[Med-privacy] Phil. Inquirer: editorial on Medical Record Privacy Feb 17, 2004
DPeelMD@aol.com
DPeelMD@aol.com
Wed, 18 Feb 2004 04:06:13 EST
-------------------------------1077095173
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
The Philadelphia Inquirer
Posted on Tue, Feb. 17, 2004
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/7969012.htm
Editorial Medical Record Privacy
The U.S. Injustice Dept.
Was it only April? That's when Bush administration officials were touting
their new federal privacy rules as a major advance in safeguarding Americans'
personal medical data.
By winter, though, Attorney General John Ashcroft's Justice Department was
battling to obtain the medical records of patients in Philadelphia, Chicago, New
York and elsewhere who underwent a controversial late-term abortion.
Justice lawyers offered this startling rationale for their records request:
Given "modern medical practice" and the involvement of third-party health
insurers, they said, "individuals no longer possess a reasonable expectation that
their histories will remain completely confidential."
So which is it? Either federal officials are serious about protecting details
of patients' medical care, or they're not. Citizens need to know, one way or
the other. And no fibbing, please.
For a credible answer, the nation may have to look to a federal judge in
Philadelphia.
Patient groups, physicians and privacy advocates have asked U.S. District
Judge Mary A. McLaughlin to review the federal medical privacy rules - and then
toss them out. McLaughlin has the case under consideration, having heard
arguments in mid-December.
Citizens for Health, a patient-privacy advocacy group, made a compelling case
that the protections provided for medical records may be an illusion. A key
shortcoming in the privacy rule under the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996 is that patients' consent is not required to divulge
records in many instances.
U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson dropped the
requirement for patient consent on grounds it would snarl health care. But there are
worse threats than red tape.
Look at the legal challenge to the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003
that's before courts in Chicago and New York. Justice Department officials
defending the ban are seeking patient records under the privacy rule provision that
allows them to do so with a judge's approval. Again, that's without patient
consent.
Government lawyers say they'll protect the patients' identities. They say
they're merely trying to prove these late-term abortions were medically
unnecessary.
But that's hardly going to reassure the dozens of women who had these legal
abortions prior to the Nov. 5 signing of the ban. Their medical privacy is at
risk, and adding to their anguish is terribly unfair.
For every citizen, the Justice Department tactic has to stir similar fears.
What's to safeguard their most personal medical details?
Hahnemann University Hospital and several other hospitals are waging a good
fight against the demand for patient records. But that's not enough. As the
abortion-ban litigation evolves, Congress needs to revisit patient privacy.
A core group of U.S. House members led by Rep. Edward J. Markey (D., Mass.),
has offered a bipartisan measure that would restore patient consent to the
federal privacy rules.
Label as Exhibit 1 the Bush administration's demand for patient records: It's
proof of the need for congressional action that truly will protect Americans'
medical privacy.
-------------------------------1077095173
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><HEAD>
<META charset=3DUS-ASCII http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; cha=
rset=3DUS-ASCII">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1276" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fffff=
f">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<TABLE cellSpacing=3D0 cellPadding=3D0 width=3D"100%" border=3D0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD class=3Dv1>
<DIV>The Philadelphia Inquirer</DIV>
<DIV>Posted on Tue, Feb. 17, 2004</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2><A title=3Dhttp://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/edito=
rial/7969012.htm href=3D"http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/7=
969012.htm">http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/7969012.htm</A=
></FONT></DIV></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD colSpan=3D2>
<DIV class=3Dbody-head>
<TABLE cellSpacing=3D5 cellPadding=3D0 align=3Dright border=3D0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD>
<TABLE cellSpacing=3D0 cellPadding=3D0 width=3D250 border=3D0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD>
<TABLE cellSpacing=3D0 cellPadding=3D3 width=3D"100%" border=3D0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD class=3Dadlabel align=3Dleft><!-- DART AD ID 7229920 --><NOSCRIPT><A tit=
