[Med-privacy] Robert Gellman on Texas attorney general and privacy

[DPeelMD@aol.com]

--part1_23.3b92c536.2d76b325_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Bob Gellman seems confused: the whole point of the TX AG's ruling is to give 
the media access to information about people in hospitals and emergency care 
WITHOUT their permission.

That is what disturbs doctors and patients alike. And BTW--what happened to 
just asking patients what they want? 

Deborah Peel, MD
President, www.patientprivacyrights.org

Dr. Deborah C. Peel
Patients hold ultimate right to decide privacy issue
SPECIAL TO THE AMERICAN-STATESMAN
Friday, February 20, 2004

If President Bush can block access to his military medical records, why can't 
the rest of us can't block access to our civilian hospital and emergency room 
records?

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott blew it when he ruled that the state's 
public information law trumps Texans' longstanding rights to consent to the 
release of their personal health information.

Texas laws built on 2,000 years of medical ethics require that patients 
decide what is revealed about their medical care and to whom, not government 
officials. So why is Texas' top lawyer making that call for all of us?

Why did he give the media the right to report on the medical condition of 
patients who have been injured or celebrities who land in the hospital without 
asking those people's permission? Could he really believe that media rights 
override patient rights?

Somehow, our attorney general came to the bizarre conclusion that Texas' 
freedom of information laws are stronger than Texas' medical privacy laws. But 
state and federal courts, and even the U.S. Supreme Court, have always provided 
the strongest privacy protections of all for sensitive medical records.

How did we get to this strange place?

This whole mess started when gross misinterpretations of the federal medical 
privacy rules known as the Health Information Portability and Accountability 
Act (HIPAA) created confusion about how to protect patient privacy.

By enacting the first national medical privacy law, the government gave every 
American the right to medical privacy. The government expected patients to 
have more control over their medical records as a result of HIPAA, not less. In 
fact, HIPAA states that more stringent privacy protective state laws and 
medical ethics should prevail over weaker standards in HIPAA. HIPAA was to be a 
floor for medical privacy.

Hospital attorneys wrongly translated the federal HIPAA Privacy Rule into 
restrictive and bad hospital policies nobody wants. Stories of how heavy-handed 
the government was in dealing with fraud and abuse -- assessing such huge 
advance penalties that the alleged criminals were often forced to settle rather 
than risk litigation -- made hospital attorneys prone to "just say no" to 
requests for information from the press out of fear of violating HIPAA.

The media, long used to being able to report details about car wrecks and 
shooting or crime victims, found that hospitals would no longer tell them much of 
anything. So they appealed to Abbott for access to our medical information. 
And he gave it to them.

Abbott, the people's lawyer, should have insisted that patients be asked what 
they want, as required by Texas law and medical ethics. He should have 
insisted that hospitals and the media ask patients permission to release 
information. Most of us would be happy to give it.

The "right to be let alone" by the state and to choose who knows our most 
personal information is really the right to liberty and the foundation of all 
human and civil rights.

In the words of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, "the right to be 
let alone -- (is)the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by 
civilized men." Brandeis saw the framers of the U.S. Constitution as 
protecting the privacy and sensibilities of the single person against the state, as a 
part of "the more general right to the immunity of the person --the right to 
one's personality."

We need privacy to be free. We desire to be known only to those we choose for 
ourselves.

The Texas attorney general should guarantee that we are let alone by making 
sure we are asked if we want privacy when we are sick or injured.

Peel is an Austin psychoanalyst. She is president of the Appeal for Patient 
Privacy (www.patientprivacyrights.org).

