11–20 of 47 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article covers this: The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, regulates how health information is used and exchanged among “covered entities” such as hospitals and doctor’s offices. But the law gives pharmacies leeway as to what legal standard they require before disclosing medical records to law enforcement.
Wow, that's a gaping privacy loophole.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn’t this be a massive HIPAA violation??
The article covers this: The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, regulates how health information is used and exchanged among “covered entities” such as hospitals and doctor’s offices. But the law gives pharmacies leeway as to what legal standard they require before disclosing medical records to law enforcement.
If you get a prescription filled using insurance, that medication goes on a report. * Collects prescription drug purchase history for quantifying the relative mortality risk of life insurance applicants and provides risk scores for underwriting decisions.* https://www.consumerfinance.gov/consumer-tools/credit-report... Even if you don’t use insurance, it may still be possible to wind up on this list.
Wouldn’t this be a massive HIPAA violation??
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn’t this be a massive HIPAA violation??
The article covers this: The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, regulates how health information is used and exchanged among “covered entities” such as hospitals and doctor’s offices. But the law gives pharmacies leeway as to what legal standard they require before disclosing medical records to law enforcement.
See, generally, https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/faq/505/what-doe... and the regulations cited therein.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn’t this be a massive HIPAA violation??
I look forward to the lawsuits since HIPAA is Federal and abortion laws are state.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn’t this be a massive HIPAA violation??
I'm in Canada so HIPAA doesn't apply for me but when I was going into my second year of university the student union signed a contract with a health insurance company that provided some piddly policy for students that was mandatory unless you could provide proof of insurance with another company. Not only was there no way to refuse this but you were automatically enrolled unless you could provide that proof by a cert…
But PIPEDA definitely applies to this situation, but PIPEDA only came into effect on April 2020 so it would depend upon when you were a student.
If you get a prescription filled using insurance, that medication goes on a report. * Collects prescription drug purchase history for quantifying the relative mortality risk of life insurance applicants and provides risk scores for underwriting decisions.* https://www.consumerfinance.gov/consumer-tools/credit-report... Even if you don’t use insurance, it may still be possible to wind up on this list.
Wouldn’t this be a massive HIPAA violation??
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/45/164.512
And then there's the HHS interpretation of the above for providers, which is... porous:
https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/faq/505/what-doe...
Of particular note are the exemptions in 45 CFR 164.512(k)(2) applicable to powers granted by executive order 12333 (on mass surveillance). When this exemption is used it makes discovering whether, when, how, or why your data was collected or used practically impossible.
So utterly depressing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn’t this be a massive HIPAA violation??
I'm in Canada so HIPAA doesn't apply for me but when I was going into my second year of university the student union signed a contract with a health insurance company that provided some piddly policy for students that was mandatory unless you could provide proof of insurance with another company. Not only was there no way to refuse this but you were automatically enrolled unless you could provide that proof by a cert…
I could understand about it being legal, maybe even ethical (ethical codes can differ) -- but to argue that there is no privacy violation? That just seems completely delusional.