NewsMax.com has documented the chain of events in the medical privacy fiasco
that the Bush administration inherited from its Clinton predecessors. We have
examined, line by line, how the nearly 2,000 pages of regulations that claim
to protect medical privacy, in fact, do the exact opposite.
Convoluted Verbiage
In trying to cut through the convoluted verbiage in the regulation promulgated
in the waning days of the Clinton administration, the Bush people have only
made matters worse. In part, this is because they have relied on many of the
same bureaucrats who wrote the measure in the first place.
"These rules do little to protect privacy and everything to hinder the ability
of doctors to provide quality care, so the Bush administration [would be] right
to discard them," declares Dr. Mark Schiller, a practicing psychiatrist, writing
in the San Francisco Chronicle.
But the comment period on the additional proposal has slipped by.
NewsMax is urging readers to protest to HHS and to Congress and let the powers
that be know they are being closely watched. Even past the official deadline,
a strong protest over the stealthy manner in which this comment period has been
handled can garner a healthy respect in Washington for an aroused public.
The entire regulation is an outgrowth of the 1996 Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act (HIPAA), a measure containing many provisions first devised
in former First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton's secret task force, whose legitimacy
was ultimately negated by a federal judge.
Originally dubbed the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill, congressional left-wingers made
lots of noise, warning of dire political consequences to any lawmaker who dared
question it.
But Congress typically ended up taking a bow for "doing something," and left
the actual rule writing to unaccountable unelected bureaucrats. The Association
of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) filed a lawsuit last year challenging
the original document on the grounds that it violates the First, Fourth, Fifth,
and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution.
Filing Suit
Earlier this month, AAPS told NewsMax it would file another suit challenging
the latest insult to injury. AAPS Counsel Kathryn Serkes describes the newest
proposal to break down doctor/patient privacy as "another 186 pages of mud."
This latest addition to an already confusing picture is not only invasive, but
also downright dangerous, says Serkes.
First, it means the patient is likely to be reluctant to share with his doctor
information relevant to his proper care. Some patients fear filling a prescription
can lead to their being hounded by telemarketers.
The new regulations, if implemented, would "place every American's medical
records in the hands of government, by giving HMOs, insurance companies, medical
researchers, and other state-favored interests an enhanced right to view medical
records without patient consent," charges Rep. Ron Paul, R-Tex.
"HHS is stripping patients of the last remnants of control over their health
care," Paul added. The congressman, a practicing physician, has introduced legislation
that would scrap the entire 2,000 pages.
Bare to the World
Attorneys have said the new rule would bare to the world personal matters far
beyond information required to treat the medical problem at hand:
"Infertility, cancer, marriage counseling, there's no end to it, " says privacy
rights attorney James C. Pyles.
As explained by psychiatrist Schiller:
"The regulations state that if any physician
electronically
transmits
any bill for his patients whatsoever, then
the statute pertains to all the physicians
patient records.
The statute permits the government access to any and all of a doctor's patient
records - without a warrant. The regulations are so vague that it appears that
just about any government official at any level can seize the records."