posted
Two of interest to lymies. In the first one, the privacy advocates are now going to try again with congress. Anyone with spare time on their hands might contact their federal legislators and ask for more medical privacy.
------------------------------------------------
Medical privacy case rejected Monday, October 2, 2006
Seattle Post-Intelligencer - 10/2/06 - The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a lawsuit by privacy advocates who say the Bush administration's rules for disclosing medical records are too lax. Ten groups representing 750,000 consumers, medical practitioners and their patients challenged a federal rule that encourages development of an information system for electronic transfer of health data.
An initial proposal would have required health-care providers to obtain patients' consent before disclosing health information. That approach prompted complaints from professionals in the health care sector, who said it would significantly impair the industry's ability to provide timely and efficient medical services.
The final rule put in place in 2003 leaves it up to health-care providers whether to seek patients' consent to use or disclose information for routine uses. The rule requires that disclosure must be limited to the "minimum necessary" information to accomplish the intended purpose. It also allows states to have more stringent standards if they wish.
In a decision the privacy advocates had sought to reverse, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that any privacy violations could not properly be blamed on the government. The federal rule did not "compel" or "command" any privacy violations, said the Philadelphia-based appeals court.
The rule does not displace existing privacy protections, the government argued.
The case is Citizens for Health v. Michael O. Leavitt, 05-1311.
{This is a sad day. The Supreme Court declined to hear our case requesting relief from the government's actions that eliminated citizens' fundamental rights to privacy under the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments to the Constitution. ~ Dr. Deborah Peel, Patient Privacy Rights}
Visit seattlepi.com
--------------------------------------------
The second issue is that the Blue Cross health insurance plans have decided to produce a huge combined database of patient information to be available to outside entities. They claim patients cannot opt out of this database. Just think what a gold mine of information this will be for ins cos and state medical boards to persecute lyme docs.
Here is the url for the press release about this program:
Does anyone else think that the corporations have taken over control of the country?
Posts: 8430 | From Not available | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
bettyg
Unregistered
posted
Lou, I could read the BCBS 2nd post ... BAD NEWS! I'll come back later around noon to reread this.
Hope folks get to calling/faxing/emailing/snail mail letters to their DC HOUSE OF REPS since the bill is there!
Lou, I couldn't read the 1st thing you talked about, can you edit it to 1 sentence paragraphs since it is so wordy so we can comprehend/read it. Thanks my friend Lou. Bettyg
NP40
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6711
posted
The Fascists that run our country now believe you have no right to privacy, especially with the additional addendum that asking you for access to your medical records may cost them a couple of pennies.
Can't let a little thing like the Constitution get in the way of corporate profits.
Posts: 1632 | From Northern Wisconsin | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
treepatrol
Honored Contributor (10K+ posts)
Member # 4117
-------------------- Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Remember Iam not a Doctor Just someone struggling like you with Tick Borne Diseases.
The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations. If you would like to support the Network and the LymeNet system of Web services, please send your donations to:
The
Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey 907 Pebble Creek Court,
Pennington,
NJ08534USA http://www.lymenet.org/