List Archives

Sat Oct 31 18:09:27 GMT 2009

Ooops: Health INSURANCE Portability and Accountability et cetera.

I type quicker than I think.

(Sadly, I don't type all that fast.)

Pret

-----Original Message-----
From: Pret Bjorn [mailto:p.bjorn at tds.net] 
Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 1:59 PM
To: 'Trauma-List [TRAUMA.ORG]'
Subject: RE: Federal HIPAA Violations

HIPAA: Health Information Portability and Accountability Act (Title II,
1996).  One 'P,' two 'A's.  Sounds very similar to standards in the UK.

In a nutshell: health professionals must conduct themselves, outside of
their clinical responsibilities, as if they have never met their patients.
Even the fact of that relationship belongs to the patient, not the provider.

Despite all the bristling and dismissiveness, privacy protections are by no
means burdensome or unfair.  They merely enforce proper professional
conduct.

Pret

-----Original Message-----
From: trauma-list-bounces at trauma.org [mailto:trauma-list-bounces at trauma.org]
On Behalf Of Doc Holiday
Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 12:40 PM
To: .Trauma List
Subject: RE: Federal HIPAA Violations

From: talwest at mac.com
> So wait, let me get this straight.

--> You "sound" angry. There is no need, really. This list is about our own
information and education - opinions may well be all we have!

> The New York Daily News...

--> I work in the UK, so not familiar with US law. We don't have "HIPPA",
but I think our rules are not too far from it on this issue. What a
newspaper can or cannot do has no bearing at all on this issue in the UK and
I doubt it will be important in the USA.

> But if Dr. Teperman mentions in passing the words "retrohepatic cava"...

--> Then he, at least in the UK, as a physician with duty of care for that
patient will be in one of ONLY TWO categories:

1. IN POSSESSION of consent do disclose such information to anyone with
internet access

OR

2. IN BREACH OF HIS DUTIES AS A PHYSICIAN and hence in (potential) legal AND
(at least here) registration trouble.

I realise I am applying UK law here, but, as one involved in a number of
such cases in the past, as an expert, with the occasional case involving
Americans, I believe HIPPA will not be very much more forgiving. If one gets
taken to court in the USA, standing there and saying that some newspaper
reporter was also naughty will not likely help much.

A "funny" aspect in the UK is that the doctor in charge of a patient still
needs consent to disclose medical information EVEN IF IT IS ALREADY REPORTED
IN THE MEDIA. This is because such permission is legally required. In a
couple of cases in the past this has come up and the defence tried to use
it, but the patient's side claimed that readers do not tend to treat
newspaper info as being as reliable as what a doctor says...

> ... to the thirty-two or so of us that read his post

--> Anyone with Google can access these e-mails. Many people on this list
share computers at home or at work with others who might see this. And,
regardless, it's the inappropriate disclosure of information which is the
problem, not the quantity of people involved on the receiving end.

> you're gonna jump all over him for a HIPAA violation?

--> You'd know if he "jumped"! This is not even a little "skip"... ;-)

And it's not HIM one would have to worry about...

_________________________________________________________________
Chat to your friends for free on selected mobiles
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/174426567/direct/01/
--
trauma-list : TRAUMA.ORG
To change your settings or unsubscribe visit:
http://www.trauma.org/index.php?/community/

List Archives

For your convenience, find the Trauma List Archive Below

Federal HIPAA Violations