Find this article at: 
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/auto/epaper/editions/friday/editorial
_0453eb0be148d1cc0089.html 
 




--part1_23.3b92c536.2d76b325_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><HTML><FONT  SIZE=3D2 PTSIZE=3D10>Bob Gel=
lman seems confused: the whole point of the TX AG's ruling is to give the me=
dia access to information about people in hospitals and emergency care WITHO=
UT their permission.<BR>
<BR>
That is what disturbs doctors and patients alike. And BTW--what happened to=20=
just asking patients what they want? <BR>
<BR>
Deborah Peel, MD<BR>
President, www.patientprivacyrights.org<BR>
<BR>
<B>Dr. Deborah C. Peel<BR>
Patients hold ultimate right to decide privacy issue<BR>
SPECIAL TO THE AMERICAN-STATESMAN<BR>
Friday, February 20, 2004</B><BR>
<BR>
If President Bush can block access to his military medical records, why can'=
t the rest of us can't block access to our civilian hospital and emergency r=
oom records?<BR>
<BR>
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott blew it when he ruled that the state's pu=
blic information law trumps Texans' longstanding rights to consent to the re=
lease of their personal health information.<BR>
<BR>
Texas laws built on 2,000 years of medical ethics require that patients deci=
de what is revealed about their medical care and to whom, not government off=
icials. So why is Texas' top lawyer making that call for all of us?<BR>
<BR>
Why did he give the media the right to report on the medical condition of pa=
tients who have been injured or celebrities who land in the hospital without=
 asking those people's permission? Could he really believe that media rights=
 override patient rights?<BR>
<BR>
Somehow, our attorney general came to the bizarre conclusion that Texas' fre=
edom of information laws are stronger than Texas' medical privacy laws. But=20=
state and federal courts, and even the U.S. Supreme Court, have always provi=
ded the strongest privacy protections of all for sensitive medical records.<=
BR>
<BR>
How did we get to this strange place?<BR>
<BR>
This whole mess started when gross misinterpretations of the federal medical=
 privacy rules known as the Health Information Portability and Accountabilit=
y Act (HIPAA) created confusion about how to protect patient privacy.<BR>
<BR>
By enacting the first national medical privacy law, the government gave ever=
y American the right to medical privacy. The government expected patients to=
 have more control over their medical records as a result of HIPAA, not less=
. In fact, HIPAA states that more stringent privacy protective state laws an=
d medical ethics should prevail over weaker standards in HIPAA. HIPAA was to=
 be a floor for medical privacy.<BR>
<BR>
Hospital attorneys wrongly translated the federal HIPAA Privacy Rule into re=
strictive and bad hospital policies nobody wants. Stories of how heavy-hande=
d the government was in dealing with fraud and abuse -- assessing such huge=20=
advance penalties that the alleged criminals were often forced to settle rat=
her than risk litigation -- made hospital attorneys prone to "just say no" t=
o requests for information from the press out of fear of violating HIPAA.<BR=
>
<BR>
The media, long used to being able to report details about car wrecks and sh=
ooting or crime victims, found that hospitals would no longer tell them much=
 of anything. So they appealed to Abbott for access to our medical informati=
on. And he gave it to them.<BR>
<BR>
Abbott, the people's lawyer, should have insisted that patients be asked wha=
t they want, as required by Texas law and medical ethics. He should have ins=
isted that hospitals and the media ask patients permission to release inform=
ation. Most of us would be happy to give it.<BR>
<BR>
The "right to be let alone" by the state and to choose who knows our most pe=
rsonal information is really the right to liberty and the foundation of all=20=
human and civil rights.<BR>
<BR>
In the words of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, "the right to be=20=
let alone -- (is)the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued=
 by civilized men." Brandeis saw the framers of the U.S. Constitution as pro=
tecting the privacy and sensibilities of the single person against the state=
, as a part of "the more general right to the immunity of the person --the r=
ight to one's personality."<BR>
<BR>
We need privacy to be free. We desire to be known only to those we choose fo=
r ourselves.<BR>
<BR>
The Texas attorney general should guarantee that we are let alone by making=20=
sure we are asked if we want privacy when we are sick or injured.<BR>
<BR>
Peel is an Austin psychoanalyst. She is president of the Appeal for Patient=20=
Privacy (www.patientprivacyrights.org).<BR>
<BR>
Find this article at: <BR>
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/auto/epaper/editions/friday/editori=
al_0453eb0be148d1cc0089.html <BR>
 <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>
--part1_23.3b92c536.2d76b325_boundary--