• Government
• Profession
• Business
• Opinion
• Health

• Health reform
• H1N1
• P4P
• EMRs
• Medicare
• Liability
• AMA House
• » More

• Book Excerpt
• Business Pitch
• Meetings
• » More

• Contract Language
• Ethics Forum
• In the Courts
• Practice Management
• Technically Speaking
• » More

• Issue dates
• Regions
• Health plans
• Sections
• News briefs
• Columns
• Editorials
• Letters
• Writers
• Other years

• Search tips
• E-mail alert
• Radio
• RSS
• Mobile
• Subscribe
• Institutions
• Staff directory
• Advertising
• Permissions
• Reprints
• News media
• Site guide
• Useful links
• About
• Premium
• Contact

HIPAA privacy policy change defended

Dropping a prior consent requirement makes sense for patients and physicians, an HHS official tells a Senate committee. But Democrats aren't buying it.

By Amy Snow Landa, amednews staff. May 6, 2002.

• PRINT|
• E-MAIL|
• RESPOND|
• REPRINTS|
• SHARE

Washington -- Rather than quell the controversy over how best to implement a medical records privacy rule, the Bush administration appears to have fanned the partisan flames with its proposal to substantially change elements of the regulations written by the Clinton administration.

The issue of prior consent is the main flash point of disagreement between Democrats and the White House.

In late March, the administration proposed eliminating a requirement that physicians, hospitals and pharmacies obtain patients' written consent before using their personal health information for the purposes of "treatment, payment and health care operations."

The move has made some Democrats angry.

Dropping the requirement would severely undermine the patient's role in deciding how their own health information is used, said Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chair Edward Kennedy (D., Mass.) during an April 16 hearing.

Requiring consent "is the only real way to assure that patients, and only patients, control sensitive information," he added.

But Health and Human Services Deputy Secretary Claude Allen told the Senate panel the changes simply make sense from the perspective of patients and doctors. "We put ourselves in the shoes of the patient, and we discovered the rule was not practical for patients, their doctors or pharmacists," he said.

Giving patients more control over their personal health information is important, Allen said, but not to the extent that it would impede their access to quality care. [...]