医师们对隐私条例发动第一波法律攻势

隐私权专家怀疑宪法争议会持续不断

  虽然全国性的医疗隐私权条例直到2003年四月才会正式上路,但一些医师团体早已对政府的新制度采取第一波法律攻势。在一份刚建档的诉讼案件,以及其它预料将会在未来出现的案例,医师试图说明该条例的非法性,表示它们违反宪法。许多医师相信,这些条例立意是很好的,但却会增加他们更多官僚人情负担与行医开销。南卡罗来纳医疗协会与路易斯安那州医疗协会,在七月十六日联邦地方法庭上控告美国国家医疗暨人类服务部门。

Doctors Mount First Legal Challenges to Privacy Rules

Privacy Experts Doubt Constitutional Arguments Will Succeed

By Sean Martin
WebMD Washington Correspondent

Reviewed by Dominique S. Walton, MD, MBA

Aug. 8, 2001 (Washington) -- National medical privacy rules aren't supposed to be in effect until April 2003, but several doctor groups are already taking the government to court in the first legal challenges to the new standards.

In one suit just filed, and another that is expected any day, physicians are trying to derail the rules, claiming that they are unconstitutional.

Many doctors believe the rules are well intentioned but will impose yet more bureaucratic burdens and costs on their practices.

The South Carolina Medical Association, along with the Louisiana State Medical Society, sued the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on July 16 in federal district court.

"This is another example of the federal bureaucracy gone awry and leaping far beyond the boundaries of common sense and, in this case, the law," says Dudley Stewart Jr., MD, president of the Louisiana society.

A 1996 health law granted HHS the authority to write privacy rules if Congress itself failed to act. Congress subsequently failed to pass any rules, prompting HHS to do the task itself through a formal, public rulemaking procedure. But the suit says that granting HHS this power was a violation of the separation of powers, since it delegated lawmaking authority to the health agency.

The suit faces tough odds, according to several privacy experts contacted by WebMD. As far as the delegation-of-authority argument, health privacy consultant Robert Gellman tells WebMD, "That is a total loser. This is a throwback to litigation from the 1930s. It barely passes the laugh test."

It was 1935 when the U.S. Supreme Court last found that an agency had acted unconstitutionally regarding delegated authority.

Joy Pritts, senior counsel for Georgetown University's Health Privacy Project, tells WebMD, "They have a very tough battle ahead of them. Precedent is not on their side. That will be very hard to overturn." But she adds, "Having said that, you never know."

The South Carolina suit also claims that the privacy rules are too broad, because they cover paper and electronic medical records, even though the 1996 law only gave the agency explicit authority to set standards for electronic medical information.

But the doctors may regret it if they succeed on this count, says Gellman, since that might mean that two different rules would apply to the same medical record in two formats.

In another signal of the suit's slim chances, the American Medical Association has declined to sign on. In a trustee report on the issue, the AMA concludes, "Such a challenge would be extremely difficult to win."

The health privacy rules give patients the right to access, copy, and correct their medical records. They also require that patients be allowed access information on how their information is going to be used by health providers.

Moreover, the rules require that health providers obtain written permission from patients in order to use individual medical records for a variety of purposes. Providers are also required to establish privacy-protecting policies and procedures, and those that violate the standards are subject to civil and criminal penalties.

Meanwhile, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) says that it is also about to sue HHS on the privacy rules. During the Clinton administration, AAPS successfully sued Hillary Clinton's healthcare task force for violating public access rules.

The AAPS says the rules violate the Fourth Amendment, by giving the government access to personal medical records without a warrant. The group also claims that the rules are unconstitutional in covering "purely intrastate" doctor actions in using and maintaining medical records for patients.

But on the government access question, Gellman says, "We've been allowing that for 40 years for researchers, public health authorities, and fraud and abuse investigators. There is nothing new ... that authorizes new disclosures without a warrant."

Pritts agrees that HHS already has access to hundreds of thousands of Medicare and Medicaid medical records. "It's surprising to me that people are reacting so strongly to the government access provision, when they have already given up the ballgame," she tells WebMD.

Gellman and Pritts are also dubious of the doctors' argument that keeping medical records is a purely intrastate action, arguing that most health information crosses state lines for purposes such as insurance payment or drug prescribing.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration says it is fine-tuning the privacy rules to ensure that they are workable for health providers. It announced several clarifications to the rule in early July that are explained online at http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa.

Although President Bush announced this April that he wants to maintain strong privacy standards, health industry groups are hoping to lobby the Administration to ease the requirements.

Gellman says doctors and others probably don't need to stress out about complying with every last privacy mandate by April 2003. "It will probably take 10 years before there is substantial compliance with the privacy rule under any condition. For the most part, most institutions are going to have to look at privacy for the very first time. They are at ground zero," he tells WebMD

Gellman predicts that as the compliance deadline approaches, pressure to push it back will bring a 6-month or year extension.

 

© 2001 WebMD Corporation. All rights reserved.

 

    
相关报导
研究者警告:父母亲的社群媒体使用情况可能会伤害孩子
2016/11/14 上午 11:19:02
论量计酬的医疗保险需检测疾病治疗计划的价值
2003/8/13 上午 11:10:00
家庭医师和非医学博士临床工作者最可能治疗未受到关心的病人
2003/8/6 上午 10:32:00

上一页
   1   2   3   4  




回上一页