le=3Dhttp://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/inquirer.news/editorial;kw=3Dcenter6;c2=
=3Deditorial;c3=3Deditorial_homepage;pos=3Dcenter6;group=3Drectangle;ord=3D1=
077038656307? href=3D"http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/inquirer.news/editorial=
;kw=3Dcenter6;c2=3Deditorial;c3=3Deditorial_homepage;pos=3Dcenter6;group=3Dr=
ectangle;ord=3D1077038656307?" target=3D_blank><IMG title=3Dhttp://ad.double=
click.net/jump/inquirer.news/editorial;kw=3Dcenter6;c2=3Deditorial;c3=3Dedit=
orial_homepage;pos=3Dcenter6;group=3Drectangle;ord=3D1077038656307? alt=3Dht=
tp://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/inquirer.news/editorial;kw=3Dcenter6;c2=3Dedito=
rial;c3=3Deditorial_homepage;pos=3Dcenter6;group=3Drectangle;ord=3D107703865=
6307? src=3D"http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/inquirer.news/editorial;kw=3Dcente=
r6;c2=3Deditorial;c3=3Deditorial_homepage;pos=3Dcenter6;group=3Drectangle;or=
d=3D1077038656307?" border=3D0></A> </NOSCRIPT></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></T=
D></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><IMG title=3D"" height=3D3=20=
alt=3D"" src=3D"http://www.philly.com/images/common/spacer.gif" width=3D1><B=
R>
<H1>Editorial Medical Record Privacy</H1><IMG title=3D"" height=3D5 alt=3D""=
src=3D"http://www.philly.com/images/common/spacer.gif" width=3D1><BR><B><SP=
AN class=3Ddeck>The U.S. Injustice Dept.</SPAN></B><BR><IMG title=3D"" heigh=
t=3D10 alt=3D"" src=3D"http://www.philly.com/images/common/spacer.gif" width=
=3D1><BR></DIV><SPAN class=3Dbody-content><!-- begin body-content -->
<P>Was it only April? That's when Bush administration officials were touting=
their new federal privacy rules as a major advance in safeguarding American=
s' personal medical data.</P>
<P>By winter, though, Attorney General John Ashcroft's Justice Department wa=
s battling to obtain the medical records of patients in Philadelphia, Chicag=
o, New York and elsewhere who underwent a controversial late-term abortion.<=
/P>
<P>Justice lawyers offered this startling rationale for their records reques=
t: Given "modern medical practice" and the involvement of third-party health=
insurers, they said, "individuals no longer possess a reasonable expectatio=
n that their histories will remain completely confidential."</P>
<P>So which is it? Either federal officials are serious about protecting det=
ails of patients' medical care, or they're not. Citizens need to know, one w=
ay or the other. And no fibbing, please.</P>
<P>For a credible answer, the nation may have to look to a federal judge in=20=
Philadelphia.</P>
<P>Patient groups, physicians and privacy advocates have asked U.S. District=
Judge Mary A. McLaughlin to review the federal medical privacy rules - and=20=
then toss them out. McLaughlin has the case under consideration, having hear=
d arguments in mid-December.</P>
<P>Citizens for Health, a patient-privacy advocacy group, made a compelling=20=
case that the protections provided for medical records may be an illusion. A=
key shortcoming in the privacy rule under the Health Insurance Portability=20=
and Accountability Act of 1996 is that patients' consent is not required to=20=
divulge records in many instances.</P>
<P>U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson dropped the re=
quirement for patient consent on grounds it would snarl health care. But the=
re are worse threats than red tape.</P>
<P>Look at the legal challenge to the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003=
that's before courts in Chicago and New York. Justice Department officials=20=
defending the ban are seeking patient records under the privacy rule provisi=
on that allows them to do so with a judge's approval. Again, that's without=20=
patient consent.</P>
<P>Government lawyers say they'll protect the patients' identities. They say=
they're merely trying to prove these late-term abortions were medically unn=
ecessary.</P>
<P>But that's hardly going to reassure the dozens of women who had these leg=
al abortions prior to the Nov. 5 signing of the ban. Their medical privacy i=
s at risk, and adding to their anguish is terribly unfair.</P>
<P>For every citizen, the Justice Department tactic has to stir similar fear=
s. What's to safeguard their most personal medical details?</P>
<P>Hahnemann University Hospital and several other hospitals are waging a go=
od fight against the demand for patient records. But that's not enough. As t=
he abortion-ban litigation evolves, Congress needs to revisit patient privac=
y.</P>
<P>A core group of U.S. House members led by Rep. Edward J. Markey (D., Mass=
.), has offered a bipartisan measure that would restore patient consent to t=
he federal privacy rules.</P>
<P>Label as Exhibit 1 the Bush administration's demand for patient records:=20=
It's proof of the need for congressional action that truly will protect Amer=
icans' medical privacy.</P></SPAN></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV></BODY></H=
TML>
-------------------------------1077095173--