HIPAA VS Executive Orders

M

madmag

New member
The new Obama gun plan talks in loose terms about sharing information on mental health patients. But how does this actually work? When you visit the doctors office you sign a HIPAA form. This form allows the option of not sharing your medical infromation.

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/consumers/index.html



Health Insurers and Providers who are covered entities must comply with your right to:
•Ask to see and get a copy of your health records
•Have corrections added to your health information
•Receive a notice that tells you how your health information may be used and shared
•Decide if you want to give your permission before your health information can be used or shared for certain purposes, such as for marketing
•Get a report on when and why your health information was shared for certain purposes
•If you believe your rights are being denied or your health information isn’t being protected, you can ◦File a complaint with your provider or health insurer
◦File a complaint with the U.S. Government
Click to expand...

Sorry, maybe this be in the General Discussion Forum.
 
It's ok here - Obama wants to break those protections but that would take legislation.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background-check system.
Click to expand...

Here's a nuance for the "I'm a hunter and you are a nutso" crowd. If your doctor thinks you're a nutso - they won't distinguish between the crazed AR owner and your 30-30 or scoped 30-06 Bambi killing sniper rifle. You get turned in.
 
OK, that brings up another issue. Some hospitals now ask if you have guns at home. I assume most of us would answer with "none of your business". I also assume they could not refuse treatment for non answer of that question.
 
You can lie if you want. It will have absolutely no effect on your treatment and it is not a crime to lie to a doctor. In fact I would say today medical professionals get lied to just as often as bill collectors. My wife is in the field and she sees it every day.

If you want to resist the moral implications of lying, consider it forced upon you by an oppressive regime. The same as you would have lied to the authorities under Stalin if you had lived in the USSR.
 
Another part of the culture of "illegality", lying to your doctor to avoid possible intrusion of the state into matters you consider private.

Nobody can trust anyone and everyone lies. A negative cultural shift promoted by government. This will not make us a better group of people.

Perhaps less difficultly controlled, though. How does one form a militia without trusting those you are with? Or fight effectively, if it comes to that?

This is a feature, not a bug, in the program.
 
The concern will be for those stuck on public hand outs of medical care. If they come up with some officious form and make you sign it then you could be potentially lying on a public document.

There you would be stuck. As usual it will serve as absolutely no hindrance to people intent on criminal acts though.
 
To all the doctors here. How will it complicate your practice if, when you look at your patient, you are seeing a man or woman who considers you an enemy?
 
The concern will be for those stuck on public hand outs of medical care. If they come up with some officious form and make you sign it then you could be potentially lying on a public document
Click to expand...
I whisper this so it doesn't draw too much attention....

meidcare
 
I already don't trust doctors and they have earned it.

Besides they always want to jab sharp point things in me and I really am uncomfortable with that ****.

As for the topic of discussion;

If this is the one you are talking about ....
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
Click to expand...

This is about the States releasing info to the Feds. What info the States have that the Feds want is not stipulated here.
 
The new Obama gun plan talks in loose terms about sharing information on mental health patients. But how does this actually work? When you visit the doctors office you sign a HIPAA form. This form allows the option of not sharing your medical infromation.
Click to expand...

There are several permitted uses and disclosures of protected health information(PHI) covered by HIPAA. In these cases, patient authorization is NOT required. Most of these disclosures are directly related to patient care. But there is a section covering "public interest and benefit activities". Among those permitted reasons listed are "serious threat to health or safety" and "essential government functions".

If the executive order is worded in such a way that the reporting of certain mental health issues falls under one of those provisions, then unauthorized disclosure of relevant PHI to the federal government would be permitted under the law. As far as I can tell it would still be the physician or healthcare institution's prerogative whether to report. I don't see any way that he can require reporting via executive order.

Even if they do collect that information, I'm not sure what good it would do. NICS can only deny you if you have been found mentally defective, involuntarily committed or been declared mentally incompetent. All of those are handled by the judicial system, are they not?
 
gothcopter said:
If the executive order is worded in such a way that the reporting of certain mental health issues falls under one of those provisions, then unauthorized disclosure of relevant PHI to the federal government would be permitted under the law. As far as I can tell it would still be the physician or health care institution's prerogative whether to report. I don't see any way that he can require reporting via executive order.
Click to expand...

Good point. I notice that certain health care providers do not have to abide by the privacy laws. For example, It appears that a health insurance agency does not have to comply to the HIPAA restrictions.

Anyway, it looks like anyone should be very careful about any questions they answer.
 
madmag said:
...I notice that certain health care providers do not have to abide by the privacy laws. For example, It appears that a health insurance agency does not have to comply to the HIPAA restrictions...
Click to expand...
No, an insurance agent is not a Covered Entity under HIPAA. But if an agent represents a health insurer, which is a Covered Entity under HIPAA, the health insurer must, under HIPAA, have a Business Associate agreement in place with the agent making the agent responsible to the insurer for complying with HIPAA in connection with insurance transactions involving that insurer.
 
Here are some general HIPPA Notes:

The HIPPA act of 1996 has two main parts.
Title I – protects health insurance coverage for workers and their families if they change or lose their job.
Title II – known as the administrative simplification provisions, requires the establishment of national standards for electronic healthcare transactions and national data identifiers for providers.

Title II Has the Most Significant Impact on IT Departments. The following title II rules directly affect on IT department:
• Privacy rule
• Transaction and Codes Set Rule
• Unique Identifier Standards Rule
• Security Rule
• Enforcement Rule

Privacy Rule: governed by the Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR)
The privacy rule took effect on 14 April 2003. Its establishes regulation for the use and disclosure of Protected Health Information (PHI). If you apply serialization, you must protect this medical information and it may only be disclosed in the following circumstances:
• The individual within 30 days of a request.
• When the covered entity has obtained written permission of the individual.
• When required by law.
• To facilitate treatment, payment, or health care operations.

When disclosing PHI, it's a covered entity's responsibility to disclose the minimum amount of information necessary.
When information flows over public networks, you must apply some form of encryption, if the information is on a closed network, and access controls are sufficient then encryption is optional.

All this education is good for some things!

Im not a lawyer but I have training on the technical side of this... My guess is that if a doctor or whoever discloses you have some prohibitive condition but you are actually not being treated by that doctor for the condition or being referred for treatment for the prohibitive condition it might be illegal for the doctor to reveal it.... Again I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice... just my thoughts.

HIPAA defines health information as
Created by or received by:
• Health Care Providers
• Health Plans
• Public health authorities
• Employers
• Life Insurers
• Schools or Universities
• Health Care Clearinghouses
And relates to the health of an individual, including:
• Past, present or future health
• Physical health, mental health, or condition of an individual
• Past, present or future payments for health care
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top