Posted on 08/09/2002 3:28:25 PM PDT by TomGuy
Bush Administration Decides Not to Require Written Patient Consent for Sharing Medical Records
By Janelle Carter Associated Press Writer
Published: Aug 9, 2002
WASHINGTON (AP) - Hospitals and physicians can share private information about a patient's health with HMOs and insurance companies without the patient's permission, the Bush administration said Friday in a decision denounced by privacy advocates.
Finalizing rules on the handling of medical records, the Department of Health and Human Services set aside a Clinton administration proposal that would have required a patient's written consent before that information could be released.
However, doctors and other health care providers will have to notify patients of privacy policies and make a "good faith effort" to get written acknowledgment under the new policy. Health care providers had complained that requiring written permission could stall needed treatments.
The Clinton version "would have forced sick or injured patients to run all around town getting signatures before they could get care or medicine," said Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson.
He said the Bush administration's approach "strikes a common-sense balance by providing consumers with personal privacy protections and access to high quality care."
"Patients now will have a strong foundation of federal protections for the personal medical information that they share with their doctors, hospitals and others who provide their care and help pay for it," Thompson said.
The regulations take effect April 14, 2003.
The Clinton version of the proposal, which was never put into effect, would have required signed consent forms from patients even for routine matters such as billing statements to insurance providers. The Bush administration announced in March that it planned to strip the written consent requirement from the medical privacy regulations.
Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, promised to introduce legislation to reinstate the mandatory consent forms.
"These regulations are a serious setback for medical privacy," Kennedy said Friday. "Insurance companies and HMOs are given broad access to highly sensitive personal medical information. Action by Congress is clearly needed to guarantee all Americans that the privacy of their medical records will not be abused."
The regulations clarify that personal information cannot be sold or given to drug companies or others that want to market a product or service without patient permission. The final version includes more explicit language to ensure that companies don't use business associate agreements to circumvent marketing rules.
--
On the Net:
Health and Human Services regulations: http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa
AP-ES-08-09-02 1759EDT
Big government/Big Brother bump! Thanks Bush!!!!
Is it in your interest to have to run down to your doctor's office to sign a consent form every time you need to have your prescriptions renewed? What about the person who refuses (for some odd reason) to sign a consent form? Under the Clinton version of these regs, a doctor couldn't treat that person. That creates an access to care problem. What these regs say is that doctors must share with their patients how they use their medical records, who has access to them, and what your rights as a patient are. If you disagree with someone having access to your records, you can tell your doctor, and your doctor has to honor your request. The regs revision eliminates an ackward consent requirement, one that actually could have blocked access to health care. This change benefits patients. Doctors are not required to get written consent, but are required to notify patients of privacy policies. So, what's your beef?
Clarification (which I think you meant): under the PREVIOUSLY written regs this consent was required. Under the new revisions, this it isn't required to get a patient's written consent.
I thought you all(especially Libertarians) were against Bush implementing the original Clinton EO.
Now that he has discarded it, you all are still up in arms.
HHS MEDICAL-PRIVACY-INVASION RULE: COMMENT DEADLINE THIS WEEK
It's an effort to hide pre-existing medical conditions from insurers to fraudulently stick them with the tab.
Not true. The regulations, even as revised, enact stringent privacy protections. What the revisions do is drop the original requirement to get written consent to a doctor's privacy policy before the doctor can give a patient treatment. The regs still require the doctor to inform the patient what the office's privacy policy is, still require stringent protections of confidentiality. And if a patient disagrees with some aspect of the privacy policy, they can request a change for the use of their records, and the doctor must acknowledge that request in the patient's file, and follow their request.
Your objections seem to be unnecessarily hysterical, and overtly partisan.
This isn't about a sell-out to corporate America. Stop demagoguing the issue. This is about REASONABLE measure to protect privacy, which the revised regs do....protect privacy!
Not near as stupid as government protections of HMO's and you don't see him trying to do anything to stop that. I prefer my privacy thank you very much.
WOnderful.
A doctor is an employee hired by patients. I will not hire a doctor who will not respect the Hippocratic oath (which contains basic privacy provisions) any more than I would hire an engineer who insists on selling proprietary information.
As far as I can tell, the medical establishment is determined to deny coverage to those who try to buck the system.
I've been without coverage for a year now because of my refusal to submit my SSN. As an avid motorcyclist and rock climber, this is very disconcerting. Do you know of *any* insurance companies that aren't pre-occupied with hawking my personal information.
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.