[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Thomas and GPO Access (fwd)

To: James Brady <jbrady@freenet.columbus.oh.us>
Subject: Re: Thomas and GPO Access (fwd)
From: James Love <love@tap.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 09:52:26 -0500 (EST)
cc: Multiple recipients of list <med-privacy@essential.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.07.9511231045.A1513-c100000@acme>

On Thu, 23 Nov 1995, James Brady wrote:
> The Feds propose to preempt the States and all the eensy fiefdoms that
> have their own idiosyncratic policies about releases.

      The states are only pre-empted in certain areas.

   not on fundemental issue of form of consent for third party payments.  
Most (but not all) of the Sec. 204-212 ememptions can not be pre-empted 
by the states.  Indeed, this is one of the reasons for the act, and why 
the industry is supporting S. 1360.  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

Follow-Ups:
- who pre-empts whom
  - From: James Love <love@tap.org>

References:
- Re: Thomas and GPO Access (fwd)
  - From: James Brady <jbrady@freenet.columbus.oh.us>

Prev by Date: Questions about the bill
Next by Date: Re: Are Patient Records an Economic Commodity?
Prev by thread: Re: Thomas and GPO Access (fwd)
Next by thread: who pre-empts whom
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread