> From: The Fool [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Speaking as someone who has been immersed in HIPAA for the last 2 years for
my job, this article is HORRIBLE and full of inaccuracies.

> 
> Whether you know it or not you now have a medical 
> identification number.

Er, no.  You don't.

> I just received a copy of an in-house memo from an employer concerning
> HIPAA Compliance. It states, "Attached is a privacy notice 
> that (name of
> company) is required to provide to you based upon a new health privacy
> law entitled the (print following in bold) Health Insurance 
> Portabality
> and Accountability Act or HIPAA for short. If you have 
> acquired medical
> services or filled a prescription in the past two days, you 
> have probably
> been given a similar notice by the provider. You do not need 
> to take any
> action regarding this notice, we are simply required by law 
> to provide it to you." 

This is known as the "Notice of Privacy Practices" (NPP). All health
providrers are required by HIPAA to give you a NPP so you know what they do
with your private medical information.  It has NOTHING to do with a medical
number.
  
> You are being told that this new ID number is to protect your 
> privacy but
> in reality your medical privacy is now beyond your control. These new
> rules actually destroy your ability to restrict access to your medical
> records. Doctors, dentists, pharmacists and hospital 
> personnel as well as
> insurance companies, are now required to share your medical 
> records with
> the FDA, law enforcement agencies, the US Department of 
> Health and Human
> Services and even foreign governments, without asking your permission.
> Such medical information cannot be withheld and doctors and insurance
> companies do not have to inform you as to who gets your 
> records. The law
> states, "This is for national security reasons." 

The HIPAA law was passed in 1996!  This was long before any of the current
national security hysteria.  I don't recall anything in the regulation or
the law stating anything about "national security reasons".  Also, all
health care providers and plans are required to keep track of disclosures of
private health information (PHI) to others for non-treatment, non-payment
and non-operational reasons.  And as a patient, you have the right to ask
the health care provider to whom your information was disclosed.  And they
have to tell you.

> You will be informed at the doctor's office, the pharmacy, 
> the hospital
> or other care providers about your new number. You will be 
> asked to read
> the new federal regulation and sign a document stating that 
> you did read
> the regulations, understand it and agree to the new procedures. If you
> don't sign the document your doctor may refuse to treat you and your
> insurance company is allowed to refuse coverage. 

There is no "new number".  The original HIPAA law did have a national
membership ID number in it but Congress specifically exempted HHS from
implementing that part of the law.  There will be no national membership id
number.  Not a chance.  There will be a national payor number and a national
provider/doctor number, but that's it.

The doctor may refuse to treat you because by not signing what you are
saying to the doctor is "go ahead and treat me but you can't give any
information to my insurance company or anyone else".  Of course the doctor
isn't going to do that!  They want to get paid.
 
> Anytime you feel that your doctor/patient confidentiality has been
> violated or you've lost your privacy rights you may complain 
> directly to
> the Department of Health and Human Services. Regardless of 
> your complaint
> you are not allowed to bring a lawsuit against a doctor or an 
> insurance
> company for a breach of privacy.

Correct, sorta.  You cannot sue a doctor or insurance company for a breach
of the HIPAA rules.  But that doesn't stop you from being able to sue under
other laws for a breach of privacy.

> The standards for privacy of
> individually identifiable health information rule officially went into
> effect on April 14, 2001. The enforcement of that rule went 
> into effect April 14, 2003. 

It was published in 2001 and went into effect in 2003.

> To say that these new rules and regulation are to protect your medical
> privacy is bureaucratic double-speak at its worst. 

There are parts of the HIPAA rule that I don't like, but there are plenty
more that I do like.  Both as a member of the healthcare community and as a
patient.

  - jmh

HIPAA Hippo Maru
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Reply via email to