[Med-privacy] Philly Inquirer editorial: Medical Privacy, A dose of Bad Medicine

Fri, 06 Jan 2006 09:11:22 -0500

----------MailBlocks_8C7E0E234981739_C88_2070_mblk-d16.sysops.aol.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/13561871.htm?template=3Dco=
ntentModules/printstory.jsp

=20
=20

Posted on Fri, Jan. 06, 2006

Medical Privacy=20

Editorial | A dose of bad medicine

In cases stretching back years, the federal courts have upheld Americans' fu=
ndamental right to keep prying eyes from obtaining access to their most pers=
onal health information.
Why, then, have the courts of late been unable, or unwilling, to plug the bi=
ggest potential lapse in patient privacy - one triggered by a Bush administr=
ation policy?
That's a question of national importance as well as local interest, since th=
e legal battle over patient privacy is being played out in federal court in=20=
Philadelphia.
In successive rulings - most recently by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the T=
hird Circuit - judges have written opinions that express support for patient=
 privacy. But their decisions would actually allow wider access to patient d=
ata.
Under challenge is a so-called federal "privacy rule" enacted in 2003 as par=
t of HIPAA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.=
 Patient groups, physicians and privacy advocates make a compelling case tha=
t HIPAA's privacy protections are an illusion.
With an Orwellian turn of phrase, the "privacy rule" has little to do with p=
atient confidentiality. In fact, it permits the widespread sharing of medica=
l data among 800,000 or so health, business and government entities.
Patients can limit access to their medical information if they refrain from=20=
seeking care, especially for mental health and other sensitive illnesses suc=
h as cancer and AIDS. But that's neither good medicine nor good public healt=
h policy.
The HIPAA regulation was enacted in the name of streamlining health-care ser=
vices and cutting red tape while protecting sensitive health data. But its u=
ndisputed side effect has been to rupture any notion of patient privacy.
Even worse, the rule as rewritten by administration officials says a patient=
's consent is not needed to share his health information. (An earlier versio=
n crafted by the Clinton White House gave patients far more control over the=
ir records.)
In a recent ruling, Third Circuit Judges Marjorie O. Rendell, Theodore A. Mc=
Kee and Richard L. Nygaard noted their skepticism of Justice Department clai=
ms that Americans' medical records are secure. But the judges turned down th=
e legal challenge to the HIPAA rule and came to the surprising and troubling=
 conclusion that it isn't the government's fault if health-care providers in=
fringe upon patient privacy.
There's enough confusion surrounding the ruling to warrant a second look by=20=
the entire Third Circuit appeals court. Failing that, the Supreme Court need=
s to clarify whether patients have a meaningful right to protect their medic=
al records.
An even better prescription for patient privacy would be for Congress to res=
tore patients' right of consent over the use of their medical records. A pro=
posal that does that from Rep. Edward J. Markey (D., Mass.) - so far shunned=
 by Republican leaders - illustrates how that could be done without hamperin=
g health-care providers' important work.

=A9 2006 Philadelphia Inquirer and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved=
.
http://www.philly.com=20

=20
=20
Deborah C. Peel, MD
Founder & Chairman
Patient Privacy Rights Foundation
P.O. Box 248
Austin, TX 78767
Phone: 512.732.0033
Fax: 512.732.0036
Mobile: 512-970-9007
Email: dpeelmd@patientprivacyrights.org
URL: www.patientprivacyrights.org

