Subject:
|
Re: medical records
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:38:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
84 times
|
| |
|
|
If this is the same act a read about a while ago, I think you'll have to
give your consent before your data may be used:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/computing/01/02/medical.privacy.debate.idg/index.html
=+=
Under the rules, health care organizations would need to have patients sign
a one-time consent agreement allowing their health data to be shared for
billing and treatment purposes. Patients must also be given detailed written
information about their privacy rights and be informed of any planned use of
their personal information. Failure to comply with the regulations could
result in civil fines or criminal charges against those who sell health
information.
=+=
The main problem with the legislation, as reported by CNN, is the extra work
health care professionals will have to undertake to ensure your privacy is
maintained.
Scott A
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> I've mentioned various government anti-privacy initiatives here in the past,
> and the anti-initiatives that various organizations have started to try to
> counteract them, with varying levels of success.
>
> The group has with varying levels of interest/belief/support.
>
> Well, here is one more, for your perusal
>
> http://www.defendyourprivacy.com/
>
> (this org, sponsored by the US LP, was instrumental in defeating some
> previous anti privacy initiatives)
>
> Information there relates to regulations which supposedly will go into
> effect tomorrow that pretty much make your medical records very *non*
> private. Of all the sins, and they are manifold, I think selling my
> prescription records to marketing companies is about the worst of the lot!
>
> People who filled out previous petitions at this site did end up on email
> mailing lists but that has been corrected now, I have been assured.
>
> Give it a gander if you're so inclined, and take whatever action you feel is
> appropriate. I guess I find it ironic that the Bush gang, after campaigning
> to "clean up DC after the mess the Clinton admin left" are apparently going
> to implement seriously flawed regulations that the Clinton cabinet came up
> with, unchanged, and then hope that rulechanges later will resolve them.
> Once my info is released, it is too late for after the fact resolution.
>
> My info is between me and my contracted parties to dispose of. The
> government is not party to any contracts with me, thank you very much.
>
> ++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: medical records
|
| (...) Thanks for the cite... two points. It's a one-time blanket consent (who's not going to consent if the alternative is no treatment?), and this is the standard that applies to orgs, not to the government. The government is exempt from it and can (...) (23 years ago, 16-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | medical records
|
| I've mentioned various government anti-privacy initiatives here in the past, and the anti-initiatives that various organizations have started to try to counteract them, with varying levels of success. The group has with varying levels of (...) (23 years ago, 14-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
3 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
