Re: "Medical Records Confidentiality: Issues Affecting th

[Dynalysis of Princeton <mail@dynalysis.com>]

Thanks for the excellent info.  It is certainly confusing when dealing with
privacy to figure out who allows you to have it.

Barb

METRA1001@aol.com wrote:

> Barb-
>
> My discussions with State Attorneys General and other high level legal
> authorities agree that the 1996 "decision" affects all cases; however, as set
> forth in Lifshutz V. CA, no claim, disability application, insurance
> application, or insurance service (including denials of care) which directly
> or indirectly involve 'confidential' information CAN proceed without the full
> release of all relevant data by the patient. The recent state cases where by
> state law, (Maryland, VA, and a few others) medical databases automatically
> transmit (release) data to insurers, without notification, or informed
> consent, of, or by the patient, appears to be one area where another Supreme
> Court Decision is needed. As it stands now, in states mandating automatic
> transmission of sensitive medical data through vast medical warehouses,
> without the patient's knowledge would appear to be a violation of the
> physicians code, a violation of the patient's rights, and an illicit (and
> inappropriate) access to medical data, without due process. But it does
> comply with existing state laws within those states, insofar as data
> transmission and claims processing are concerned.
>
> However, I am not aware that anyone has carried such a matter to litigation
> in any of these states, (if so, I don't think it has made it to med-pri) but
> I suggest this as perfect matter to be appealed to the US Supreme Court. I,
> too believe forced (automatic) data transfer (in certain states where data is
> requested, by computer, accessed by computer, released by computer, and
> forwarded to whatever interested party without informed consent of the
> patient, IS wrong, too. The only way to prove it, however, remains with the
> patient, and it is up to the patient to sue the state, or insurer (if
> allowable) and appeal to the Supreme Court. Here's where ERISA, state laws,
> and local legislators vested interests seem to protect the 'system.'
>
> THIS would make interesting reading, but I am not aware of any case in which
> that has happened. Would or could any med-pri reader kindly post any such
> case (now or in the future) so that its merits could be debated? It would be
> a most worthwhile thread to consider. If, at any time in the future, such a
> suit is filed, would someone please post the details to med-privacy? This
> would surely spark a spirited debate, and press the issue of confidentiality
> to its logical conclusion, one way or the other.
>
> Al
>
>  >> Seems logical to me that if you are a patient and are a Plaintiff in a
> case, you
>  would understand that your medical records would be released -- afterall,
> you are
>  bringing a medical case.  I think the important thing is that the U. S.
> Supreme
>  Court has ruled in 1996 that there is an expectation of privacy between
> doctors
>  and at aleast therapist, no matter what license the therapist has and that
>  therapy records are considered private.  How this would apply to other areas
> of
>  medicine is not clear.   I think that the forced disclosure of medical
> records,
>  especially therapy records, with our (sic) without the patients' knowledge
> and without their consent and with their objection, is wrong and at this
> point, I think the
>  Supreme Court supports this.  Any discussion about that?
>
>  Barb
>   >>