I normally don't post political threads but..

[TonyG]

The Bush administration today put aside a law which had been put into effect by the Clinton administration.

This law had instructed hospitals and doctors that they could not forward a patients medical history information to others, specifically insurance companies, without the written consent of the patient.

Now, they no longer need patient approval.



This act makes me angry as I believe this is a true invasion of my privacy.

 

[lavender]

 

[Spinaroonie]

Are you, by any chance, related to Warren G?

 

[islandman]

Is it too late to vote for McCain?


Bush is too damn stupid for his own good. SNL called it right in a skit the other week.

 

[kotori]

you guys act surprised

hmmm, budist temple

or haliburton.

you get what you paid for.

 

[Ishmael]

Implied consent. Why shouldn't the company paying the bills know what they are paying for?

Ishmael

 

[enjoyingitall]

The Bush administration today put aside a law which had been put into effect by the Clinton administration.

This law had instructed hospitals and doctors that they could not forward a patients medical history information to others, specifically insurance companies, without the written consent of the patient.

Now, they no longer need patient approval.



This act makes me angry as I believe this is a true invasion of my privacy.

Do you have a link to a news article on this? I've been searching since I read your post and can't seem to find anything on it.
I'd be very interested in reading it. Thanks.

Edited to say...thanks anyway..I found it.

 

[Worm]

hmmm

I like how everyone blames the current administration for every woe. If it is law CONGRESS must of voted to repeal the law. A president and his adminstration simply cannot put "aside" a law.

 

[RhumbRunner13]

The Bush administration today put aside a law which had been put into effect by the Clinton administration.

This law had instructed hospitals and doctors that they could not forward a patients medical history information to others, specifically insurance companies, without the written consent of the patient.

Now, they no longer need patient approval.



This act makes me angry as I believe this is a true invasion of my privacy.

Yeah, that was a brilliant law, Tony! When my wife had a Saturday morning appointment before her lung sugery the following Monday, we had to stop at the hospital and pick up her test results and records before going to see the surgeon. Can you guess why? Do you think it had anything to do with a law that prohibited the hospital from releasing test results from tests he had ordered? Do you think it bothered him that he couldn't get the medical records on a patient he was going to do a lobectomy on in less than 48 hours?

I don't think Bush "set it aside", I think it was repealed by Congress, right?

Rhumb

 

[Thrillhouse]

Re: Re: I normally don't post political threads but..

I don't think Bush "set it aside", I think it was repealed by Congress, right?

Rhumb

Nope.

>WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration on Friday finalized medical privacy rules that require doctors and insurers to notify patients about information disclosure practices and the rights they have to protect their health data.

The final version of the federal safeguards for health information, which take full effect in April 2003, is similar to a proposal put forth in March that outraged privacy advocates because it eliminated a mandate that patients give consent for release of their information prior to receiving care.

The mandatory consent was included in an earlier proposal by President Bill Clinton, but Bush administration officials said they removed that requirement because it might hinder access to care.

The final rule "protects the confidentiality of Americans' medical records without creating new barriers to receiving quality health care," Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson said in a statement.

"The prior regulation, while well-intentioned, would have forced sick or injured patients to run all around town getting signatures before they could get care or medicine. This regulation gives patients the power to protect their privacy and still get efficient health care," Thompson said.

The final version modified the March proposal to clarify prohibitions against using health data for marketing purposes, HHS spokesman Bill Pierce said.

Under the rules, patients must give authorization before doctors or health plans disclose protected information in most "non-routine circumstances," such as releasing information to an employer or for use in marketing, an HHS statement said.

The Georgetown Health Privacy Project, a group of privacy advocates, said the administration's rules "will undermine patient control over private medical information and further erode patient trust in the health care system."

The American Association of Health Plans, which represents big insurers such as UnitedHealth Group Inc. and Aetna Inc., said the Bush administration has "moved in most respects toward a balanced rule that protects the privacy of patients without undermining their health care," said Mohit Ghose, a spokesman for the group. <


Republicans sucking up to insurance companies...so what else is new?

 

[RhumbRunner13]

TonyG:
The Bush administration today put aside a law…

Reuters:
The final rule..
The prior regulation…

See the difference?

Republicans sucking up to insurance companies...so what else is new?

“The prior regulation, while well-intentioned, would have forced sick or injured patients to run all around town getting signatures before they could get care or medicine. This regulation gives patients the power to protect their privacy and still get efficient health care,”

Did you read my post? It reflected exactly the case above!

I will retract my implication that it was a stupid law, it was a stupid regulation!

Rhumb

 

[Lost Cause]

So fucking what?...

No matter what the present administration does, it will step on somebody's toes. Why don't you save space and just attach this stuff to pp man's "Hate Bush" threads?

Jeebus! For people who praise the balance of the two party system, you sure show what side of the spectrum you're on. I can find "toe stepping" from both parties EQUALLY without bias, since I'm not in the two party loop.

*Yellow dog democrats are still with us.
*Yellow dog republicans are still with us.

www.lp.org

 

[Lost Cause]

My Point...

WASHINGTON (AP) Reversing course, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday she would donate thousands of dollars she received from indicted ImClone founder Sam Waksal to charity.

Clinton and a soft money account set up on her behalf by Democrats received $33,000 from Waksal, campaign finance records show.

Clinton will donate the $7,000 received by her Senate campaign and her political action committee to a charity that has yet to be determined, the New York Democrat's spokeswoman Karen Dunn said Friday.

The remaining $26,000 was donated to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's New York Senate 2000, a soft money account set up on Clinton's behalf.

''She recommends that they do the same,'' Dunn said.

A spokeswoman for the DSCC said Clinton's request was being taken under advisement.

''But our policy in the past has been once its spent its spent,'' Tovah Ravitz said.

On Thursday, Dunn told the New York Post that Clinton ''has no plans to return the money at this time.'' Dunn added that she did not believe that Waksal gave the senator any money this year.

During her 2000 Senate bid, Waksal pumped $26,000 into the soft money account the DSCC set up for Clinton. He also chipped in the maximum allowable $2,000 to her election campaign account. Last year, Waksal donated another $5,000 to Clinton's political action committee, HILLPAC.

Waksal, 54, was arrested in June on charges he secretly advised family members to sell their ImClone stock on Dec. 27 after learning that his biotech company's cancer drug, Erbitux, had been rejected by the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA decision was made public two days later.

Earlier this week, Waksal was charged with obstruction of justice and bank fraud in addition to previous securities fraud and perjury charges.

In the past, Clinton has handed over questionable campaign money.

In January, Clinton said she would turn over nearly $8,000 in contributions from Enron and its accountant, Arthur Andersen, to a charitable fund set up to help employees of the bankrupt energy giant.

A spokesman for Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said Friday he would return his own $3,000 contribution from Waksal.