136Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksIt isn't a violation if they discuss the patient , with the patients ins. provider; Uncle Sam?Originally Posted by DPro.40
This is a discussion on Your Doctor performing Firearm background checks within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by DPro.40 Wouldn't discussing firearms with a patient and then telling the government violate the HIPPA laws. Patient confidentially laws may be in ...
Array
It isn't a violation if they discuss the patient , with the patients ins. provider; Uncle Sam?
If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.
Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to defeat the British, He shot them!
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." -- Ernest Benn
Array
Linked below is apparently the final revision released by the DHHS on the privacy laws of the 1996 HIPAA law and it is interesting. Search the document for "law enforcement" or "intelligence" and you'll be presented with 299 and 63 results respectively. I'm currently reading Section 164.510 and there are some noteworthy things in here:
Application to Intelligence Community
The NPRM would have provided an exemption from its proposed requirements to the intelligence community. As defined in section 4 of the National Security Act, 50 U.S.C. 401a, the intelligence community includes: the Office of the Director of Central Intelligence Agency; the Office of the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence; the National Intelligence Council and other such offices as the Director may designate; the Central Intelligence Agency; the National Security Agency; the Defense Intelligence Agency; the National Imagery and Mapping Agency ; the National Reconnaissance Office; other offices within the DOD for the collection of specialized national intelligence through reconnaissance programs; the intelligence elements of the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marine Corps, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of the Treasury, and the Department of Energy; the Bureau of Intelligence and Research of the Department of State; and such other elements of any other department or agency as may be designated by the President, or designated jointly by the Director of Central Intelligence and the head of the department or agency concerned, as an element of the intelligence community. It would have allowed a covered entity to use without individual authorization protected health information of employees of the intelligence community, and of their dependents, if such dependents were being considered for posting abroad. The final rule does not include such an exemption. Rather, the final rule does not exempt intelligence community employees and their dependents from the general rule requiring an authorization in order for protected health information to be used and disclosed.
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa...0all8parts.pdf
Edit: The Patriot Act, passed into law three years after the above document was published, appears to nullify much of what I pasted according to a 2004 release by the American Health Information Management Association: http://library.ahima.org/xpedio/grou...me=bok1_048641
Array
That's kind of scary when you think about it. I guess that's cost control.. No one will go to the Dr anymore. He'll only know as much as I reveal
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
Ronald Reagan
We spend our evolution fearing the moon, fearing Gods, fearing other men, fearing Governments?
Fearing the public knowledge?
Check your souls, Gentlemen.
There is a solution but we are not Jedi... not yet.
Doghandler
Array
I love my Family Practice Doctor but there are a few things that are personal to me that I never tell my doctor when they ask.
If your doctor asks, DONT TELL. It's none of their business
Array
OH... that's right no government has [I]ever murdered it's own citizens
They always do.
There is a solution but we are not Jedi... not yet.
Doghandler
Array
Since my doc doesn't put me under oath, my answer would be "no" and leave it at that. My bigger concern is that docs will have to figure that if one of their patients goes nutzo and shoots up a public place, will the doc be sued for not noticing and reporting "questionable" behaviors? I bet the first several will be to set the example and get them reporting every little aberration.
Array
That's a good point, BuckNekkid. As we all know, physicians work under enough liability when they step into the office each morning. This is the last thing they need. But surely some will jump at the chance to "make a difference" and help the federal government track guns and their owners. When another incident involving gun violence occurs and this Executive Order is in effect, surely an attorney will come back to the patient's physician (assuming he/she had one) and ask "did you see these warning signs?". "Did you document and report them?"
This whole concept is so deeply flawed but I want to address one particular problem: it's too subjective and prone to bias. Hypothetical: would a family practice doc in Mississippi and an endocrinologist in New Hampshire both ask the same patient the exact same questions and choose to report that patient to authorities or a federal database based on his answers? This is where the physician's personal beliefs about guns might come into play. One physician might be stringently anti-gun and would zealously report any patient who even hesitates to answer during a barrage of questions about guns. Another might never, ever ask any of his patients about guns because he doesn't agree with the idea that physicians should ask these types of questions. And he happens to be a gun owner himself. There's too much of a possibility for subjective interpretation, personal bias, and intermittent reporting. Too much standardization has ruined healthcare but in this instance there's no standardization (yet) and that would hamper the whole process.
I don't see how this could possibly work or much less benefit anyone.
Array
One final thought (for now): When the enforcement component of Obamacare goes into effect next year, what if the federal government takes the unprecedented step and requires every U.S citizen to get a yearly check-up by a physician? Maybe it becomes a felony to not go to the doctor? My last-ditch idea of simply not going to the doctor or seeking medical advice for anything except an acute emergency would be useless. And at the same time, what if physicians are mandated, not just allowed, to ask patients about firearms? Does anyone else see this as even a remote possibility? I think this is highly unlikely but not altogether an impossibility. Man, this tinfoil hat is making my head sweat.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
