[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: S. 1360 - Medical Privacy - CPT statement for today's hearing
- To: med-privacy@tap.org
- Subject: Re: S. 1360 - Medical Privacy - CPT statement for today's hearing
- From: James Love <love@tap.org>
- Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 16:45:15 -0500 (EST)
On Wed, 15 Nov 1995, Robert Gellman wrote:
> Who is it who said that this bill should be rushed through the Congress?
Senator Bennett's prediction that the bill would reach the Senate
floor before thanksgiving alarmed a number of persons. He was quoted in
the Boston Globe.
> Who said that this bill (or the Condit bill) is perfect and needs no
> amendment?
Certainly not me. I think it needs a lot of work. But the bills
proponents are repeating and repeating the assertion that the bill as
written would be a huge improvement over the status quo, and urging people
to act fast. You think that I am not giving the bill enough credit, and I
hear that often from the supporters of the bill. I don't think you have
explained to people the gaps in privacy that this bill allows. Given the
huge organized support for the bill, we are trying to add some balance to
the discussion by explaining what is permited under the bill, and
suggesting some constructive changes in the bill's language. In my
November 14 comments, I spell out seven areas for improvements, with
specific suggestions for new language. I haven't really heard you respond
to the changes we are asking for. If you don't think the bill is perfect,
and needs amendment, what should be changed. Janlori Goldman made three
very good suggestions for changes at yesterday's hearings, in my opinion.
She suggested an administrative warrant for health oversight officials, a
clear and convincing standard for law enforcement warrants -- directed at
targets of investigations, and consent for health care research, based
upon the fact that NIH requires consent now. What are your suggestions?
Or are we only going to hear what a great bill this is?
jamie
----------------------------------------------------------------------
James Love, love@tap.org
P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036; v. 202/387-8030; f. 202/234-5176
Consumer Project on Technology; http://www.essential.org/cpt/cpt.html
Taxpayer Assets Project; http://www.essential.org/tap/tap.html