[CTRL] Medical privacy bill (fwd)
-Caveat Lector- - Original Message - From: "Wes Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Mc@Topica. Com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 9:21 PM Subject: [MC] Medical privacy bill > > Unbelievable. New federal "privacy" regulations mandate that doctors turn > patient records over to the HHS and other federal agencies for > "safekeeping"; allow the release of medical records to other government > agencies without patient consent for unspecified "public health" > surveillance activities; and permit law enforcement agencies to access > medical records without a search warrant. Contact your congressperson now to > support Rep. Ron Paul's medical privacy bill. > > > http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0106/medprivacy.html > > Rep. Ron Paul's medical privacy bill picks up eight more House co-sponsors > > > A bill filed by Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) that would repeal new federal > "privacy" regulations has picked up eight more co-sponsors over the past > month -- while the Libertarian Party's cyberpetition in support of the > legislation has garnered another 4,000 signatures. > > Since mid-April, when the LP refocused its medical privacy campaign to > generate support for HJR 38, Paul's resolution has picked up six > Republicans, one Democrat, and one independent supporter. The bill now has > 11 co-sponsors. > > In addition, the number of signatures on the cyberpetition -- at the > Libertarian Party's pro-privacy website, www.DefendYourPrivacy.com -- > against the so-called privacy regulations had hit 58,255 by May 18, up from > 54,130 a month earlier. > > "Our campaign is definitely picking up momentum," said LP National Director > Steve Dasbach, who is helping coordinate the campaign. "We still have an > uphill battle, but we're making definite progress." > > However, he said, time is short: Both the House and Senate must pass HJR 38 > within 60 legislative days in order to stop the Health & Human Services > privacy regulations, which would force doctors to turn their patients' > confidential medical records over to the government. > > "In other words, we only have until about June 15 to generate enough > Congressional support for HJR 38 to stop this federal raid on our medical > privacy," said Dasbach. > > HJR 38 would declare that the HHS rules "have no force or effect." > > The Libertarian Party opposes the HHS regulations -- which were originally > drafted by and endorsed by the Clinton administration -- because they would > effectively "kiss your medical privacy goodbye," said Dasbach. > > Although touted by government officials as "medical privacy" regulations, > the rules would actually mandate that doctors turn patient records over to > the HHS and other federal agencies for "safekeeping"; allow the release of > medical records to other government agencies without patient consent for > unspecified "public health" surveillance activities; and permit law > enforcement agencies to access medical records without a search warrant. > > The rules would also assign every American a "unique patient identifier"; > allow foreign government officials to see Americans' health records if the > U.S. government claims it is for a "national health purpose"; and give > direct marketers access to medical records without patient consent. > > The regulations are opposed by the Washington, DC-based Institute for Health > Freedom, the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), > WorldNetDaily.com columnist Geoff Metcalf, and others. > > The party started a campaign against the regulation in late March, using its > www.DefendYourPrivacy.com website. > > At that time, the regulations were still in the proposal stage, so the party > encouraged people to contact their Congressional representatives and ask > them to put pressure on HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson to reject the rules. > > The party generated more than 43,000 e-mails opposing the rules while, at > the same time, Americans flooded the HHS with 24,000 anti-regulation > letters. > > However, on April 12, President George W. Bush quietly ordered Thompson to > ignore the outpouring of complaints, and implement the regulations > immediately. > > "More than 67,000 Americans spoke out against these regulations -- but their > opinions were ignored by the Bush Administration," said Dasbach. "That's why > we had to go to Plan Two, and try to block the regulations through the House > and Senate." > > To sign the petition and send an e-mail to your U.S. House representative > and U.S. Senator urging support for HJR 38, visit: > www.DefendYourPrivacy.com. > > "If these rules aren't stopped, your medical privacy will be in critical > condition," said Dasbach. > === Kadosh, Kadosh,, YHVH, TZEVAOT FROM THE DESK OF: *Michael Spitzer*<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends ===
[CTRL] Medical Privacy
-Caveat Lector- http://www.ctrl.org/"> -Cui Bono?- http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_dougherty/2215_xnjdo_shalala_pu.shml Shalala pulls plug on public comment No faxes allowed, e-mail restricted on proposed medical privacy rules By Jon E. Dougherty © 2000 WorldNetDaily.com Although Thursday marks the close of the 60-day public comment period on the Department of Health and Human Services' new and controversial proposed medical rules -- which critics say will destroy patient confidentiality and lead to a centralized medical data base -- the giant federal bureaucracy has made it so difficult for citizens to comment that even the ACLU is up in arms. The proposed rules, unveiled last fall by HHS, cite the need for new standards "to protect the privacy of individually identifiable health information maintained or transmitted in connection with certain administrative and financial transactions." However, critics of the plan say the new rules, if approved, would instead move government closer to digitally warehousing medical information on all Americans, while providing third parties easier access to private medical records. In accordance with federal rulemaking processes, the department established a 60-day commentary period, which ends Thursday, for the public to voice opinions about the proposed rules. But Health and Human Services has made the process too cumbersome, say those who have tried to submit their views, prompting the American Civil Liberties Union to complain about the process. At one point the department accepted public comments by regular mail, fax and via email over the Internet. But after receiving an inordinate amount of complaints by fax -- some 2,400 according to the ACLU -- officials at HHS stopped accepting faxes and admonished those seeking to voice their opinions to use regular mail or the Internet. Yet the email option consists of "registering" at the HHS website, answering a list of invasive questions, and being assigned a unique identifier ID and password before allowing comments to be submitted. Mailing one's opinion is even more burdensome. Kent Snyder of the Liberty Study Committee, which opposes the new rules, said an HHS advisory asks citizens to "mail comments -- one original and three copies and if possible a floppy disk as well." The guidelines also say, "you should include your full name, address, telephone number, and a central or knowledgeable point of contact with your comments." The ACLU issued a press advisory complaining about the cumbersome commentary requirements. "This is a classic case of David vs. Goliath," said Laura W. Murphy, director of the ACLU's Washington Office. "The HHS system is set up so that it is far easier for special interest groups like the insurance industry to weigh in than it is for the average person to make their views known." The civil rights organization said the Health and Human Services website is "so complicated to use that it is virtually impossible to submit. And once a user locates the form, HHS has made it unnecessarily complicated and decidedly user-unfriendly." "Where is the opportunity for the American public to tell Secretary Shalala, 'I am concerned,' without having to submit their comments in quadruplicate or spend hours combing the agency's website?" said Murphy. "It is time for the reality of how HHS operates to match the President's promise of public participation." Worse, after thousands of people had faxed comments to Health and Human Services, ACLU officials were told by an agent of the Criminal Intelligence and Investigations section of the Federal Protective Service that the department would no longer accept faxes, suggesting the department considered them threatening or dangerous to the safety of HHS officials. Snyder said his organization has created a much simpler commentary form on the home page of their website. Internet users wishing to send their opinions about the proposed medical privacy rules will see a "copy" of a simple "memo" addressed to HHS, along with general information questions and a comments box. "We plan to hand-deliver each and every response we get -- no matter the point of view -- to HHS personally," Snyder said. Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala said Nov. 3 that her new proposals were "an important first step" in protecting the medical privacy of all Americans. "Our proposals will provide Americans with greater peace of mind as they seek care, yet they are balanced with the need to protect public health, conduct medical research and improve the quality of health care for the nation," Shalala said. Snyder said the rules would actually harm medical privacy by giving access control of all medical records to a number of groups who don't currently have access. They also give the federal government authority
