Comments on: High cost of health privacy laws, cont’d

By: October 27 roundup

October 27 roundup — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 04:11:00 +0000

[…] Are HIPAA privacy rules suspended during emergencies? No, and what lovely situations that’s likely to cause [HIPAA blog, more] […]

By: Walter Olson

Walter Olson — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 12:52:58 +0000

Discussion continues at this more recent post.

By: Supremacy Claus

Supremacy Claus — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 19:06:59 +0000

Thank the lawyer rent seeking aims of the Supreme Court in O’Connor v Donaldson. Now the psycho butcher qualifies for involuntary commitment.

By: Walter Olson

Walter Olson — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:26:19 +0000

Police have made an arrest in the case, of a mentally disturbed man who has told investigators of having been committed to a mental institution 17 years ago by Dr. Kent Shimbach, the doctor who was injured in the rampage (and who shared offices with the therapist who was killed, Kathryn Faughey). Dr. Shinbach apparently has told investigators that he did not recognize the assailant and has no memory of any contact with him in the past. More details are in today's New York Times.

By: markm

markm — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:11:38 +0000

I think the police would want to start with her appointment book, and a subpoena for that should be specific enough. I suspect the hold up is in police or prosecutor bureaucracy, rather than anything to do with HIPPA.

By: OBQuiet

OBQuiet — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 23:31:00 +0000

yclipse,

I’ll confess ignorance about the details of this case and the law in general. But if the folks in the office are not identifying the individual as a patient because they fear legal action, how would the police justify a subpoena? Would a Judge issue them a hunting license to look through all the files? That seems doubtful.

By: yclipse

yclipse — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 08:41:15 +0000

If the authorities have not been able to get a subpoena issued in very short order, that is where the finger of blame should be pointed.

By: Mahlon

Mahlon — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 14:24:16 +0000

SPQR has the right of it. Most providers and insurers either don’t understand the law, or, more probably, are too afraid of informing their employees of the true scope of the law. They see the least amount of risk by simply ignoring the existence of the exclusions. Most employees of these providers and insurers can’t be trusted to exercise proper discretion in determining when an exclusion exists to permit disclosure.

Yes, once again, it’s fear of litigation.

By: OBQuiet

OBQuiet — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:37:37 +0000

As SPQR mentions, the rules are not always completely understood.

And with the reaction AT&T got for cooperating “”in good faith” with the government, you can be sure that no one will lift a finger to help until the situation is thoroughly vetted by their lawyers since it could mean jail time or ruin.

Stonewall and be legally safe. Cooperate and risk liability. Odd way of setting up the system I would think.

By: Supremacy Claus

Supremacy Claus — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:01:09 +0000

Here, a court upheld the arrest of staff obstructing police access to a patient: http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2007/05/21/gvsc0521.htm Nice review of police conduct here. The police scrubbed in, took possession of the surgically removed bag of cocaine, arrested the patient. http://www.wisbar.org/res/capp/2007p/2007AP000822.pdf If the makers of baby products have ads waiting at the house after learning of wife's pregnancy, the police should be able to get the file of a maniac butcher still at large.