Did You Know Your Doctor Is Now Required to Rat You Out?

[hang a left]

So I go to the doctor. My regular medical center. Haven't been there for about a year. They make me sign a bunch of new paperwork and make sign a receipt for this notice of privacy practice.

This causes me great concern. The way this pamplet is written, it appears that the stage has been set for the various government agencies to use your doctors and medical clinics as a source of information. Does this bother anyone else.

snip>

12. Law enforcement. We may, and are sometimes required by law, to disclose your health information to a law enforcement official for purposes such as identifying of locating a suspect, fugitive, material witness or missing person, complying with a court order, warrant, grand jury subpoena and other law enforcement purposes.

snip>

15. Public safety. We may, and are sometimes required by law, to disclose your health information to appropriate persons in order to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the health or safety of a particular person or the general public.


16. Specialized government functions. We may disclose your health information for military or national security purposes or to correctional institutions or law enforcement officers that have you in their lawful custody.

snip>
on edit took out my emoticon that I thought I could post

[demnan]

1. Yes this bothers me

It's a way to deny security clearances, and therefore jobs, to people who might be on antidepressants, have AIDS or have substance abuse problems.

[hang a left]

5. I don't know why, but I think it is more sinister than that.

But I always do that.

[Bandit]

2. Wonder if Limbaugh signed any such forms?

:shrug:

[DrWeird]

12 sounds reasonable.

If they've got a warrant, we'll give them your files. Nothing new there.


15 and 16 are PATRIOT act bullshit.

[Streetdoc270]

7. 16 but not 15....

These statements are nothing new, just that now under the HIPPA act you must disclose your paitent privacy policy to anyone who receives treetment from you, and a signed statement that you received notice of these policies becomes part of your perminent health care record. Health professionals always had the legal authorty and mandated responsibilities to disclose certian medical information in the interest of public health or law enforcement ie. teburcuclosis, Hanta virus or other virulent infectious deseases. These rules also protect your children in schools by alerting parents to outbreaks of fifth disease, measels, lice, and flu.

:edited for spelling

[hang a left]

8. 15 ?

Could they not apply this to people that they would like to quarantine?

[Streetdoc270]

10. only if they are a health risk

The person must be an immediate danger to the public, for example a person with TB must undergo manditory treatment because of the transmission rates of TB in an airborne mode, where a person with AIDS who could be just as contagious does not pose a public risk because there is no casual transmission.

And re reading the line 16 in the origional post it appears to me that that just allows for the transfer of your medical records to the agency that has arrested you and is holding you in jail.

[hang a left]

11. Oh really?

"We may disclose your health information for military or national security purposes"

Then what does this mean.

[Streetdoc270]

15. you got me on that one.....

I guess if they suspect you of being a 'suicide anthrax, botox, strepacoccix carrier' then they can read your files to see if you belong in Camp Gitmo :)


Ok so 16 probably is PATRIOT ACT bushshit I'll have to get the full policy from my agency and see what the full wording on it is, hard to work in context...

[jus_the_facts]

3. seems Rush's lawyers proved this couldn't be done legally......

....after his medical records were to be scrutinized by law officials for his unlawful acts regarding prescriptions.....the ACLU thought so too and was defending him in some fashion too against this same type of *freedom of information*....it was deemed against patient confedentiality by a judge....guess the rules still only apply to some and not all. :shrug:

[Bozita]

4. I got one of those from my dentist

He didn't like it any more than I did.

[wellstone_democrat]

6. I refused to sign it and was refused treatment

I noted to the physician (a new one in my new city) that those records could be obtained by subpeona if necessary but I was not going to give carte blanche to anyone *associated* with anything they could *claim* was national security related to come in and thumb through my records at will. I told him I knew they could do what they wanted but I would not *agree* to it.
I was told that if I did not sign, he would not treat me.

Funny, I when I first saw this pre-op last fall, I said I would not sign and the response then was : "whatever, sign "no" and initial those lines and we've done our job of telling you that they will take the records anyway." Sounds like the hospital sees more questions or has less personally invested than the doc with the signed photo of "local boy" GW Bush in his waiting room...

