Re: Thomas and GPO Access (fwd)

[James Brady <jbrady@freenet.columbus.oh.us>]

Crossposted from him-l@umsmed.edu

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 09:53:29 -0500 (EST)
From: James Brady <jbrady@freenet.columbus.oh.us>
To: him-l@umsmed.edu
Subject: Re: Thomas and GPO Access

On Wed, 22 Nov 1995, Linda Golabiewski - MMCAA wrote:
some snipping

> I also had a problem getting into Thomas the past few days.  Today, 
> (11-20-95) I was able to access the bill.  I am assuming it was the 
> government shutdown and they did not support their server.

The other day someone put up the fax number 202.228.2815 for requesting a
copy of a pending bill.

I faxed my request Nov 16 1995, 0158 hours.

A copy of Senate Bill 1360 arrived in my mail box either Tu 21 or We 22 Nv.

It is of course much easier to read and one may refer to page numbers and
line numbers.

I already started using finite dates or events for expirations of
authorizations I ask folks to sign; e.g., Easter Day 1996, Labor Day 1996
and presently my favorite 16 October 1996.

I have only once in my life pressured some one to sign an authorization to
permit me to look at a chart.  That was about 20 years ago and the purpose
was to <GASP> ... find out what my wife's weight was.

<DUCK!! Docile ... Incoming missiles!!!>

It was a hospital chart and they FAILED TO CHART HER WEIGHT! :+) <sigh>  

On a serious side, I submit that ALL people should get access to a copy of
S.1360 of the 104th Congress, read it and write to their Senators and
Representatives about the proposed law.  It is not the panacea for all the
problems in the sensitive field of release of medical data, but IMO, it is
a step in the right direction.

The Feds propose to preempt the States and all the eensy fiefdoms that
have their own idiosyncratic policies about releases.

What's idiosyncratic?

  I. A records custodian refused to honor a valid authorization and
thereby delayed a pending claim because: 

two different colors of ink had been used to complete the authorization. 


 II. An RRA refused to honor a valid authorization and thereby delayed a
pending claim because: 

the AUTHORIZATION failed to contain the caveat forbidding rerelease of
controlled substance treatment.

(she perhaps was thinking of that section of Federal Law which requires
the COPIES RELEASED to contain the caveat ... I agree with you; the copies
released must have said caveat)


III. An RRA refused to honor a valid authorization and thereby delayed a
pending claim because: 

the authorization failed to contain the alcohol/drug phrase ...
notwithstanding the fact that the treatment was not for alcohol/drug abuse
and nowhere in the chart was there any data referring to alcohol/drug
history, diagnosis, treatment et cetera.


One thing for sure ... IMO ... should S-1360 be signed into law, we'uns
(you and I) are gonna' have to fine tune our boolean algebra and
understanding of IF.THEN.ELSE subroutines.

James D Brady 

	(coming out of the closet ... an insurance investigator who happens
	 to work for Equifax, but types for himself and not for Equifax or
	 any of its subsidiaries ... I have enough trouble expressing
	 myself without attempting to express what others may think or fail
	 to think)

jbrady@freenet.columbus.oh.us
James D Brady> 73561.2375@compuserve.com
docile.jim.brady@ccscmh.org
614.237.4000 for fax or voice recorder ... once in a while I answer it too
PO Box 09704, Columbus, OH 43209 for fried chicken, chocolate & hate mail :+)