-Caveat Lector-   <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">
</A> -Cui Bono?-

Dave Hartley
http://www.Asheville-Computer.com/dave

----- Original Message -----
From: Alan Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Friday, January 21, 2000 10:31 PM
Subject: [Fwd: [PROVE] Medical Privacy Presentation]

Dawn Richardson wrote:

  Dear PROVE members,
   Last year I was invited to sit on a statewide HHS task force sponsored by
the Texas Conservative Coalition Research Institute which is taking a year
long study on the problems in our health care system that can be addressed
by applying the conservative principles of limited government, individual
liberty, free markets, and traditional family values.  It is composed of
legislators, industry representatives, health policy think tank
organizations and government employees dedicated to the principles above.  I
am there representing PROVE's mission and it is the first time that vaccine
issues are being represented in this type of a forum in Texas and I am very
excited about it.  The task force is hoping to promote their findings to
other states to duplicate the efforts here.  Today, in an all day session,
we talked about how federal issues affect the state, and I was asked to
present on medical privacy because of all our work fighting immunization
registries.  I want to thank my husband Scott for being willing to be Mr.
Mom one day every month so I can participate.  Here is my presentation that
I gave today.  Dawn

  The Federal Erosion of Medical Privacy
  By Dawn Richardson  President, PROVE
  LIFT Texas HHS Task Force Member

  Presented to:
  LIFT Texas Task Force: A Principled Approach to Health and Human Services

  January 21, 2000

  The Influence of Federal Policy on Texas Health Care

 Hello.  My name is Dawn Richardson.
I feel privileged to have the  opportunity today to direct your attention to
the accelerated erosion of the  privacy and confidentiality of our
individual health records by federal  government initiatives and programs.
There is an alarming trend of federal health programs exploiting the
accessibility of an individual's electronic medical record through
persistent and continuous attempts to capture and store our personal
intimate medical details without  our consent under the pretext of
regulating  costs and improving public health and the quality of health
care.
  The question we must all ask ourselves as the ownership of our medical
records continues to evolve away from us and towards the federal government,
is this the path that we want health care in this country to continue on?
If so, we need do nothing since the momentum is in place. However, if we
value choices in treatment options, a private relationship with a health
care provider we choose, individual medical care decisions being made in our
personal best interest, innovative medical research, and health care cost
containment through free markets, we need to reverse this trend and assert
that medical records are our private property and access to them should be
controlled by a contract between the patient and the provider and/or payer,
not the federal government.
 IMPENDING FEDERAL THREATS TO MEDICAL PRIVACY
       HHS Proposed Medical Privacy Regulations
  The most imminent threat to medical privacy is posed by the U.S.
Department  of Health and Human Services' (HHS) proposed medical privacy
regulations  governing electronic medical records published in the Federal
Register on  November 3, 1999. 1
 Applying to all individuals, whether their health care  is paid for
privately or by the government, the proposed rule would  dangerously grant
federal, state, and local government health employees  broad unrestricted
access and control of our identifying and private medical  information
without our consent for anything that can be linked to the  HHS-defined
"national priority purposes" of research, public health,  government health
data systems, law enforcement and oversight of the health  care system. 2
The section of the proposed rule posing the greatest threat to medical
privacy is entitled "Uses and Disclosures Permitted Without Individual
Authorization."  Un-consented disclosures are rationalized for "public
health  surveillance, investigations and interventions." Immunization and
cancer  registries are cited as beneficiaries of this governmental
information grab.
  HHS states in the proposed rule, "We considered requiring individual
authorization for certain public health disclosures, but rejected this
approach because many important public health activities would not be
possible if individual authorization were required."  They also state,
"We  also considered limiting certain public health disclosures to
de-identified  health information. While de-identified information could be
appropriate for  many public health activities, there are also many public
health activities  that require individual identifiers. Instead, we rely on
the judgment of  public health authorities as to what information would be
necessary for a  public health activity."3.
Specific government agencies listed as being granted access to individual
identifiable medical records under the pretext of "oversight" include "State
insurance commissions, State health professional licensure agencies, Offices
of Inspectors General of federal agencies, the Department of Justice, State
Medicaid fraud control units, Defense Criminal Investigative Services, the
Pension and Welfare Benefit Administration, the HHS Office for Civil Rights,
the FDA, the Social Security Administration, the Department of Education,
the Occupational Health and Safety Administration and the Environmental
Protection Agency."4
HHS also proposes "to permit covered entities to disclose protected health
information to a law enforcement official without individual authorization
for the conduct of lawful intelligence activities" 5   and "to permit
covered  entities to use and disclose protected health information for
research  without individual authorization� 6  thus making all citizens
non-consenting  research subjects in a wide variety of federal public health
policy  experiments.  If you can believe it, HHS even proposes to release
our  private medical details without our consent to banks to process health
care  payments and premiums.7   According to the comments submitted in
opposition to the proposed rule by  the Association of American Physicians
and Surgeons, ".the Secretary is  asserting the authority to circumscribe
individual privacy to the narrowest  possible realm, which is contrary to
the stated purpose of both the statute  and the regulations. Neither the
statute nor the U.S. Constitution gives the  Executive Branch the authority
to define national priorities that override  fundamental individual rights,
or to monitor all medical care." 8   I would like to encourage each
individual member of this task force and the  task force as a body to submit
comments to HHS recommending that this rule  be withdrawn and rewritten
entirely to conform to statutory and  constitutional limitations. HHS will
accept public comment on the proposed  rule until February 17th. Detailed
analysis of the rule congruent with the  founding principles of the Texas
Conservative Coalition Research Institute  and directions for submitting
comments can be found at the web sites for The  Institute for Health Freedom
9 and The Association of American Physicians and  Surgeons 10.
   EXISTING FEDERAL EFFORTS UNDERMINING MEDICAL PRIVACY
       Rule Making Authority
   HHS has a previous history of encouraging the abuse of the rule process
to  circumvent legislative intent by authorizing the release of protected
information on individuals without their consent for inclusion in state and
federal medical databases.
  Even though The Privacy Act of 1974, as passed by Congress, protects a
person's Social Security number from certain misuse, the Social Security
Administration, under recommendation from HHS, used the rule making process
to change the Privacy Act by posting new uses for Social Security numbers in
the Federal Register. They enacted this rule for the benefit of states to  c
reate immunization tracking system files to be linked in a national
database on all children without parental consent.
  The rule states "The proposed routine use would permit SSA to send the
SSNs  of newborns, and as a one time disclosure, the SSNs of children born
since  December 31, 1990, to the State BVS in which a birth is recorded
without  having to secure parental consent.. Public health program uses of
the SSNs  would include, but are not limited to, establishing public
immunization  registries. Using the SSN as the primary identifying record
number would  facilitate the process and lower the cost of creating and
operating a  national network of coordinated statewide immunization
registries."11