----------MailBlocks_8C7E0E234981739_C88_2070_mblk-d16.sysops.aol.com
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML><BODY><DIV style=3D'font-family: "Verdana"; font-size: 10pt;'><DIV>
<DIV>
<TABLE cellSpacing=3D0 cellPadding=3D0 width=3D"97%" align=3Dcenter border=
=3D0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=3Dtop><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><A title=3Dhttp://www.philly.co=
m/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/13561871.htm?template=3DcontentModules/printst=
ory.jsp href=3D"http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/13561871.h=
tm?template=3DcontentModules/printstory.jsp">http://www.philly.com/mld/inqui=
rer/news/editorial/13561871.htm?template=3DcontentModules/printstory.jsp</A>=
</FONT><BR><A title=3Dhttp://www.philly.com/ href=3D"http://www.philly.com/"=
><IMG title=3Dhttp://www.philly.com/ src=3D"http://www.philly.com/images/log=
os/site/philly/philly/archives_title.gif" border=3D0></A></TD></TR></TBODY><=
/TABLE>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<TABLE cellSpacing=3D0 cellPadding=3D0 width=3D"97%" align=3Dcenter border=
=3D0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD align=3Dmiddle bgColor=3D#cccccc><IMG height=3D2 src=3D"http://www.phill=
y.com/images/common/spacer.gif" width=3D1><BR></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD align=3Dmiddle><IMG height=3D1 src=3D"http://www.philly.com/images/commo=
n/spacer.gif" width=3D1><BR></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD align=3Dmiddle bgColor=3D#cccccc><IMG height=3D1 src=3D"http://www.phill=
y.com/images/common/spacer.gif" width=3D1><BR></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><IMG=
 height=3D5 src=3D"http://www.philly.com/images/common/spacer.gif" width=3D"=
100%"><BR>
<TABLE cellSpacing=3D0 cellPadding=3D0 width=3D"100%" border=3D0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD colSpan=3D4>
<HR width=3D"97%" color=3D#cccccc SIZE=3D1>
</TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD width=3D15 rowSpan=3D7><IMG height=3D1 src=3D"http://www.philly.com/imag=
es/common/spacer.gif" width=3D15></TD>
<TD>Posted on Fri, Jan. 06, 2006</TD>
<TD width=3D15 rowSpan=3D7><IMG height=3D1 src=3D"http://www.philly.com/imag=
es/common/spacer.gif" width=3D15></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD colSpan=3D2><IMG height=3D10 src=3D"http://www.philly.com/images/common/=
spacer.gif" width=3D1></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD colSpan=3D2>
<DIV class=3Dbody-head><B><SPAN class=3Dsig>Medical Privacy </SPAN></B><BR><=
B><SPAN class=3Dkicker></SPAN></B><BR><SPAN class=3Dheadline>Editorial | A d=
ose of bad medicine</SPAN><BR><B><SPAN class=3Ddeck></SPAN></B><BR><B><SPAN=20=
class=3Dbyline></SPAN></B><BR><B><SPAN class=3Dcreditline></SPAN></B><BR></D=
IV><!-- begin body-content -->
<DIV>In cases stretching back years, the federal courts have upheld American=
s' fundamental right to keep prying eyes from obtaining access to their most=
 personal health information.</DIV>
<DIV>Why, then, have the courts of late been unable, or unwilling, to plug t=
he biggest potential lapse in patient privacy - one triggered by a Bush admi=
nistration policy?</DIV>
<DIV>That's a question of national importance as well as local interest, sin=
ce the legal battle over patient privacy is being played out in federal cour=
t in Philadelphia.</DIV>
<DIV>In successive rulings - most recently by the U.S. Court of Appeals for=20=
the Third Circuit - judges have written opinions that express support for pa=
tient privacy. But their decisions would actually allow wider access to pati=
ent data.</DIV>
<DIV>Under challenge is a so-called federal "privacy rule" enacted in 2003 a=
s part of HIPAA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of=20=
1996. Patient groups, physicians and privacy advocates make a compelling cas=
e that HIPAA's privacy protections are an illusion.</DIV>
<DIV>With an Orwellian turn of phrase, the "privacy rule" has little to do w=
ith patient confidentiality. In fact, it permits the widespread sharing of m=
edical data among 800,000 or so health, business and government entities.</D=
IV>
<DIV>Patients can limit access to their medical information if they refrain=20=
from seeking care, especially for mental health and other sensitive illnesse=
s such as cancer and AIDS. But that's neither good medicine nor good public=20=
health policy.</DIV>
<DIV>The HIPAA regulation was enacted in the name of streamlining health-car=
e services and cutting red tape while protecting sensitive health data. But=20=
its undisputed side effect has been to rupture any notion of patient privacy=
.</DIV>
<DIV>Even worse, the rule as rewritten by administration officials says a pa=
tient's consent is not needed to share his health information. (An earlier v=
ersion crafted by the Clinton White House gave patients far more control ove=
r their records.)</DIV>
<DIV>In a recent ruling, Third Circuit Judges Marjorie O. Rendell, Theodore=20=
A. McKee and Richard L. Nygaard noted their skepticism of Justice Department=
 claims that Americans' medical records are secure. But the judges turned do=
wn the legal challenge to the HIPAA rule and came to the surprising and trou=
bling conclusion that it isn't the government's fault if health-care provide=
rs infringe upon patient privacy.</DIV>
<DIV>There's enough confusion surrounding the ruling to warrant a second loo=
k by the entire Third Circuit appeals court. Failing that, the Supreme Court=
 needs to clarify whether patients have a meaningful right to protect their=20=
medical records.</DIV>
<DIV>An even better prescription for patient privacy would be for Congress t=
o restore patients' right of consent over the use of their medical records.=20=
A proposal that does that from Rep. Edward J. Markey (D., Mass.) - so far sh=
unned by Republican leaders - illustrates how that could be done without ham=
pering health-care providers' important work.</DIV><!-- end body-content -->=
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR><BR><BR>
<HR width=3D"97%" color=3D#cccccc SIZE=3D1>

<CENTER><SPAN class=3Dbyline>=A9 2006 Philadelphia Inquirer and wire service=
 sources. All Rights Reserved.<BR>http://www.philly.com </SPAN></CENTER><BR>=
&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Deborah C. Peel, MD<BR>Founder &amp; Chairman<BR>Patient Privacy Rights=
 Foundation<BR>P.O. Box 248<BR>Austin, TX 78767<BR>Phone: 512.732.0033<BR>Fa=
x: 512.732.0036<BR>Mobile: 512-970-9007<BR>Email: dpeelmd@patientprivacyrigh=
ts.org<BR>URL: www.patientprivacyrights.org<BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HT=
ML>

----------MailBlocks_8C7E0E234981739_C88_2070_mblk-d16.sysops.aol.com--