CPT letters to NYT

[James Love <love@tap.org>]

November 20, 1995

Letters to Editor
The New York Times
229 W. 43rd Street
NY, NY 10036

via fax 212-556-3522

Dear Sir or Madam:

     Your November 20, 1995 "Good Start Toward Medical Privacy"
editorial contains several factual errors about S. 1360, the
"Bennett-Leahy" bill on medical privacy.  It is not true, as the
editorial states, that "except for some research purposes . . .
health care providers could not release data without consent."   
In fact, there are eight statutory categories for releasing
records without consent, including law enforcement, health
oversight authorities, public health and others.  While your
editorial points out that consent for disclosure cannot be
conditioned for treatment, it ignores the far more controversial
issue.  Under S. 1360, anyone who provides health insurance may
(and routinely) do require disclosure of your medical records,
for inclusion in very large databases.

     Critics of S. 1360 are not only seeking to limit the
millions of persons who have access to computerized medical
records under the bill, but they are seeking changes that would
eliminate the right of insurers to put records into database
systems without meaningful, non-coercive consent.  The medical
records industry, and apparently the bills sponsors, not only
would deny patients or doctors any meaningful control over the
dissemination of medical records, they seek to pre-empt all
present or future state law on this issue.

  
Sincerely,


James Love
Director, Consumer Project on Technology
P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036

Home Address 5900 N. 5th Street, Arlington, VA 22203
Home phone 703-522-4380; Work Phone 202/387-8030


----------------------------------------------------------------------
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