CONFIDENTIALITY OF PATIENT RECORDS IN JEOPARDY . . .In 1996, Congress passed the Kassebaum-Kennedy Health Care Portability and Accountability Act so that health care coverage would be more readily accessible for millions of Americans. As part of that law, Congress required the Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary to develop comprehensive recommendations on medical privacy. With the advent of computers, and "the ever-more-prevalent swapping of electronic medical records among doctors, hospital and insurers", [1 -- "Pursuing Medical Privacy", Washington Post, 11/3/97] Congress believed that medical records, a family's most private and personal information, should be protected. According to a Harris Survey, 85% of Americans believe that protecting the confidentiality of medical records is absolutely essential or very important. [2 -- Medical Information Privacy and Security Act, Draft Leahy Bill, 11/97] And, with the growth of HMO's and managed care, inappropriate access to confidential data by unauthorized people is increasing and is all too often the rule rather than the exception. [3 -- J.A. Miller & Associates 10/22/97] Misuse of a person's confidential medical records can have a devastating effect on the patient's medical, personal and professional lives. On October 28, 1997, HHS Secretary Donna Shalala appeared before the Senate Labor and Resources Committee to discuss HHS legislative recommendations on medical confidentiality. According to Dr. Herbert S. Sacks, president of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), HHS recommendations represent, "one small step forward and a giant leap backward for patient privacy." [4 -- News Release, American Psychiatric Association, 9/11/97] On the positive side, the HHS recommendations place new safeguards to limit access to medical records by employers, drug manufacturers and direct marketing companies, etc., and establishes civil and criminal penalties when rules are violated and records misused. However, in an effort to assist investigations into suspected medical and insurance fraud, the HHS proposal grants law-enforcement agencies broad access to patients' medical records, without informed patient consent, without court orders, and with few restrictions on how the information will be distributed and used. [5 -- "Trifling With Medical Privacy", New York Times, 9/11/97] According to the APA, the HHS proposal marks "a dramatic retreat from America's privacy principles ...." and will "undermine the trust between patient and physician and erode the quality of health care." [4] Medical confidentiality is also jeopardized because of another provision in the 1996 Kassebaum-Kennedy insurance bill that "authorizes the Department of HHS to develop a unique patient I.D. number that will be at the fingertips of hundreds of companies and government bureaucrats to track the medical records of private citizens." [4] APA has raised questions about the ability of HHS to develop a unique and secure patient I.D. number system, "when some of our most secure governmental agencies have not been able to protect the privacy of their electronic information." [4] In response to the HHS proposal, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has introduced S. 1368, the Medical Information Privacy and Security Act (MIPSA) for the purpose of protecting the privacy of patients and the quality of health care. Summary of MIPSA: 1) patients would be allowed to view their own medical records; 2) medical information could only be disclosed through the informed consent of the patient -- disclosures without consent in emergency circumstances are provided for; 3) those having access to records would be required to maintain safeguards to insure patient confidentiality; 4) Individuals may segregate portions of their health care records and restrict disclosure of that portion; 5) states would be allowed to enact stronger patient confidentiality laws; etc. [2] ACTION TO TAKE: 1) Talk with your two U.S. Senators and your Congressman about the issue of medical confidentiality, particularly the HHS's recommendations. 2) Talk with your U.S. Senators about Sen. Leahy's bill, S. 1368. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN RUSSIA IN DANGER . . .President Yeltsin has just signed a new law that will severely restrict religious practices in Russia. President Yeltsin had previously vetoed an earlier version of this bill, which had been denounced by the U.S. Congress and the Vatican. Although the new bill has only "cosmetic changes", according to the England-based Keston News Service, it won the backing of President Yeltsin and may actually be more restrictive than the original bill. One of the most controversial clauses in the new bill states that religious groups must be present in Russia for 15 years before they can publish or distribute religious literature, before they can hold services, or before they engage in any other forms of religious services, including charitable work. [WORLD, 9/27/97, pg 10] This past summer, the U.S. Senate voted 95-4 to cut foreign aid to Russia if it "implements" its new law restricting religious freedom. If Russia's restrictive law goes into effect, other countries in the Commonwealth of Independent States will likely follow with similar restrictions [Insight, National Association of Evangelicals, 11/97]SMITHSONIAN APOLOGIZES TO THE BOY SCOUTS . . .Last February, the Smithsonian denied the Boy Scouts of America the use of their grounds for the Boy Scouts' Court of Honor. In a letter denying the Boy Scouts' request, a determination was made that the Boy Scouts violated standards of non-discrimination with regards to religion. When Sen. Spencer Abraham (R-MI) became aware of this situation he sent a "Dear Colleague" letter to members of the Senate stating, "I find it deeply disturbing that the Boy Scouts, one of America's most important private organizations, which has helped literally millions of American boys reach responsible manhood, should be denied access to a federally supported institution because it exercises its constitutional right to free exercise of religion." Eventually, Smithsonian's Board of Regents reversed their decision, admitting that it had been a mistake to deny the Boy Scouts' the use of their facility. [Human Events, 10/3/97, pg 5] |