[wordup] defend your medical records ...

[Adam Shand]

"The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has published new
regulations that would require health care providers to turn your medical
records over to the federal government -- which could then share them with
third parties such as private marketers, police agencies, and even foreign
governments."

further if your health care practioner refuses they could face criminal
charges.  it looks like defendyourprivacy.com is a libertarian party
propoganda, not that that is a bad thing but just so you know.

the original document that this is all about can be at the below url (then
scroll down to health and human services department and download 8 pdf
files):

	http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fedreg/a001228c.html

URL: http://www.defendyourprivacy.com/faq.html

What are the HHS medical privacy regulations?

The regulations are an outgrowth of the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996, which passed Congress with broad bipartisan
support and was signed by President Clinton. To implement the law, the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was required to publish
specific "medical privacy" rules in the Federal Register, and it did so on
December 28, 2000. The rules are scheduled to go into effect on April 14,
unless Americans pressure Congress and the HHS to revise or withdraw them.

What specifically would the regulations do?

Here are some highlights of the 368-page document, which can be accessed
at the Federal Register website [Then scroll down to Health and Human
Services Department and download 8 PDF files.]

The regulations would:

Give dozens of government agencies and tens of thousands of bureaucrats
access to your medical records -- without your consent -- for a variety of
purposes including "oversight of the health care system," to "streamline
billing procedures" and for "public health surveillance activities." Your
records would be turned over regardless of whether you received care from
a government provider, through private insurance -- or even paid for it
out of your own pocket.

Let the government fine your doctor if you try to block access to your
medical files -- or order your physician to refuse to treat you.

Permit government agencies to share your records with marketing companies.
They specifically allow pharmacies to share prescription records "for the
purpose of marketing health-related products and services" without your
consent.

Assign every American a "unique patient identifier," whether you want one
or not, by working in conjunction with the Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act. The number would be similar to a Social Security
number for medical transactions - and would make accessing an individual's
medical records as easy as running a credit check.

Not prevent the government from registering your unique DNA code.

Permit police agencies to access medical records without a search warrant.

Give the government the right to access the private notes of a
psychotherapist.

Allow foreign government officials to see Americans' health records, as
long as the U.S. government claims it is doing it for a "national health
purpose."

Allow private insurance companies to access the medical information and
compile it into a database.

Prevent patients involved in health research projects from accessing their
own medical records.

What's the government's rationale for imposing these regulations?

Interestingly, the government originally claimed the rules were designed
to protect your medical privacy rather than invade it. Then-HHS Secretary
Donna Shalala said the regulations would "improve patients' access and
control of their medical information" and "set boundaries on the use and
release of medical information."

The problem with that explanation is that no new law was required to
protect your medical information, because giving it to third parties
without your consent is already illegal. The new regulations were simply
written to allow the government to seize control of the information, and
turn it over to others -- while pretending to protect it.

Another quote from Shalala is revealing:  "The rules will balance our need
for privacy protection with the public responsibility to support national
priorities -- like public health."

There you have it: Your medical privacy must take a back seat to the
government's priority of "public health."

What has Shalala's Republican successor, Tommy Thompson, said about the
regulations?

Thompson has refused to tell the American people where he stands on this
issue. In response to a specific question about the regulation on Fox News
Channel's Hannity and Colmes show on March 22, Thompson said: "I do have
the authority to rewrite it, to suspend it, to postpone it, or to let it
go into effect the way it is. And right now I can't comment on what I'm
going to do."

Why is the Libertarian Party opposed to the regulations?

We believe your medical records are your property -- period. No one should
ever be able to access them without your expressed written consent.

Is it realistic to believe that we can force the HHS to back down?

Yes! This isn't the first time that an Internet campaign has been used to
kill a privacy threat. In 1999, the FDIC's proposed "Know Your Customer"
regulation would have forced banks to profile customers' accounts. That's
when the Libertarian Party set up this site -- DefendYourPrivacy.com. In
just three weeks, we generated an avalanche of e-mails -- nearly 180,000
in all -- and forced the FDIC to back down. Now let's force the HHS to
surrender as well!

What are other organizations and doctors saying about these regulations?

* The prestigious American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)
  wrote in a March 15 letter to Thompson: "In a nutshell, we object to the
  way the rule gives greater rights of access to the government than to
  the patient himself. . . . There is no justification for permitting
  public health surveillance and dissemination of personal medical
  records." Click Here to read the letter.

* On March 26, the AAPS lodged another protest with Thompson warning that
  the regulations "would have unintended consequences: the worst would be
  to enable if not guarantee wholesale invasions of privacy. We fully
  support the effort in Congress to repeal this work of the previous
  Administration." Click Here to read the letter.

* The Institute for Health Freedom, a nonpartisan think tank in
  Washington, DC, that analyzes health issues, has grave concerns about
  the regulations.  After studying the 1,200-page regulation, President
  Sue Blevins said, "The rule does not provide true medical privacy.
  Rather, it actually weakens individuals' ability to restrict access to
  their medical records." Click Here to view her comments.

* Medical doctors Michael Arnold Glueck and Robert J. Cihak wrote in a
  March 2 column in WorldNetDaily.com, "Any government agent claiming a
  'national priority purpose' can poke around in your most private medical
  details. In many cases, the government can then release your personal
  medical information from government files without anybody having to ask
  your permission." Click Here to view their comments.

* U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, -- himself a physician -- said on March 26
  that the rules show "medical privacy is under assault by Washington
  bureaucrats. Patients will have only limited knowledge of who sees their
  records. Ultimately, your medical history will be readily available to
  any government agency that wishes to create a national medical
  database." Click Here to view his testimony.