So Much for Medical Privacy

[KM]

I have been leaving SSN blank on medical forms for years. Not once have I been questioned for it. I suspect they dont even notice it's blank....

 

[samclem]

I can track everyone that has viewed a medical record, try that with a paper file.

And if one of the (now hundreds) of people with legitimate access to the files makes a copy or a print or a screencapture and print, what then? Can we still track the info? This was obviously also a problem when records were solely on paper, too, but the universe of people with access to a particular patient's records was much smaller. It might not affect most of us, but high profile people will have very little chance of their medical conditions, prescribed medications, etc not becoming public knowledge.

 

[Refresher]

Unfortunately, this is the new normal. It's not just medical privacy, it's privacy period. You can kiss it good bye. The casual attitude you mention has permeated into pretty much all areas of life...

Yep, not much we can do
It may be smart to freeze your credit in case someone tries to use your SS# to open accounts which you may find out about after the damage has been done.

 

[spncity]

Koolau, this casual attitude to patient privacy is simply unacceptable. If I were you I would complain to the Hawaii Medical Board.

Typically medical boards allow you to make a complaint anonymously. if you are not sure there won't be retribution (as in dropping you as a patient).

Kindest regards.

 

[John Galt III]

This reminds me of the time I was waiting in the hallway outside my doctor's office. I noticed 2 manilla folders in a bracket on the door. One of the folders had my name on it. Since the doctor was late, as usual, and I was wasting my time, I took down my folder and started reading the documents in it. After a minute, a clerk walked by and screamed "What are you doing? You can't read those files! They're for the doctor only!" I told her I was only reading my own file, but it didn't matter to her. We had a tense standoff and she left in a huff, while I retained my folder in my possession. There was no mention made of the incident when the doctor finally did arrive. I even got to remain on their patient list!

 

[MichaelB]

I think medical privacy is alive and well. Just call a doctor's office and ask for information about someone other than yourself. Even when you have a clear need and legal authorization, it is denied more often than not. Except for paying a bill, of course.

 

[travelover]

....... I told her I was only reading my own file, but it didn't matter to her. We had a tense standoff and she left in a huff, while I retained my folder in my possession. .........

Ironic isn't it that your own medical records are denied to you, but any clerk has access? Especially given that you paid for all the services within.

 

[John Galt III]

Ironic isn't it that your own medical records are denied to you, but any clerk has access? Especially given that you paid for all the services within.

Indeed.

 

[MRG]

And if one of the (now hundreds) of people with legitimate access to the files makes a copy or a print or a screencapture and print, what then? Can we still track the info? This was obviously also a problem when records were solely on paper, too, but the universe of people with access to a particular patient's records was much smaller. It might not affect most of us, but high profile people will have very little chance of their medical conditions, prescribed medications, etc not becoming public knowledge.

Well printing is normally strictly controlled, as in you have no reason to print. Yes printing is an auditable occurance. Most medical record systems I've seen obsufcate any data the user doesn't need to do their job, so the intent is less acess to your data. This carries though the printing proces. If you had ever seen the back office filing systems used in many hospitals you might believe your data is more secure as electrons.

Of course it would help to understand specific concerns. Dr's. office, insuranace companies, the myriad of third parties that have processed your personal data for the past 30 years. Who are we concerned about disclosing PHI?

My guess is it's Dr's. and clinics, as they are newer to electronic records. Their training and procedures will come up to speed, laws are in place to ensure that.

 

[growing_older]

Well printing is normally strictly controlled, as in you have no reason to print. Yes printing is an auditable occurance.

Not at any doctor office I've been in. My current doc has a practice of printing all the ID info and asking you to sign it EVERY time you go for an appointment. Very similar to what others have described. I think your idea that all printing is tightly controlled is nothing like actual practice.

 

[samclem]

Their training and procedures will come up to speed, laws are in place to ensure that.

The world would be a different place if laws somehow ensured behavior.

There are already laws against a lot of the things described in this thread. In the real world, I don't think they accomplish very much, except maybe to provide grounds for punishing people on the very rare occasions when the offenses come to light and are reported appropriately and somebody is motivated to do something about the situation and the perpetrator can be identified. That's a dang thin string by the end.

Anyway, I hope you are right and these privacy issues won't become a problem, but I am not optimistic.

 

[Gotadimple]

The issue of requiring a social security number is a complicated one - historically. As many have stated, using the SSN is considered protected info under HIPPAA.

Historically, clinics collected the SSN from patients because it was (generally) it was a unique number reserved for one individual (I say generally because fake SSNs are how many collect Medicaid benefits if the state isn't verifying the number).

Many insurance carriers also used the SSN as the member number. Most carriers have converted to unique member numbers (except Medicare), but they may carry the SSN in their records as a cross-reference.

So, here we are today, where an SSN in the medical setting is just not necessary, AND is considered protected by HIPPAA. That a clinic hassles one about the SSN is unfortunate.

Koola'u - I would gently remind the front office staff that you will not release it as it protected under HIPPAA and you would appreciate it if they strike it from their system. That's the first step. Secondly, ask for their Quality Assurance Director, and if not local ask for a phone number to their corporate customer service for QA. Report it, and report it to the Hawaii Medical Quality Assurance Board as well.

Rita

 

[samclem]

Secondly, ask for their Quality Assurance Director, and if not local ask for a phone number to their corporate customer service for QA. Report it, and report it to the Hawaii Medical Quality Assurance Board as well.

And then when you go back to that office and they need a blood sample, let us know if they get a good painless "hit" right away, or if they have to kinda "search around" with the needle in your arm for a few minutes until they finally get it. I'd expect that to start happening a lot--if they'll even see you again. "Sorry--our client list is just to full now."

 

[Koolau]

And then when you go back to that office and they need a blood sample, let us know if they get a good painless "hit" right away, or if they have to kinda "search around" with the needle in your arm for a few minutes until they finally get it. I'd expect that to start happening a lot--if they'll even see you again. "Sorry--our client list is just to full now."

Heh, heh. I thought about these scenarios if I made an "official" complaint. My guess is that the "medical professionals" would still do their best - just because that is how they have been trained. It would not surprise me if I became persona non grata at the clinic itself.

I agree with you about "laws" rarely being effective at stopping most behavior (Benjamin, I have just one word for you. "Drugs".)

As I suggested earlier, I'm guessing a big "test case" will come up some day - sort of like when Target lost however many credit card records. Unfortunately, we may have to wait until then to "test" medical records privacy to any real extent. It is all very frustrating, somewhat frightening and also pretty much out of our control in the main. YMMV

 

[travelover]

And then when you go back to that office and they need a blood sample, let us know if they get a good painless "hit" right away, or if they have to kinda "search around" with the needle in your arm for a few minutes until they finally get it.........

This is why I never pi$$ off my dentist.

 

[longranger]

I am a doc, share the indignation expressed at the stupid practices referenced on this thread and guard my own information in situations where it is possible. Like everyone else I desperately want to assign blame for the irresponsible handling of confidential information. Then I tell myself not no fast. If you drill down to the root cause for this madness you find that most of our problems arise from crappy software designed to "assist" businesses comply with government regulations, requirements of insurers and a dumbed down workforce.

First impulse is to switch to better software. Well usually there is none. Refuse to comply with regulations? We know where that option goes. Hire really smart ethical compassionate people to sensitive positions offering minimum wage? UMM!!! We all see this picture every day. At present I find more peace of mind accepting that all of us are casualties of the irresponsible and often unnecessary growth of IT than trying to blame someone. Until I make the decision to live entirely off grid(never) or the software evolves into what it needs to be I will suffer just like everyone else.