Re: Medical Privacy and Auto Insurance Industry

[Peter Marshall <techdiff@ix.netcom.com>]

The post below also seems to invoke the broad question of the subsequent
disclosure of medical/health info. in general that often follows its
dubious-at-best collection in the first place.

In a recent example also related to driving, info. from a disabled
patient's file in the office of his specialist M.D. was provided at the
patient's request to the WA State Dept. of Licensing to enable license
renewal. The applicant chose the specific info. to be submitted as the DOL
was unable to clearly indicate what would be sufficient for the purpose.
The agency indicated nothing to the individual regarding the future status
of the info. once it had served its purpose.

While the patient/data-subject's license was renewed based on the info.
submitted on his initiative, when he later inquired as to the future status
of the docs., the agency--absent any prior notice--claimed they would
retain the docs. in a file and asserted they had to do so per a state
records-retention law they failed to ID even after a specific request to do
so.

Arguably, there may have been no legal authority for the collection of this
medical info. by the DOL in the first place. The M.D.'s office who
appropriately disclosed it in the patient's interest may not have done so
if they knew the info. would be retained. Indeed, the applicant may have
opted differently if informed up-front that
the info. would not be returned or destroyed.

In the meantime, there is apparently little to restrict the agency from
further disclosures of this same info. to other govt. agencies, and the
inept, privacy-insensitive way the matter was handled suggests it's likely
many other disabled WA drivers are similarly affected.

With the same agency continuing to  attempt pricey, privacy-risky measures
on the state public policy front like "smart" licenses and database mergers
with SSN identifiers, and drawing opposition from a number of quarters;
their performance with otherwise protected, confidential medical info.
sadly comes as little surprise.

Peter Marshall



At 9:15 AM -0800 2/3/99, METRA1001@aol.com wrote:
>I could have seen this coming; should have. When I was in a wreck, a few yrs
>ago, my auto insurer demanded to see my entire medical file, and a list of
>every doctor I had ever seen, their current address, and why I had seen them;
>when they got hold of it started using it to attack and ridicule me. I can see
>this is where GETTING auto insurance is going to. You need not file a claim.
>All you have to do is APPLY and you have to go under the microscope. Just file
>this in one more loss of privacy batch. The stack is growing, in case some of
>you haven't noticed.
>>>
> I was wondering if anyone knows why a person had to sign a release of
> all information (medical, MIB, etc.) to apply for automobile insurance?
> It seems to me that the State requires that we have automobile insurance
> and without releasing private information like this, a person cannot
> even apply to get the required insurance.  Seems inconsistent with the
> idea that medical information is private.  Do I have to release my
> medical info to Allstate tto get automobile insurance?
>
> >>