[no_hypocrisy]

9. So, if I wanted my anonymity and wanted your BS M.D. to treat me, I'd

have to go under an assumed name with false documentation and pay in cash (no insurance), because I'd have to sign the consent form first, right?

[Streetdoc270]

12. just don't sign the privacy form...

It doesn't change anything anyway the Dr's office (or any medical professional) is bound by the law whether you sign the form or not, its not a consent for treatment just an acknowledgment that you read and understand the privacy policy for that office.

[wellstone_democrat]

13. cash did not matter

seriously, it was a minor thing and I was not sure about my insurance between jobs so I was (and they knew I was) paying cash. It was about records . I guess if I went in with false ID, cash and signed the damn form it would not have been an issue. Frankly, I went to the ER which gave me a 30 day 'script for the accidentally destroyed prescription (the nature of the drug for a chronic disease, the unlikely event anyone would want to "abuse" it made this possible) after talking to a nurse for five minutes. Funny, they most have forgotten the same records statement in their own ream of paper I signed!

BTW, I found a local doc whose attitude was the same as the pre-op ward "sign "no" initial it and we are covered and they will ignore you anyway and take what they want" She's pretty sharp and obviously disgusted. This doc's a keeper.

[Jack from Charlotte]

16. I refused to sign it for my dentist........

about 2 months ago before an early morning cleaning/check-up. The woman in the office said then I couldn't be treated. I've been with this dentist for about 10 years, by the way. I said, "Fine. See you." Dr. said...... wait up. Called his lawyer. I said hurry 'cause I'm leaving and NOT signing. Dr. came back and said cross out the parts you won't agree to, which, I'd already done.. and sign." Which I did.

I'm no radical Jack, type. But I sure wish more would protest this kind of crap. Someone needs to bring this to O'Reilly's attention. 'Splain to me why I should allow the feds to see my med doc.s.

[Hammie]

14. No problem.

Cross out the offending items and note that you absolutely do not give permission to have your personal information disclosed to any goverment agency.

It won't change anything, but you'll feel better.

[Bozita]

17. Today's column by Maureen Farrell attacks the loss of rights

http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/04/02/far04005.html

Maureen Farrell at BuzzFlash.com

February 23, 2004


The Nature of the Threat

by Maureen Farrell

In an Oct. 2001 article entitled "Liberties Lost: Unintended Consequences of the Anti-Terror Law," former White House counsel John Dean lamented that the "right to dissent" was in jeopardy. Charging that the PATRIOT Act twisted the definition of domestic terrorism, he wrote "home-grown political activists would be considered terrorists under this new law."

Back then, of course, those who raised concerns were either paranoid or naïve and didn't understand the nature of the threat. Earlier this month, however, when a federal judge ordered officials at Iowa's Drake University to hand over records on an antiwar forum held in November (and four activists who attended the forum were also subpoenaed) such concern was proven prescient. While Drake University President David Maxwell expressed concerns that the grand jury's demand was a violation of students' civil rights, National Lawyers Guild president Michael Avery put it more bluntly: "This administration is trying to criminalize dissent, characterize protesters as terrorists and trying to intimidate and marginalize those opposed to its policies," he said.

Meanwhile, Mark Smith, a lobbyist for the American Association of University Professors, told the Associated Press that this case was reminiscent of "red squads" of the '50s and Georgetown law professor David D. Cole agreed. "I've heard of such a thing, but not since the 1950s, the McCarthy era. It sends a very troubling message about government officials' attitudes toward basic liberties," he said.

Though the subpoenas were withdrawn after the story made headlines, concerns remain. "In the two years since 9/11, we have heard one refrain from the Justice Department every time the executive branch seeks to arrogate more power to itself: 'trust us, we're the government,'" Benjamin Stone, executive director of the Iowa ACLU, explained. "But, if it is going to be issuing secretive slapdash subpoenas and then rescinding them to save face, how can we trust that more expansive surveillance and investigative powers will be used properly?"

more, lots more...