  The National Immunization Program of HHS's Centers for Disease Control has
publicly declared federal plans for expanding these immunization registries
to include adults and grow into full-scale medical databases for children
centrally operated by the federal government.12
       Federal Grant Requirements and Incentives
   Another justification by state health agencies used for collecting and
maintaining personally identifiable and sometimes sensitive private health
care information is to satisfy federal grant requirements or to collect
available federal grant incentives.
  In late 1996, a survey of all Texas Department of Health (TDH) programs
was  conducted to identify health related databases maintained within the
agency.  Information on more than 190 TDH databases was extracted from the
survey  results.
  Many of these databases list that there are no restrictions for access to
the data.  Additionally, while there is no legislative authority cited for
the creation of the vast majority of these databases, a common reason cited
to collect and store medical data is to satisfy federal grant
requirements.13
 One of the reasons given by the TDH for ignoring consent provisions in the
state law and mining data for the immunization registry on children cared
for by private providers in Texas14 was "Immunization grant guidelines
require the department to implement an immunization registry as a condition
of receiving federal immunization funds."15
  Special interests tried to create a national immunization registry with
The  Comprehensive Childhood Immunization Act of 1993, but parents and
privacy  groups successfully defeated the registry portion. However, in
September and  November of 1993, the Act was quietly amended to create the
registry anyway,  sidestepping public opposition, by providing the funding
to individual  states to create their own nationally connectable tracking
systems. $417  million dollars were initially appropriated with additional
incentives  called the "Performance Based Grant Program" whereby individual
states could  collect discretionary income awards as high as $100 per two
year old child  proven to be fully immunized according to federal
immunization standards by  including them in their state immunization
registry.16
  CONCLUSION
   Although cost and "burden" are the most often cited rationalizations by
government health program employees for taking our medical information
without our consent, we all need to seriously examine what the real costs
will be in terms of health care quality and freedom if we continue to allow
this to occur.   Additionally, we would all be wise to heed the warnings of
the experts on  the threats to our civil liberties that comprehensive and
centralized health  databases and registries pose. Agneta Breitenstein,
director of the Health  Law Institute in Boston, spoke in opposition to
registries at the April 6,  1998 CDC Initiative on Immunization Registries
meeting in New Orleans. She  said, "There are three things that are always
true when registries are  created: "One, there will always be more
information collected than is  needed to complete the task; two, it will
always be kept longer than we are  told; and, three, it will always be used
for purposes other than intended."
  SOURCES CITED
   1 http://aspe.hhs.gov/admnsimp/
  2 http://aspe.hhs.gov/admnsimp/pvcsumm.htm
  3 http://aspe.hhs.gov/admnsimp/nprm/pvc19.htm
  4 http://aspe.hhs.gov/admnsimp/nprm/pvc20.htm
  5 http://aspe.hhs.gov/admnsimp/nprm/pvc23.htm
  6 http://aspe.hhs.gov/admnsimp/nprm/pvc27.htm
  7 http://aspe.hhs.gov/admnsimp/nprm/pvc26.htm
  8,10  http://www.aapsonline.org./aaps/confiden/hhsp.htm
  9 http://www.forhealthfreedom.org/Publications/Privacy/NeedToKnow.html
  11 The  Federal Register, March 9, 1995, Volume 60 Number 46, pages
12964-12965
  12 Centers for Disease Control's National Immunization Program, National
Immunization Registry Clearinghouse Fact Sheet, March 3, 1998.
  13 Bureau of State Health Data and Policy Analysis, The Texas Department
of  Health "Inventory of Health Related Data 1997", 1100 W. 49th Street,
Austin,  TX 78756, July 1998, p. vii.
  14 http://www.vaccineinfo.net/txregistry/outline.htm
  15 Letter from Health Commissioner Dr. William R. Archer III to Senator
Jerry Patterson dated April 2, 1998.
  16 Comprehensive Child Immunization Act of 1993, Sec. 2. Monitoring of
Childhood Immunizations, Section 2157 Performance Based Grant Program,
(b)  Payments to States.
   PROVE (Parents Requesting Open Vaccine Education)
  P.O. Box 1071
  Cedar Park, TX 78630-1071
  (512) 918-8760
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] (email)
  http://vaccineinfo.net (web site)
   PROVE provides information on vaccines, and immunization policies and
practices that affect the children and adults of Texas. Our mission is to
  prevent vaccine injury and death and to promote and protect the right of
every person to make informed independent vaccination decisions for
themselves and their families.

<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soap-boxing!  These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Reply via email to