Feb 13th, 2009
Posted by Matthew Allee, Washington Legislative Office at 7:20pm	Technology and Liberty

Your Medical Records Are Safe…Hopefully

One of the initiatives included in the economic stimulus package is to provide funding to begin the transition from paper to digital medical records. The move to paperless records has the potential to increase the efficiency of our health care system, which can lead to lower costs for consumers and providers. But a significant concern is the potential for abuse once our personal medical histories are made easily transmittable, because the information they contain is very valuable to those who stand to make money off of the medical care we all need.

For this reason, the ACLU was encouraged that strong privacy protections were included in the conference committee report, released last night, and adopted by the House of Representatives this afternoon. The last hurdle is the Senate, which is debating the package now and will vote this evening.

The strongest protection included was a partial prohibition on the sale of medical records, meaning only those who have a justifiable reason to view our medical histories can do so. Even more significant is that our information can't be sold to be used for ulterior motives, like marketing medicines and targeting consumers. This is significant because it is the first rollback of the data broker industry anywhere in federal law.

If the Senate adopts the current privacy safeguards and President Obama then signs them into law, health care consumers can rest assured that their medical histories will not be turned into a commodity and sold on the open market.  It's reassuring to see our elected officials stand up to the interests of "big business" for the safety and benefit of their constituents.

Permalink |	Technology and Liberty

1. David Says:
   Feb 14th, 2009 at 8:13pm

   Regarding security of medical records, I trust government less than a private security firm, and neither can be trusted. Because of medical record centralization the risk of deliberate or accidental release is high. We have all seen data back ups lost, misplaced, pcs left at airports, etc. We see government leaks all the time protected free speech, so I guess if it is in the public interest to leak medical records of a candidate or movie star all is ok? No, never.

   I propose the data be in an encrypted only state at wherever it is kept, and that it requires 2 keys to unlock the encryption at the point of use (medical office). One key by the patient (maybe bio like finger print) and one by the Doctor. Data repositor never has keys so data is always garbage to repositor whether government or private. Private is better since government is ultimately political. 2 or 3 keys would help make sure data even if lost is near impossible to read.

   I am for the efficiency gain, but totally against the method unless it combines all the best protections that immunize it against politicians no matter what claim of right (determine medical necessity or the like for medical decisions). The left and right should worry equally on this one as both could abuse use of the data if so bent. The patient should always determine who is "justified" as that term alone can be abused and interpreted to achieve political or profit result.

2. CH Smith Says:
   Feb 15th, 2009 at 7:27am

   HR 1
   Of particular concern to gun owners are sections 13101 through 13434 of HR 1, which would set up the infrastructure to computerize the medical records of ALL AMERICANS in a government-coordinated database.

   True, the bill doesn’t mandate that the data will be in a giant computer under the Oval Office. But it does mandate that your medical records be reduced to a computerized form which is available to it in a second.

   This it would do by establishing a National Coordinator for Health Information Technology — tasked with, among other things, “providing information to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care.”

   It should be scary enough that a government bureaucrat is directed by statute to try to influence your doctor’s decisions with respect to your medical care.

   But of even greater concern to gun owners is the fact that a government-coordinated database (which government can freely access) will now contain all records of government-provided and private psychiatric treatment — including, in particular, the drugs which were prescribed.

   Remember last year’s “NICS Improvement Act” — otherwise known as the Veterans Disarmament Act? This law codified ATF’s attempts to make you a prohibited person on the basis of a government psychiatrist’s finding that you are a “danger” — without a finding by any court. Well, roughly 150,000 battle-scarred veterans have already been unfairly stripped of their gun rights by the government.

   But people who, as kids, were diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder… or seniors with Alzheimer’s… or police with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder… or people who are now theoretically covered by the new law… these people have, generally, not suffered the consequences of its sanctions — YET. And the chief reason is that their records are not easily available to the government in a central, easily retrievable, computerized form.

   The bailout bill would change all of that. It would push increasingly hard to force your private psychiatrist or government-sanctioned psychiatrist to turn over your psychiatric records to a massive database. This would be mandated immediately if your doctor does business with the government.

   This would supposedly save Medicare money in connection with medical treatment. And, the sponsors insist, they would work very hard to protect your privacy.

   But this turns the concept of “privacy” on its head. The privacy which is MOST important is privacy from the prying eyes of government — not privacy of government data against the prying eyes of others. After all, many government data bases have been hacked in recent years, with mountains of information stolen.

   So, once the government has access to these computerized psychiatric records, the stage will be set for using that database to take away the gun rights of those with Alzheimer’s, those with ADD, and those with PTSD.

3. Woodrow Ebersold Says:
   Feb 16th, 2009 at 3:52pm

   As far as this goes, it's fine. BUT how do we prevent the inclusion of ALL records in the "Medical Records Repository" that is maintained I believe in Boston.
   This file of records is NOT search able or correctable by the patient. It is available only to insurance companies.
   Many people do not know such a record exists and now with digitalization of the rest of the info, we don't have a chance.

