of American corporations put together!!! The press and all other media are the enablers!!!

It's getting as discouraging as when Jimmy Carter put the whole country into a FUNK!!!

[dalereed]

I haven't been to a doctor for anything but damage repair or a flight physical in over 50 years and with these new regs I hope that I stay healthy and don't ever have to see one again.

[Angelique]

I've been reading about this for several years now. The ramifications are far worse. Think about an employer. They would be the first to leap on this because of health insurance. We are becoming "commies."

[bonesmccoy]

Actually no. Because the gov't officials are treated at Bethesda's Naval Hospital, the database programs which are involved at Walgren's are unlikely to be collecting data at the pharmacy at the Naval Hospital.

[bonesmccoy]

The fact is that database data is being collected on prescriptions filled at pharmacies. But, the worse fact is that datawarehouses (1 or 2 in particular) are making money as intermediaries between health insurers and doctor's offices. Each time you visit your doctor's office, the office must submit the claim through the electronic datawarehouse. There are only a few datawarehouses in the country. So, basically, in order to get paid, the doctor MUST submit the claim through the datawarehouse. This data includes your identity, the duration of the visit, your specific diagnoses, tests ordered, and any special procedures done to treat your illness. The specificity of this data was determined by Clinton Administration regulations from the Health Care Finance Administration. These regulations specify that at any time any of your medical records MUST be available to gov't agents for review. These agents can do unannounced spot audits of medical charts in private physician offices. Multiple physician offices have been invaded by these federal agents and doctors continue to be threatened with JAIL TIME if they do not permit the review of these charts by federal agents.

These ridiculous threats are damaging the ability of doctors to help the American people. I find these threats to be testimony to the SOCIALISTIC intent of Hillary Clinton and the DNC. AAP clearly has supported these endeavors in an attempt to give legitimacy to the invasion of privacy by government.

[joeyman]

What's next will they institute the "KNOW YOUR CUSTOMER" program for banks?

Umm, that's already been done under the USA Patriot Act. Go look it up.

[Uncle Bill]

I know, you're shocked.

"Thanks to new federal regulations designed by President Clinton and backed by President Bush, all kinds of people can now access your most private medical records without your say-so,..

Bush told Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson to allow the new rules to go into effect in April last year despite a storm of protests including the tens of thousands of readers who signed a NewsMax.com petition.."

"This is appalling in every possible way," Dr. Pearle told the Times. "It's an escalation of a deplorable practice."

..."It's being bought, sold and used like any other commodity," she said, referring to patients' medical information. "This has nothing to do with treating the patient. This has everything to do with generating profits."

And even more to do with the Bush administration's new rules that allow this sort of thing to happen without the patient giving permission to his or her doctor to release private medical data to every Tom, Dick and Harry."

"I believe privacy is a fundamental right, and that every American should have absolute control over his or her personal information."
George W. Bush - Associared Press - Oct 6, 2000.

Bush Administration Scraps Written Consent Forms That Would Have Been Required in Patient Privacy

[Askel5]

Lol!

Okay, well, in this instance I have been softened up for the blow to my solar plexus by a passing familiarity with the Healthcare Industry. =)

Thanks for the flag. Good night and God bless you, Uncle Bill.

[E.G.C.]

ftroop.... member since July 8th 2002.

[WaterDragon]

Once hospitals and doctors' offices computerized medical records it was a foregone conclusion that all semblance of privacy was gone.

Your best bet is to stay away from the medical profession.

[hankbrown]

The writer of this article has no idea what he is talking about. The regulations discussed put some restrictions on releasing medical information and are not operative yet. Health care providers have until April 2003 to comply. There are NO federal requirements now and the regulations contain no "sleeper" provision allowing health care people to sell medical records to marketing firms. Marketing can only be done directly to the patient and not to a private firm. The misinformation surrounding these regulations is based on the usual failure to read the laws before jumping to alarming conclusions.

[E.G.C.]

Here are my thoughts on this subject.

With all due respects to those are choosing to be so presumptous about Newsmax which quite frankly is a far better publication then the established media outlets, I myself, have read the new HIPAA rules in their entirety and based on that, I find Newsmax's analysis to be right on this and not disinformation as some would like us think.

I would just ask those who disagree with this analysis if they have read these new regulations and if so if they think it would be a good idea for goverment to look at their private medical records. This kind of goverment bereaucacy sounds a little reminiscent of some fella who ruled Gremany with an iron fist back in the 30's.

I would ask everyone to do their homework and look at thesethings before they start getting so presumptious about other people's analysis on isssues like this. I have and I know for a fact that Newsmax is right on this one.

Regards.

[Bonaparte]

Sad to say, pharmacists now routinely engage in the practice of medicine and it's quite dangerous. In the Kaiser system, for example, hospital pharmacists are permitted to adjust patient dosage of drugs like Coumadin based on whatever the current blood draws show.

[steve-b]

Thanks to new federal regulations designed by President Clinton and backed by President Bush

Meet the new boss....

[asformeandformyhouse]

Meet the new boss....

Same as it ever was!

[bonesmccoy]

I've not only read the law. I commented on proposed legislation PRIOR to passage by the Congress and Clinton White House. HIPAA is the worst piece of malarky that still exists from the Clinton era. It needs to be amended and code needs to be rewritten. You are patently incorrect about the resales of information to others. It is occuring and has been for some time.

[Mixer]

the form looks a lot like the junk mail inserts that come with your statement. So if you're not expecting it, it probably gets thrown out. What a scam.

That sure is a scam. But at least they are protected right? /sarcasm