[Med-privacy] Phil. Inquirer: editorial on Medical Record
Privacy Feb 17, 2004
latanya@privacy.cs.cmu.edu
latanya@privacy.cs.cmu.edu
Wed, 18 Feb 2004 08:51:28 -0500
<html>
<br>
I would very much like to inform the court that these abortion records
could be rendered sufficiently anonymous and then provided in order to be
shared without identifying the patients. I certainly know how to achieve
this scientifically. Recommendations on how to best contact the
parties involved are welcomed.<br>
<br>
--Latanya<br>
_____________________________________________________<br>
Latanya Sweeney, Ph.D.<br>
Director, Laboratory for International Data Privacy<br>
Director, Privacy Technology Center<br>
Assistant Professor of Computer Science, Technology and Policy<br>
School of Computer Science<br>
<br>
Carnegie Mellon University=A0=A0<br>
1301 Wean
Hall=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 &nb=
sp;
Voice/Fax: (412)268-6561<br>
Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Email: latanya@privacy.cs.cmu.edu<br>
<a href=3D"http://privacy.cs.cmu.edu/index.html"=
eudora=3D"autourl">http://privacy.cs.cmu.edu/index.html</a><br>
_____________________________________________________ <br>
<br>
<br>
At 04:06 AM 2/18/2004 -0500, DPeelMD@aol.com wrote: <br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite cite>=A0<br>
The Philadelphia Inquirer<br>
Posted on Tue, Feb. 17, 2004<br>
<font size=3D2><a=
href=3D"http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/7969012.htm">http=
://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/7969012.htm</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<h1><b>Editorial Medical Record Privacy</b></h1><br>
<br>
<br>
</b></h1><font size=3D3><b>The U.S. Injustice Dept.</b><br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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."<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
For a credible answer, the nation may have to look to a federal judge in
Philadelphia.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Government lawyers say they'll protect the patients' identities. They say
they're merely trying to prove these late-term abortions were medically
unnecessary.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
For every citizen, the Justice Department tactic has to stir similar
fears. What's to safeguard their most personal medical details?<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
</blockquote><br>
</font></html>