|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
'Without Consent' yet another Bush attack on privacy
 Mon Apr 01, 2002 12:28 am
|
 |
|
Yet another flagrant attack on personal privacy by the "selected" Bush administration. We can only imagine the payoffs to yet other major campaign contributors.
Looking for Right-Wing apologists to justify this latest in ongoing abuses of power: (cy, seeker? this is YOUR guy at the helm)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/03/31/ED210734.DTL
EDITORIAL
On Medical Privacy
Without consent
The Bush administration is trying to weaken one of the core principles of new medical privacy regulations: that doctors and hospitals should have to obtain a patient's consent before sending records to other medical facilities, pharmacies or insurance companies.
Under the revised Bush proposal, which is now being circulated for public comment and would take effect next year, health-care providers would merely be required to notify patients about who might see their records.
The deletion of the consent requirement represents a significant weakening of the rules that were proposed by the Clinton administration.
Several members of Congress, including Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., have suggested they may introduce legislation to override the Bush proposal. But it would be an uphill fight. The health-care industry lobbied vigorously against the consent requirement, contending that it would prevent patients from getting timely care.
The industry's complaints were greatly overblown. The Clinton-proposed rule did need tweaking -- such as clarifying the authority of doctors to call in prescriptions over the phone -- but the Bush administration went too far by scrapping the consent requirement altogether.
Worse yet, one area in which the Bush administration claimed to have strengthened consumer control -- the sale of patient information for marketing purposes -- has an enormous loophole. The Bush rules declare that a company's communication with an individual about "alternative therapies" should not be classified as "marketing."
Joanne Hustead, senior counsel for the Health Privacy Project at Georgetown University, said "we became quite alarmed" in scrutinizing the fine print of the Bush proposal.
Under the marketing loophole, for example, a pharmacist could sell a list of patients who are taking a particular medicine. A drug manufacturer could use that list to market an alternative medication to the patients.
Most people regard their medical history as an intensely private matter. Various surveys have shown that people sometimes voluntarily pay for treatments out of pocket to keep their health plans -- and potentially their employers -- from learning about them.
The federal government should adopt privacy rules that respect the sensitivity of personal medical information. The Bush administration should reconsider its elimination of the consent requirement. Patients should have a right to be actively involved in deciding who should see their medical records -- and who should not.
The federal rules would not pre-empt more restrictive state laws, such as California's, but patients here should nevertheless be concerned in this era of frequent travel and free-flowing information. Even the California medical- confidentiality law has a serious weakness -- it does not include pharmaceutical companies -- that Assemblywoman Carole Migden, D-S.F., is trying to address. Her bill, AB2191, would prevent pharmaceutical companies from selling or sharing medical information for marketing purposes.
Consumers should not let the health-care industry dictate the ground rules for the sharing of medical records, which has become a cottage industry for the profession. Patients must have a say in what happens with information about the most personal aspects of their lives.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Express your views
Let the Bush administration know what you think about its proposed revisions to federal policy on medical privacy. Comments must be received by April 26.
You can submit your comments electronically via: www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/
Or by postal mail to:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Office for Civil Rights
Attention: Privacy 2
Hubert H. Humphrey Building
Room 425A
200 Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20201
Let Assemblywoman Carole Migden know what you think about AB2191 by e- mailing her at: Carole.Migden@assembly.ca.gov.
Or by postal mail to:
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0013
Learn more about the issue from:
Georgetown University's Health Privacy Project (www.healthprivacy.org)
California HealthCare Foundation (www.chcf.org) |
| |
|
|
Dan Rockwell
Joined: 10 Dec 2001
Posts: 1988
Location: Stamford, CT, USA |
|
Tue Apr 16, 2002 8:44 am
|
|
|
I found this disturbing article from the London Telegraph.
Blair backs sweeping new powers for snoopers
By Rachel Sylvester
(Filed: 12/04/2002)
TONY BLAIR is preparing to give Government departments sweeping new powers to exchange information about individuals without their consent.
A report yesterday from the Prime Minister's think tank, the Performance and Innovation Unit, calls for a great increase in the sharing of confidential data, such as medical records, tax information and benefit entitlements.
Although it does not specify the kinds of information that could be exchanged, it could lead to benefit applications being checked with medical records; passport details being given to the tax office: or driving licence details being compared with information on the electoral roll.
Publication has been delayed by more than a year because of concerns about some of the issues involved.
Civil liberties campaigners reacted angrily. "This paves the way for the gravest threat to privacy we have ever seen in this country," said Simon Davies, director of Privacy International.
In a foreword, Mr Blair admits that data needed "to be treated sensitively". But he says: "There is great potential to make better use of personal information to deliver benefits to individuals and to society, including through increased data-sharing."
At present, ministers can swap new kinds of data only if they have secured the support of Parliament through primary legislation. The report recommends that they should be be able to push through changes more quickly, with less debate, using secondary legislation.
A senior Government source stressed that any new powers would still be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and would incorporate safeguards.
Public authorities should be given a general power to share personal data with the consent of the individual, the report says. The Government has already increased the use of data-matching to deal with such problems as terrorism and benefit fraud.
The report says the public could benefit from shared data. For example, a link between the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the UK Passport Service would mean that drivers no longer had to send off their passport when applying for a photocard driving licence.
Calling for more use of smart cards, the report says that these would allow people to gain access to public services through a computer or street kiosks.
Lord Falconer, the minister in charge of the study, recognised that the proposals would be controversial. He said the Government would hold consultations with a view to publishing a draft Bill early next year. "We must deal with people's legitimate fears," he said.
The report says the Government must secure public trust before pressing ahead with more data-matching.
To try to reassure the public, the think tank published "a public services trust charter", saying that information would be exchanged only in appropriate circumstances. However, critics said that the criteria given would cover almost any situation.
The charter says that data would be processed without an individual's knowledge only "where necessary for purposes such as national security, Reckless ID card plan will destroy nation's freedompublic safety, statistical analysis, the protection of the economy, the prevention of crime or disorder, the protection of health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others".
John Wadham, the director of Liberty, who was a member of the Government's advisory committee on the study, said the proposals would result in "more peeking by officials into our private lives".
Norman Baker, a Liberal Democrat spokesman, condemned the proposals as "draconian, dangerous and undemocratic".
[Edited 2 times, lastly by Dan Rockwell on 04-16-2002] |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is Fri May 25, 2012 2:36 am
|
|
|
|
|
Login
