HIPAA claims another victim - when will we stop the insanity?

[hoosierdoc]

She might be an idiot. But what has that to do with this at all? Seems like a non-sequitur to me.

Right?

”if she has such a stupid opinion on vaccines she can’t be trusted to care for people” is the logic

I asked if a Jehovah’s Witness could work on a trauma team

 

[Trigger Time]

I asked if a Jehovah’s Witness could work on a trauma team

That's a whole new level of stupid. Theyll let their child die instead of having a blood transfusion among other things. But they always have an excuse for things so I'm sure theyd gladly hand it out as long as they arrnt the ones partaking.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

From another perspective, try being the husband trying to come to your wife's aid after she's been in an accident and NO ONE will tell your where she is or her condition...presumably because of these laws.

 

[hoosierdoc]

From another perspective, try being the husband trying to come to your wife's aid after she's been in an accident and NO ONE will tell your where she is or her condition...presumably because of these laws.

Yep, another great problem with the law

but people should be able to confirm whether she’s there or not. Unless she checks in as a do not publish

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Yep, another great problem with the law

but people should be able to confirm whether she’s there or not. Unless she checks in as a do not publish

The first place I went that morning (a co-worker told me that's where they took her) would not even comment if such a person had ever been on the premises, much less tell me where she went to from there.

 

[bwframe]

Is this the same law that prohibits mentally challenged/handicapped people's records from being reported to NICS to prohibit firearm purchases?

 

[Fargo]

Is this the same law that prohibits mentally challenged/handicapped people's records from being reported to NICS to prohibit firearm purchases?

I do not believe there is any law preventing the mentally disabled or handicapped from buying firearms, it is only if you have some sort of commitment based on mental illness.

edit: There is a broad law enforcement exception to hippa. There are a number of reasons that such mental commitments go unreported, but I do not believe they are prohibited by hippa.

 

[HoughMade]

I do not believe there is any law preventing the mentally disabled or handicapped from buying firearms, it is only if you have some sort of commitment based on mental illness.

edit: There is a broad law enforcement exception to hippa. There are a number of reasons that such mental commitments go unreported, but I do not believe they are prohibited by hippa.

There's a lot of "except as required by law" in HIPAA. And yes, we were discussing in the Jacksonville thread that the restriction for buying guns is on those committed to a mental institution and those who have been adjudicated mentally defective. Having a handicap or recieving treatment for mental or emotional issues, even in-patient, is not either of these.

 

[DRob]

The problem I see here is very simple. FaceBook!

 

[Clay Pigeon]

Federal Law
Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d), it is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.”

Question 11f on the 4473 form.



Question 11.f. Adjudicated as a Mental Defective: A determination by a court,
board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked
subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: (1) is
a danger to himself or to others; or (2) lacks the mental capacity to contract or
manage his own affairs. This term shall include: (1) a finding of insanity by a court
in a criminal case; and (2) those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not
guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility.

Committed to a Mental Institution: A formal commitment of a person to a mental
institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term
includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term includes
commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments
for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a
mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution.
the person has been granted relief by the adjudicating/committing State pursuant to
a qualifying mental health relief from disabilities program. Also, a person who has
been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution by a
department or agency of Federal Government is not prohibited by the adjudication
or commitment if either: (a) the person's adjudication or commitment was set-aside
or expunged by the adjudicating/committing agency; (b) the person has been fully
released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring by
the agency; (c) the person was found by the agency to no longer suffer from the
mental health condition that served as the basis of the initial adjudication/
commitment; or (d) the adjudication or commitment, respectively, is based solely
on a medical finding of disability, without an opportunity for a hearing by a court,
board, commission, or other lawful authority, and the person has not been
adjudicated as a mental defective consistent with section 922(g)(4) of title 18,
United States Code; (e) the person was granted relief from the adjudicating/
committing agency pursuant to a qualified mental health relief from disabilities
program. Persons who fall within one of the above exceptions should answer
"no" to question 11.f. This exception to an adjudication or commitment by a
Federal department or agency does not apply to any person who was adjudicated
to be not guilty by reason of insanity, or based on lack of mental responsibility, or
found incompetent to stand trial, in any criminal case or under the Uniform Code
of Military Justice.


.

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

So somebody sees a problem with patient information being released excessively. Some guy got butthurt because the neighbors found out he had herpes and they didn't want him boning their wives. Feed it through congress, which just thrives on this kind of thing, and they come out with some excessive, incomprehensible requirements which will cost hugely to comply with, presuming you can figure out how. This, like many such laws is then translated into a zero tolerance policy like in the schools. A young man was recently punished for calling his female teacher ma'am. "You're fired, you can't do that, it's the law." That's some law, that Catch-22...

 

[Double T]

Anyone remember this? I was minimally involved in some legal actions that resulted when I was a young'un. This short article doesn't say much, but it was an anti-vax nurse at a family practice who gave about 1,300 kids fake vaccinations, that is, she injected saline (I think) rather than the vaccine.

