[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Health Portability Bill
On Mon, 29 Jul 1996, Robert Gellman wrote:
> I am not following the progress of this bill in conference, but I saw
> Jamie's message about the privacy part. My sources tell me that he got it
> wrong. The limited privacy language in the bill is either being dumped or
> narrowed to a limited requirement that the Secretary propose some
> legislation later on. There isn't anything much in the bills to begin
There are several things in play with this bill. Among the possible
1. No "administrative simplification" section. As I recall, this was
only in the house version of the bill.
2. The House version of Admin Simp. This contained several
provisions that privacy advocates did not like. AG or Denise Nagel could
explain this view better than I. On the pre-emption side, however, it
simple set a floor for privacy, and allowed states to adopt rules which
more completely protected privacy. This was a good way to treat the
3. A Bennett bill type provision, tacked on in the Admin
Simplification part of the bill. This with what CDT, IBM, AHIMA and
several otheres were hoping for. Pre-emption sets a ceiling, not a
floor, for privacy.
4. Some new provision that very few people have seen.
Today (monday) Don Haines from the ACLU and I both received calls from
the Senate telling us something (bad) was up with the bill with regard to
the privacy provisions. We called five senator staffers and the House
Ways and Means committee and could not obtain the new language that the
house conferees have reportedly offered.
If Bob, Janlori or others have better information, please share it.
James Love / firstname.lastname@example.org / P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
Voice: 202/387-8030; Fax 202/234-5176
Center for Study of Responsive Law
Consumer Project on Technology; http://www.essential.org/cpt
Taxpayer Assets Project; http://www.tap.org