Now your rect al exam is public

“With Bush's signing of the new bill for medical records, now (almost) everyone will have acess to your medical records. If we're lucky they will include pictures!”

“I just had a complete body CT scan. Most of it was covered by my company wellness plan. Some of you will be sad to know that I am the picture of health.

I am having 11 x 14 prints made of my urinary tract made if anyone is interested. I wanted 8 x 10's, but the image reduction was extra.”

“What's your point?”

“The point is that employers, insurance companies, and a whole host of other people will have access to your (and my) medical records. They now can make decisions to hire and fire because of your/my health liabilities.”

“My point is that I am in good health but, there have been numerous allegations among some of the skeezers that my urinary tract does not extend beyond the abdomen wall. I now have medical evidence to refute these allegations.

Did you want me to post a picture of my dick?”

“stumprider - Am I now in danger or being committed to the booby hatch? LOL (My feelings about this president have already been expressed and this action just fits in with the rest.)


bacpac - Are you kidding? My point's been made! I'm out of this one. LOL (I don't think you are including me with some of the other skeezers.)

Besides, any such remarks would be in poor taste when directed toward someone who is considering marriage!”

“Just between you and me... I don't think there is a skittles chance in hell that I am getting married.”

“You proposed, and since then I have not heard her say "no" or even anything negative towards you.

Gad, the suspense will be killing me up there on the trail until I return in November.”

“This is the problem with the genetic testing that is to come. Soon they will be able to tell you what diseases you are likely to get based on genetic testing. The problem is what insurance companies and employers do with that data. If you're at high risk for a certain cancer they could make you pay sky high rates. Employers might not promote someone that is likely to get sick and miss a lot of time.”

“Excellent maybe our companies will be able to recoup some of their losses on slackers taking sick time for the Friday flu.

If you're incapable of doing you're job, I don't want to hire you.”

“If anyone's interested, the HMO I work for here in California was sent a presidential directive calling for a list of all providers and members. They must be looking for terrorists, right?

The authority for such invasions of privacy come from the PATRIOT act, and my understanding is that this directive went out to all the major HMO's.

Congratulations, the president knows who your doctor is. Maybe next week we'll start culling the infirm.”

“If you're incapable of doing you're job, I don't want to hire you.

That right there says a mouthful.”

“I predict a quadruple bypass in GearSlut's type A future.”

“People often mistake their employers for charities.”

“Actually I worked for a charity when I got sick. When I quit, I didn't file for disability or any other such benefits. I wanted to focus on getting well, not proving how sick I was to an insurance company. But some people who have worked for a company for a large number of years are owed a certain amount of loyalty by their employers, I believe.”

“I agree but loyalty goes both ways.”

“God help you all if they isolate the "I surf at work gene."

Honestly, if the Feds get hold of your medical records it is not as damaging as me getting hold of your IP address and calling your employer.

Do the right thing.

Get to work!”

“I think the issue here is not if a person can do a job or not. It's if the employer has the right to look at a genetic test and come to conclusions that have not happened yet or may not for that matter. Just because some test says you may have a 90% chance of getting cancer by age 50 doesn't mean it will happen for sure. Everyone carries lethal genes and who know what they can find in anyone.”

“True, and they are starting to suspect that viruses and bacterias may be causing some cancers and heart problems.”

“It's gambling with productivity vs health. Sometimes it's worth the investment as long as everything is out in the open and honest.”

“I think the issue here is not if a person can do a job or not. It's if the employer has the right to look at a genetic test and come to conclusions that have not happened yet or may not for that matter. Just because some test says you may have a 90% chance of getting cancer by age 50 doesn't mean it will happen for sure. Everyone carries lethal genes and who know what they can find in anyone." richb
08:07:58 PM
08/10/02

I think the issue is that you need to stop doping off on company time.
Get to work you slacker!”

“I don't know where Fridy Flu fits into this.

But the problem is that it is not "open and honest!" Other people will have access to my health info without me knowing about it, and as others have said, those people may be making judgements/decisions on information that is totally unrelated to my ability to do the job.”

“The "time burglars" are worried about the boss finding out they have cancer.

What a joke. If the boss is too stupid to figure out you are 10% productive how is he supposed to figure out you are a 50/50 cancer risk?

If you folks want to worry about something....

The West Nile Virus is going to kill someones grandmother. (or at least get the blame).

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!”

“bacpac, did you move across the world? It is Saturday night here in the U.S. Really, you have been different lately, what gives?”

“Oops! LOL

The time-thief routine doesn't work if the other posters aren't at work! LOLOL


Also... Does GearSlut actually believe half of that garbage? Or is the entire persona based on being flame bait?


Good Morning, Campers.”

“It's only garbage to a slacker with questionable morals.”

“riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.”