Fake Immunizations Charged - tribunedigital-chicagotribune

Perhaps the hospital does not want to take a chance by having an anti-vaxxer on staff or it really didn't like the PR nightmare which is having an anti-vaxxer on staff.

...but the OP story really isn't a HIPAA issue. If no identifying information is given, I do not believe it is a violation of the Privacy Rule.

It's hospital policy more than likely, when I was going through orientation, in no means was anything to be posted or discussed outside of our post clinical day. As a nurse now, I don't post anything work related or even recent anywhere. I can discuss cases that I've seen, but I can't discuss where.

 

[rob63]

From another perspective, try being the husband trying to come to your wife's aid after she's been in an accident and NO ONE will tell your where she is or her condition...presumably because of these laws.

Along those lines, our daughter was once very depressed and informed our doctor that she was suicidal. She was admitted to a facility (I honestly don't know what the proper word for it is these days, but something like a psychiatric ward). They would not tell us anything beyond having us sign all kinds of paperwork accepting financial liability. Nothing, zilch. Fortunately, our daughter eventually signed the paperwork allowing them to tell us.

I have always wondered what would have happened if she didn't. Were they just going to send her home without us ever knowing what was really going on? Think about that, the person that has the mental problem gets to decide whether their loved ones are informed. It's bizarre. We obviously knew something was going on, but had absolutely no idea how bad she really was.

People always get all worked up about why the parents didn't do something about their kid that kept having issues, but I often wonder how much the parents really knew? Troubled kids hide it from the parents, and, unfortunately, sometimes the authorities do so as well.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Along those lines, our daughter was once very depressed and informed our doctor that she was suicidal. She was admitted to a facility (I honestly don't know what the proper word for it is these days, but something like a psychiatric ward). They would not tell us anything beyond having us sign all kinds of paperwork accepting financial liability. Nothing, zilch. Fortunately, our daughter eventually signed the paperwork allowing them to tell us.

I have always wondered what would have happened if she didn't. Were they just going to send her home without us ever knowing what was really going on? Think about that, the person that has the mental problem gets to decide whether their loved ones are informed. It's bizarre. We obviously knew something was going on, but had absolutely no idea how bad she really was.

People always get all worked up about why the parents didn't do something about their kid that kept having issues, but I often wonder how much the parents really knew? Troubled kids hide it from the parents, and, unfortunately, sometimes the authorities do so as well.

It's maddening. I hope your daughter got over whatever was troubling her. I'm usually "pretty easy going"...(most of the time). But that day, I was not very.......nice.

 

[femurphy77]

Somewhat along similar lines; I witnessed a pretty bad accident one day and was obviously involved with aiding the victims initially. An SUV sitting at a stop sign had been t-boned HARD and while tending to the driver of the SUV (the responsible scumbag was walking around whining about the condition of his vehicle) I noticed a baby seat in the back of the SUV. The lady driver was barely coherent but was able to tell me she was on the way to pick up the child and her husbands name and phone number. While I was contacting the husband an off duty nurse was helping the driver and by this time the EMT's were on site and were getting ready to transport. I asked where they were taking her so I could tell the husband and one of the EMT's told me "We can't tell you that, it's a HIPPA violation!". I thought the off duty nurse was going to rip him a new one right there on the spot, fortunately the captain on the fire truck had a little more common sense than the paramedic did that day.

 

[Ericpwp]

No PHI, no HIPAA issue. Fake news!

FWIW: the articles don't mention HIPAA

 

[Lex Concord]

This is in no way directed at you doc, but when the medical community goes dogmatic to the point of purging anyone not toeing the line on vaccine safety, there is a reason that a lot of people stop trusting it’s official position on the matter.


Whenever there is science, that “shall not be questioned” I cease to believe that it is science.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Fargo again

 

[Steel and wood]

The problem I see here is very simple. FaceBook!

THIS ^^^

 

[hoosierdoc]

No PHI, no HIPAA issue. Fake news!

FWIW: the articles don't mention HIPAA

"We were made aware that one of our nurses posted protected health information regarding a patient on social media," the hospital said in a statement Tuesday night. "We take these matters very seriously as the privacy and well-being of our patients is always a top priority. After an internal investigation, this individual is no longer with the organization."

second article....

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Yep, another great problem with the law

but people should be able to confirm whether she’s there or not. Unless she checks in as a do not publish

The first place I went that morning (a co-worker told me that's where they took her) would not even comment if such a person had ever been on the premises, much less tell me where she went to from there.

Advice I was given was never ask if such and such is a patient there. Just ask what room they are in. That advice was given to me by someone that works in a hospital and occasionally had to handle people coming in worried. They couldn't confirm if someone was a patient or not, but they could give out the room if asked. They occasionally had to coach spouse/parents on what to ask for as in, "do you mean what room are they in?".