The NY Times writes on the over-zealous misinterpretation if HIPAA:
Experts say many providers do not understand the law, have not trained their staff members to apply it judiciously, or are fearful of the threat of fines and jail terms “” although no penalty has been levied in four years.Some reports blame the language of the law itself, which says health care providers may share information with others unless the patient objects, but does not require them to do so. Thus, disclosures are voluntary and health care providers are left with broad discretion.
The unnecessary secrecy is a “significant problem,” said Mark Rothstein, chairman of a privacy subcommittee that advises the Department of Health and Human Services, which administers Hipaa. “It’s drummed into them that there are rules they have to follow without any perspective,” he said about health care providers. “So, surprise, surprise, they approach it in a defensive, somewhat arbitrary and unreasonable way.”
Some want the create another layer of bureaucracy to control the one they created:
To that end, Mr. Kennedy, along with Senator Patrick M. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, plans to introduce legislation creating an office within the Department of Health and Human Services dedicated to interpreting and enforcing medical privacy.
Related posts:
- How HIPAA harms patients
- HIPAA is impeding research this time
- James Kim and privacy rules: Can HIPAA also lead to needless deaths?
- Dr. Phil and HIPAA
- HIPAA as a means to profit?
- Patient blogs: A HIPAA nightmare?
- HIPAA and blogging
{ 4 comments }
Fine work of the Federal government and a perfect example of the mandarin leadership of the Clinton administration.
The best thing would be to repeal the entire act and start over. As it is, HIPAA has created the specter of punishment where none existed before but with no clear explanation about what was to be prohibited or how one was to go about the complex and varied tasks of small practice and hospital business without being in violation of federal law. Why is anyone surprised its interpretation has led to this or to wild examples of its “implementation?” It is a classic example of bad legislation and bad regulation done by people who don’t have a clue about how or by whom daily health care business has to be done.
It has made a nice employment opportunity for “compliance consultants” though.
The misinterpretation and over interpretation of HIPAA has numerous adverse consequences one of which is illustrated in the incident about about the criminal going free. The criminal did not go free because of HIPAA, but because of HIPAAphobia, which is the expected consequence of a 1500 page rule.
Any additional rules and bureacracy to fix the problem will only make it worse, as the essence of the problem is that there is a federal rule. The is and was no need for a federal rule. There was more privacy before HIPAA with just state law and the threat of lawsuits should duty be breached. Insurers, pharmacies, and other non-clinicians didn’t dare do things then that they have sanction to do now.
Regarding the wanted criminal being in the hospital, the old way was better. First decide what is the right thing to do, then do it, and prepare to defend yourself is sued or challenged. The simple way to deal with that was simply an anonymous phone call to the law, “So an So is at the hospital in room 512″. No personal health information given out–just the location of a fugitive.
To fail to at least do that because of a fear of HIPAA, if the nature of the crimes involved are serious enough that one thinks it ought to be done, is pure cowardice.
The democracts are in congress and they are ideologically incapable of removing a federal regulation.
What in the constitution gives congress the authority to regulate medical privacy when all parties to the transaction: provider, patient, insurer, are in the same state? Nothing in mine that I can read. It must be that new “living constitution” that I keep hearing about. I keep looking for a copy but can’t locate it.
I would expect large health care operations to attempt to use the rules to benefit themselves and not the patients. What else would we expect?
Comments on this entry are closed.