Right to Privacy

[FallbrookFarmer]

I hope that this is not a "political" question, I am posing it as
a question of Constitutionality.
Some have interpreted the Constitution to say that we have a "right to privacy".
If that is in fact the case, what will happen to our "right to privacy" after the government begins to administer our health care?
Will it have to be shared with the IRS?
Congressional Committees?
Will your Doctor have to share "confidential" health info?
I know that there are some physicians and a lot of very intelligent people on this board.
Your Thoughts?

 

[keegs]

I hope that this is not a "political" question, I am posing it as
a question of Constitutionality.
Some have interpreted the Constitution to say that we have a "right to privacy".
If that is in fact the case, what will happen to our "right to privacy" after the government begins to administer our health care?
Will it have to be shared with the IRS?
Congressional Committees?
Will your Doctor have to share "confidential" health info?
I know that there are some physicians and a lot of very intelligent people on this board.
Your Thoughts?

GB...off the top of my head and as it relates to one's medical history, making it available to health care providers will likely result in better less expensive care. Remember, no more denying care for pre-existing conditions.

Develop a system that puts your medical history on an electronic strip and you avoid prescription drug mistakes, provide quicker diagnoses, avoid expensive and sometimes unnecessary testing.

 

[Lloyd_E]

Up here it is strictly Dr/client/patient confidentiality. Dr's cannot reveal info regarding your health without permission. In a hospital context it is different - that bar code and chart help you and the Drs during your stay. I have a friend who's close relation works for a Dr office. She cannot pull info for him. He must speak to the Dr only - even though the Dr. is family friend.

 

[crusty 1]

fallbrook, we no longer have privacy.A satellite flying over can tell how many are in your house,either human or smaller critters.But I have no problem with elec. medical records because they know everthing already so it,s just a matter of safety I guess.

 

[Mousefield]

Up here it is strictly Dr/client/patient confidentiality. Dr's cannot reveal info regarding your health without permission. In a hospital context it is different - that bar code and chart help you and the Drs during your stay. I have a friend who's close relation works for a Dr office. She cannot pull info for him. He must speak to the Dr only - even though the Dr. is family friend.

That's the way I like it.

 

[dave1949]

I haven't really thought much about the health care/irs aspect of it.

We don't have a lot of remaining privacy even without spy satellites. Have you ever run into one of those online identity verification routines where you are asked questions the casual id thief would have trouble answering? They can pull together an amazing amount of info in real-time about a person from various databases already.

Certainly the anti-terror communications eavesdropping performed by the gov't. would be a privacy concern too. Some is authorized by the Patriot Act and some is being done illegally is my impression. We can reasonably assume the fbi is monitoring many forums like this one looking for threatening sounding people. Under the Patriot Act, I doubt if a site owner would be allowed to inform a member that the fbi requested their ip address - just like at the public library. Technology wise, they can know without asking if they want to.

For not a lot of money, <$200, you can go to a number of online services and find a good bit of info on just about anyone. I think some of that must also originate from legally gray methods.

There may be precious little personal privacy left at this point.
Dave.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

I haven't really thought much about the health care/irs aspect of it.

We don't have a lot of remaining privacy even without spy satellites. Have you ever run into one of those online identity verification routines where you are asked questions the casual id thief would have trouble answering? They can pull together an amazing amount of info in real-time about a person from various databases already.

Certainly the anti-terror communications eavesdropping performed by the gov't. would be a privacy concern too. Some is authorized by the Patriot Act and some is being done illegally is my impression. We can reasonably assume the fbi is monitoring many forums like this one looking for threatening sounding people. Under the Patriot Act, I doubt if a site owner would be allowed to inform a member that the fbi requested their ip address - just like at the public library. Technology wise, they can know without asking if they want to.

For not a lot of money, <$200, you can go to a number of online services and find a good bit of info on just about anyone. I think some of that must also originate from legally gray methods.

There may be precious little personal privacy left at this point.
Dave.

Precious little is right!

Legally gray areas=Law enforcement types. I know

Actually it's not the FBI ,it's the NSA who monitor's communications for certain words. Mostly from Ft. Huachuca in AZ.

But doesn't it concern you, that whatever little privacy we do have left, is going to be eroded?
And also, at some time in the future, the traditional doctor-patient relationship will be in jeopardy?
I know that two old farts like us are not going to be affected greatly, but what about our kids? I worry.

 

[JDGREEN4ME]

I hope that this is not a "political" question, I am posing it as
a question of Constitutionality.
Some have interpreted the Constitution to say that we have a "right to privacy".
If that is in fact the case, what will happen to our "right to privacy" after the government begins to administer our health care?
Will it have to be shared with the IRS?
Congressional Committees?
Will your Doctor have to share "confidential" health info?
I know that there are some physicians and a lot of very intelligent people on this board.
Your Thoughts?

H.I.P.A.

 

[biggerten]

Whoever is paying the bills has a right to know exactly what they're paying for. This is what we give up.

 

[DocHeb]

I hope that this is not a "political" question, I am posing it as
a question of Constitutionality.
Some have interpreted the Constitution to say that we have a "right to privacy".
If that is in fact the case, what will happen to our "right to privacy" after the government begins to administer our health care?
Will it have to be shared with the IRS?
Congressional Committees?
Will your Doctor have to share "confidential" health info?
I know that there are some physicians and a lot of very intelligent people on this board.
Your Thoughts?

I suspect you are already signing release of information forms every time you go to a hospital or doctor, giving permission to release information to your insurance company so they will pay the bill.