4. Dina Says:
   Feb 16th, 2009 at 7:57pm

   But what about our privacy from the government? I don't want the government in possession of my medical records. Why is there no provision for those of us who want to opt out?

5. Vic Livingston Says:
   Feb 18th, 2009 at 11:18am

   David and Dina, supra, raise important issues concerning privacy and possible malicious government usage of medical records.

   There is strong evidence that certain security/intel agencies ALREADY have thoroughly infiltrated the health care system...

   ... practicing various forms of malfeasance on "innocent but targeted" U.S. citizens -- including, but not limited to, doing purposeful harm to their health in what some believe is a campaign of "slow-kill genocide"...

   ... that allegedly involves the Bush-DOJ approved covert "use" (some would say "assault") of various forms of radiation weaponry (a/k/a "directed energy weapons").

   An article in the April 2008 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin confirms the widespread deployment of such weaponry, and the physical hazards such weaponry presents to the "targets," operators, and bystanders who may find themselves within the concentrated radiation beam path.

   The ACLU and other civil- and human-rights organizations should be campaigning for the outright global BAN on radiation weaponry and devices.

   Please see this first-hand account:

   http://www.nowpublic.com/world/domestic-torture-radiat ion-weaponry-americas-horrific-shame

   OR (if link is corrupted/disabled):

   http://My.NowPublic.com/scrivener

6. ondelette Says:
   Feb 18th, 2009 at 11:51am

   I'm afraid I don't understand, HIPAA already prohibits the distribution of medical records in electronic form without patient permission. Is this prohibition being lifted? (spec. it prohibits distribution of medical records without permission by health plans, healthcare clearinghouses, or in electronic and standard form).

7. Trollicus Says:
   Feb 18th, 2009 at 8:53pm

   Umm, I hate to tell you this but most of your Medical data has already been stolen. Once a company off shore's it's IT dept your data is not in the US and making a copy to sell is probably not even illegal.

   Oh I worked IT at a large insurance company, ALL of their record were copied a few years ago when they sent their IT work to India and are still for sale on-line.

   Obviously they didn't go out of their way to tell anyone.

8. DDTGood4U Says:
   Feb 18th, 2009 at 11:25pm

   I have posted my own first hand knowledge of medical records being stolen after being sent overseas.

   It's not here anymore.

   It's really easy to find examples, just Google off-shoring and medical records. Just one example at the top of the page:

   http://discuss.fogcreek.com/joelonsoftware3/default.asp?c md=show&ixPost=79938&ixReplies=14

   My own real world experience as a network engineer tells me whatever is being done now is too little too late, way too late. I would say the MAJORITY of insurance records are already out of the control of US (or any ) law.

9. Quidpro Says:
   Feb 19th, 2009 at 5:47am

   Interesting post and comments. I presume that all of those who are against the government having control of a patient's medical records and information are also against universal health coverage mandated/provided by the government.

10. Vic Livingston Says:
    Feb 19th, 2009 at 12:38pm

    "Quidpro"...

    The government can FUND universal health care without having pervasive administrative powers that facilitate the misuse of personal data by ideologically-motivated agencies whose directorates may have a hidden, undemocratic, eugenic agenda.

    So to answer your question: In my opinion, the government should not "provide" health care, but make possible its universal availability. There IS a difference. It's the difference between "socialized medicine" and universally-mandated health care system if privately owned and operated providers.

11. Quidpro Says:
    Feb 19th, 2009 at 8:27pm

    Vic,

    History has proven that government funding will always mean government control. Look at our present government run health care: medicare. How do you expect the government to audit providers without review of patients' medical records?

    We disagree whether there is a difference between "socialized medicine" and "universally-mandated health care". If the government "universally mandates" health care coverage then it is paying for the coverage (regardless of whether the providers are public or private) of those who cannot afford the premiums. Such costs are thus "socialized" even if you prefer to use a different term.

12. coreyh Says:
    Apr 27th, 2009 at 10:32am

    my name is corey i am trin everything to get my gun rights back . if you have any ideas write me please bullriders1974@yahoo.com i was stript of my gun rights when my real father befor he died got me into trouble nothing to do with a gun but he said i stole a title for a trailer he sold me and the ill. investigator would not try to contact my witnesses . and then he had animals that he did not take care of and he pulled me into that so now i have a fellony but i do not desurve this i have no money to fight this and now i can not have a gun for the goverment will not investigate tabacco and fire arms says they do not have funes to do anything like that .i run a paper route i would like to be able to protect myself and i would love to be able to hunt .

Name

E-mail

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Homepage

• Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
• Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

What code is in the image? *

Enter the characters shown in the image. Ignore spaces and be careful about upper and lower case.