HIPPA comes home to roost
Gretchen Evans
'secure' under HIPPA, you may have a disappointment ahead.
While the Act DOES create a level of protection against generalized
release of medical information, and it DOES create an accounting of
those releases which will be available upon request, it's also filled
with loopholes and ambiguities in keeping with something designed by
politician/lawyers who have, as we all know, little understanding of
practical matters, and even less for the rights of the common
individual.
The overall Act, which will add an estimated $1 million in cost to the
average hospital to fully implement, decrees that a centralized "ROI"
(Release of Information) file be maintained by each facility detailing
all 'disclosures of PHI' (Protected Health Information). Not a bad
idea at all, but one that's been in existance in most hospitals for
years, just no federal mandate.
Unfortunately, along with this legal mumbo-jumbo our politicos created
certain "exceptions" to this requirement, as follows:
- Disclosures made for treatment, payment, and healthcare operations.
- Disclosures made to the individual.
- Disclosures made for director purposes
- Disclosures made to persons involved in the individual's care.
- Disclosures made for national security or intelligence purposes.
- Disclosures made to corrrectional institutions.
- Disclosures made prior to the date of compliance with the privacy
standards.
- Disclosures made to business associates for purposes of treatment,
payment, and overations (TPO)
- Authorization-based disclosures (Subject to final modification)
Most sound fairly innocuous, I'll agree. But how about your employer
obtaining your families complete health history simply because you
happen to be a member of that group insurance? Or the possibility of
an employer obtaining all your past medical history AFTER you become
covered under the group, but before your probationary period of
employment is ended, and then using that information to rid the
company of those with 'marginal' health histories. You're NOT
supposed to do something like that, but would anyone like to make a
small wager that some companies won't try to do it?
Yep, a bunch of loopholes already... And more to come, I'm sure.
HIPPA appears to be a classic example of some good intentions run
totally amok by politicians and their vested interest groups,
lawyers... (same as politicians, I guess), economists, statisticians,
certain religious groups, etc. There IS a need for a comprehensive
regulation limiting the release of medical information, but creating a
billion-dollar monster certainly isn't the way to go about it.
pixie
Brandon Stahl
Gretchen Evans wrote:
>
> For those that feel that their health information will be more
> 'secure' under HIPPA, you may have a disappointment ahead.
HIPPA, so far, is panning out to be a disaster, on multiple levels.
Nguyen Q. Binh
more information. People knows more. They question more. Sad but very
likely, litigations against healthcare provider, physicians and insurance
would begin to ramp up in greater number. We are facing crisis in
healthcare industry as funding and resources fall further behind the cost.
To some perspective, patient's awareness and well informed will intervine
into the better preventive care which will then help to bring the healthcare
cost down.
It is difficult to know which side of the balance is dominant. I hope that
the benefit of informed patients will contribute more toware preventive and
longterm health than using that information to sue.
Binh
"Gretchen Evans" <gle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:tqa7tuo7ur63294k6...@4ax.com...
amp_spamfree
As it was developed by politicians and lawyers OVER the objections of
researchers,, it provides another fine example of what happens when
you let the political bull into the health care china shop.
And its HIPAA, not HIPPA. And its not all of HIPAA, just Part 2.
And your sensitive information will be more "secure" under HIPAA than
before and there will be a paper trail of releases. Whether or not
this additional security was even needed is a question never addressed
adequately - though the "people" were proported to hae "demanded" this
so your politicos "responded".
Gretchen Evans
wrote:
If you look at the 'exceptions' to the security you might even
question if there is such a thing. And as to the so-called trail of
ROI there's now some question if the multi-facility groups can even
comply with the 'single-source' requirement.
It's a mess, and it's getting worse.
I look at it as a reasonably sound idea destroyed by the crazy element
and the politicos.
pixie