Comments on: New York Times on HIPAA

By: DH

DH — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 02:15:39 +0000

HIPPA came in handy once (and only once). I have a very common last name and some receptionist pulled my file for someone else–landing me with the bill.

The telephone tag trying to get this straightened out was a nightmare. Finally I told the office manager that since my file was obviously shown to someone else (they initialed it) I would be reporting it as a HIPPA violation if it wasn’t taken care of today.

After six months of polite, the mention of HIPPA spurred her to action.

Probably the only time it has ever been useful, though.

By: Labor Nurse

Labor Nurse — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 14:16:29 +0000

Didn’t this NY Times article also say that they rarely investigate claims as well? Or they only go after claims against large entities?

I can’t tell you how many times a family member left steaming that one of us wouldn’t divulge more than generic information. What good is this?

By: The House Whisperer

The House Whisperer — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 18:48:09 +0000

The solution by regulators will always be more regulation. Not my surprised face.

By: GruntDoc

GruntDoc — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 16:57:30 +0000

The privacy summary runs 25 pages:
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacysummary.pdf (18 pages of which are non-fluff).

As for ‘just a $100 fine’, you’re kidding yourself. Nobody wants to have to report that HHS found them guilty of even a technical HIPAA violation.

The Health Insurance portability part makes sense; the rest needs some serious scrutiny.

Here’s the main page:
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/

And, there’s a glaring problem here: if no fines have been levied in 4 years, then it wasn’t needed. There’s plenty of anecdotal evidence the bad by far outweighs the good. It needs to be re-done, more with a nod to the real world.

By: HIPAA: fear doesn’t lead to openness « Keane Insurance Group

HIPAA: fear doesn’t lead to openness « Keane Insurance Group — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 15:33:35 +0000

[...] family members to be there to help in some capacity. The answer is irrational fear. As the GruntDoc commented, “Seriously, what did they expect? A hundreds+ page law by lawyers for lawyers, about [...]

By: rjh

rjh — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 09:52:06 +0000

There is no doubt that HIPAA has been the excuse for some astonishing empire building and incredibly silly interpretations. The article gives just a few of the unthinking ignorant and aggressively stupid interpretations that occur. But it is much shorter and easier to read than you think. It is not hundreds of pages long. The total regulation is 31 pages. The first 8 a definitions of terms, such as “covered entity”. The next 22 are the rules. The final page is the effective dates for various stages. What you are seeing is a continuation of mindless stupidity by hospital management (a far to common occurrence), with a ready made excuse for not thinking. “It’s HIPAA’s fault.”

I’m not sure where you got the page count. I’m using the page count from the Federal Register. You may be referring to the response to comments version, which spends page after page explaining why each individual rule was put in place. The “huge” fines are also a misleading claim. For non-malicious violations, the fines are limited to $100/person/violation and $25,000/person/year maximum. This is a minor traffic ticket, if enforced, and has never been more than a written “don’t do it again” for any non-malicious violations.

By: Cade

Cade — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 07:50:17 +0000

As someone who’s seen HIPAA from both sides of the bed, it does more harm than good a lot of times (even as a patient). Glad to hear Uncle Eddy wants to make sure my medical information is super super secret. I’m all for privacy, but within reason. More bureaucracy does not equal more reason. Idiot.