“I'd rather not give out my medical information but as a former employer I sure would like access to them if I had a legitimate reason to do so.

This goes along with easy access to personal financial information too. Most personal financial information is passed around without legitimate cause.

Ever been sued for workmans comp by a problem employee that claimed illness but couldn't or wouldn't prove that it was caused by your business? If so you would see why you would want to have the ability to access medical records.”

“Lost productivity due to questionable "sickness" has become an epidemic. It has effected our economy. bacpac has a point about time thieves, they are an indication of a bigger problem. Access to medical records might help in stopping false claims.”

“Doctor-patient privilege... Poof!”

“Like I said, legtimate reasons only.

The tough part would be to define legitimate reasons without trampling privacy. I don't think the government is capable of doing so.”

“Sorry to disappoint everyone, but the media distorts what the new laws really enforce.

They actually require physician offices and hospitals to be "more" careful about the privacy of the patients. If they don't they will suffer huge penalties including large fines.

These "new laws" are part of something called HIPAA, the Hospital and Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

Privacy is the one of the major issues in healthcare now. BUT, the point is this ... hospitals, doctors, and insurance companies need to share more info. so the whole healthcare experience is more efficient. Don't you want your insurance company to get all the info. it can about your illness so it can pay properly ??

Supposedly, the easier it is to get this info. the more efficient the whole process will be, and the less "healthcare" as a whole will cost.

Nobody can walk into a hospital or doctors office and request your medical records. Only "you" can do this unless you've signed that right away. Physician offices and hospitals have been scrambling the last few years to comply with HIPAA regulations and it has cost a lot of money, but in the long run I believe things will pay off.

On the computer side of HIPAA, the gov. is requiring that all electronic data sent between insurance companies and hospitals (doctors) be done in a standardized format. There are several EDI transactions that are now the law and must be used when communicating electronically. I believe this will pay off for my employer (hospital) in the long run also. Unfortunately, I can see people losing their jobs because of the boost in efficiency.

Therefore, as you can see, lowering the cost of healthcare is the long term goal here, so everyone just relax.

(I'm the HIPAA guru at my hospital)”

“Sure, go ahead and spoil our fun!”

“Damn the facts, full steam ahead!”

“But why do I have to receive a multitude of forms about privacy, etc., with each routine bill that I receive from an insurance company? It is getting to the point that I don't even open all my mail, I just throw it in another stack somewhere.

(Now, I know it is time to pay xyz's bill. Where did I put it? Stacks of mail get reshuffled as I perform a panicky search for it. I promise myself to do something to get this mail situation under control. But I'm too good at procrastination.)”

“Man, all you conclusion-jumpers must really be tired by now, LOL.
Next rumor?”

“Just in case any of you are REALLY interested in what this is about, you can get more info at www.hippadvisory.com/news/ (sorry, I don't know how to make a link).”

“Hmmm...evidently birch doesn't either.”

“My sympathies MDShiker.

You probably had to do Y2k as well.”

“I slept on my office floor over Y2K eve...

Damn Lovelace.

:)”

“Linda?”

“Randy.”

“Dang, I'm sorry... :D”

“Father Goose - Please check your posted url.”

“MDS: This sounds like HPIAA spin to me. There is a procedure for sharing information available now. Its called the ROI (Release of Information form). The new regulations allow for information to be exchanged without a patient's consent. It may make things easier for the adminstrators, but it is a major infringement on privacy!”

“People who I know who are professional medical ethicists are very concerned. Check out this recent artical from the New York Times:



(esp what Paul Applebaum has to say)

Bush Rolls Back Rules on Privacy of Medical Data

August 10, 2002
By ROBERT PEAR


WASHINGTON, Aug. 9 - The Bush administration today formally
rolled back some major protections for the privacy of
medical records adopted by President Bill Clinton. But at
the same time, it also set new standards for the use of
personal information to market prescription drugs and other
health care products.

The new rules, the first comprehensive federal standards
for medical privacy, will affect virtually every doctor,
patient, hospital, drugstore and health insurance company
in the United States.

The rules are the final version of changes proposed in
March, embody more than five years of work and have the
force of law. Most health care providers and insurers have
to comply by April 14 or face civil and criminal penalties,
including a $250,000 fine and 10 years in prison for the
most serious violations.

The administration decided to abandon the core of the
Clinton rules, a requirement that doctors, hospitals and
other health care providers obtain written consent from
patients before using or disclosing personal medical
information for treatment or paying claims. Instead,
providers will have to notify patients of their remaining
rights and have to make "a good-faith effort to obtain a
written acknowledgment of receipt of the notice."

Administration officials made the change despite opposition
from consumer advocates, patients' rights groups and
psychiatrists.

The secretary of health and human services, Tommy G.
Thompson, said the rules struck a common-sense balance.