And yes, this discussion will soon fall into the political category.

 

[MikePA]

H.I.P.A.

It's HIPAA, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

Anyone who thinks AZ is the primary location for communications analysis is misinformed.

 

[niemeyjt]

Don't forget the mission creep - even if something does not happen on day one, there is nothing to say it won't later.

I am reminded of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) in UK. It started life controlling government phone bugging - you know, the sort of thing supposed to trap train and plane bombers. Problem is, its scope got widened to allow local councils to (ab)use the powers - like checking dog fouling (that's some creep) or sending children to wrong school.

Analysis: The law with no limits for the snoops | Mail Online

How town hall snoopers hijack anti-terror powers to crack down on dog fouling | Mail Online

I believe your Benjamin Franklin had some apt words.

J

 

[keegs]

Don't forget the mission creep - even if something does not happen on day one, there is nothing to say it won't later.

I am reminded of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) in UK. It started life controlling government phone bugging - you know, the sort of thing supposed to trap train and plane bombers. Problem is, its scope got widened to allow local councils to (ab)use the powers - like checking dog fouling (that's some creep) or sending children to wrong school.

Analysis: The law with no limits for the snoops | Mail Online

How town hall snoopers hijack anti-terror powers to crack down on dog fouling | Mail Online

I believe your Benjamin Franklin had some apt words.

J

Would it be going out on a limb to characterize it as a "stretch" to associate state sponsored surveillance policies with providing a patient's medical history to their healthcare provider(s)?

 

[20 20]

The only way ANYONE is going to disappear{or get privacy} is to move into a VERY remote area completely of grid{probably underground}. No credit cards, no bills, no drivers lic, nothing.......as soon as a person walks into a city/town, they're being filmed. If anyone thinks their medical or anything for that matter is private, they just might want to think again????????????

 

[niemeyjt]

Would it be going out on a limb to characterize it as a "stretch" to associate state sponsored surveillance policies with providing a patient's medical history to their healthcare provider(s)?

The point I was trying to make is that mission creep happens. RIPA is a UK example of how something that starts off on paper as a sound idea evolves and is abused.

To bring it up to date and on-topic, my Doctor has just sent me a letter saying I have to opt-out of what are called Summary Care Records (SCRs) - otherwise my medical history will be loaded onto computer and shared. I guess this is analagous to what the OP is concerned about.

As with RIPA, at the outset it will be limited - in the case of SCRs to healthcare professionals. I intend to opt out nonetheless. RIPA has taught me that these initial promises cannot be relied upon - and I do not want the local council or taxman having access to my healthcare records.

Hope that explains!

J

 

[MossRoad]

You have a right to health privacy. You don't have to tell anyone anything ever about your health. You have the right to sit there and die quite anonymously if you like. However, if you enter into an agreement with someone to pay for your health care, that agreement usually specifies that the payer gets to know what they are paying for. Doesn't matter if it is a private company or the government you enter into the agreement with... they get to know what is wrong with your body.

Now how they use that information is another story. Is that what you are asking?

 

[dave1949]

The only way ANYONE is going to disappear{or get privacy} is to move into a VERY remote area completely of grid{probably underground}. No credit cards, no bills, no drivers lic, nothing.......as soon as a person walks into a city/town, they're being filmed. If anyone thinks their medical or anything for that matter is private, they just might want to think again????????????

That's pretty much my impression too.

Going back to the question of right to privacy, is the 4th Amendment the source of the expectation of privacy? Or are other areas of the Constitution involved?

Article [IV]
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In the early days of computer data theft, the common laws regarding theft described a 'taking away' of property which deprived the owner of it's use. Of course, that concept doesn't work for the act of stealing data by making an electronic copy. It took a few years for case law to catch up with technology. We are still in that process I think when it comes to the mountains of data recorded about people. Consider the addition of genetic data too, which we would like to think should be private.
Dave.

 

[Wayne County Hose]

BOTH HOUSE AND SENATE HEALTH BILLS REQUIRE THE MICRO CHIPPING OF AMERICANS – 3/18/10 Silver and Gold outlook

Your right to privacy is gone.

 

[dave1949]

You have a right to health privacy. You don't have to tell anyone anything ever about your health. You have the right to sit there and die quite anonymously if you like. However, if you enter into an agreement with someone to pay for your health care, that agreement usually specifies that the payer gets to know what they are paying for. Doesn't matter if it is a private company or the government you enter into the agreement with... they get to know what is wrong with your body.

Now how they use that information is another story. Is that what you are asking?

Good Morning Moss,

I have a niggle with your statement someone to pay for your health care.

We do pay for our health care, it's just done in a way that makes it not a very direct payment when using an insurer. Should the fact that our payment is not direct (patient to provider) impact our privacy expectations?

Unfortunately, as soon as the payment is not direct, the doors to fraud are opened. It seems like some of our medical privacy is sacrificed to combat fraud.

I agree 'how they use' is a key question.

Dave.

 

[jinman]

What bothers me most (can't say I'm scared) is that the universal digitization of health records allows hackers only one target for penetrating and stealing info that might be used against us for everything from identity theft to espionage. How many stories have we heard lately of credit card companies, universities, the VA, military, and banks having their computers compromised by hackers. At least paper records/local records provide some form of security because all the data does not exist in one huge database. I'm just not sure I trust elected officials and civil service personnel enough to put all our "eggs" into their basket. There is no doubt it would have benefits, but do the gains outweigh the dangers? I'm just not sure.