"The prior regulation, while well intentioned, would have
forced sick or injured patients to run all around town
signing consent forms before they could get care or
medicine," Mr. Thompson said.

The rules guarantee patients access to their medical
records and limit the information that can be disclosed for
various purposes.

The issue of medical privacy now goes to the political
arena. Some Democrats are already making an issue of the
new rules.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, said
the administration was "favoring the interests of powerful
corporations over those of ordinary Americans."

In a recent speech, Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the
Democratic National Committee, said the White House seemed
to worry less about the privacy of medical records than
about the secrecy of Vice President Dick Cheney's energy
task force.

Under this administration, Mr. McAuliffe said, "it's O.K.
to reveal personal medical information about the American
people, but when the oil companies meet with policy makers
to ask for special favors, that's guarded like a state
secret."

The new rules won praise from the American Hospital
Association and the American Association of Health Plans,
which represents health maintenance organizations.

A spokeswoman for the H.M.O. group, Susan M. Pisano, said,
"The final rules represent a balanced, workable approach
that protects privacy without undermining patients' health
care."

The rules appear to set strict standards on using personal
data from patients for marketing. They prohibit drugstores
from selling personal medical information to a drug company
or other business that wants to sell products or services.

In the last few years, some drug companies have paid
pharmacies for customer health information and used it to
try to sell products to individuals with conditions like
osteoporosis, diabetes or depression.

Mary R. Grealy, president of the Health Care Leadership
Council, which represents large health care corporations,
said the new rules were "stronger and tougher" than the
Clinton rules on marketing.

Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts,
said the Bush administration had made some improvement in
the marketing rules, but left some loopholes.

"The final regulations appear to shut down some of the
existing avenues of commercial exploitation of personal
medical data by third parties without the knowledge or
consent of the patient," said Mr. Markey, who is
co-chairman of the Congressional Privacy Caucus. "But the
regulations still allow a drug company to pay a pharmacy to
act as its agent and allow the pharmacy to do the marketing
without disclosing the financial arrangement."

Although a drugstore could not sell health information on a
patient to a drug company, Mr. Markey said, the drug
company could pay a pharmacist to recommend that patients
switch from one drug to another. The definition of
"marketing" in the new rules excludes communications to a
patient by a health care provider who is promoting goods
and services offered by the provider itself.

An administration official confirmed that reading of the
rules.

Dr. Paul S. Appelbaum, president of the American
Psychiatric Association, criticized the decision to drop
the consent requirement.

"This abolishes the traditional control that patients have
had over access to their medical records," Dr. Appelbaum
said. "It may discourage patients from revealing
information to their physicians that's necessary for their
treatment, and it may encourage doctors not to record
important but embarrassing information in the patients'
medical charts."

Lobbyists for hospitals, drugstores and insurance companies
saw the Clinton rules as unworkable. Pharmacists had said
it would be difficult to obtain written consent from a
patient whose doctor phoned in a prescription that was
picked up by a neighbor or a relative.

The Mayo Foundation of Rochester, Minn., said the consent
requirement was an "affront to patients" and "bad medical
practice," because it would force doctors to secure written
consent from patients before even inquiring about their
problems.

But Democrats and consumer groups said those standards were
needed because of an explosion in information technology
that permitted the dissemination of medical data with the
click of a computer mouse.

The new rules include these provisions:

¶In general,
information from a person's medical records cannot be
disclosed to an employer unless the patient specifically
authorizes the disclosure.

¶Patients can review their medical records and request
changes to correct errors.

¶Researchers can use medical records to track an outbreak
of disease if they strip the records of the patients'
names, addresses, Social Security numbers and other "direct
identifiers."

The federal rules establish minimum protections for medical
privacy. State laws providing more protection will still
apply.

Under the rules, the "incidental use or disclosure" of
personal information is allowed. For example, doctors can
still use sign-in sheets in waiting rooms and talk to
patients in semiprivate hospital rooms without fear of
violating the rules.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/10/politics/10PRIV.html?ex=1029990739&ei=1&en=47436d1c2d2f1f33”

“Not the same info I received.”

“Researchers can use medical records to track an outbreak
of disease if they strip the records of the patients'
names, addresses, Social Security numbers and other "direct
identifiers."

How do I get my birthmark legally recognized as a "direct identifier"?”

“I might add that Tommy Thompson's claim is baloney. He says: "The prior regulation, while well intentioned, would have
forced sick or injured patients to run all around town
signing consent forms before they could get care or
medicine," Mr. Thompson said."

This isn't what happens in the real world... people sign the releases of information they wish to sign, and these get fax'd or mailed around to the places the patient consents to have them sent to.

Furthermore, I don't believe enhanced privacy is unworkable... just less convenient for the health care businesses.”