"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
02/15/2020 at 13:47 • Filed to: None | 1 | 15 |
It seems like every time I take my kids to the doctor they have more paperwork for me to fill out. And every time, they give me a form that says, “I have received the Notice of Privacy Practices etc.” I refuse to sign the form until they actually give me a copy, since a copy is never included with the paperwork, nor are the privacy practices posted in the office . The desk staff always look a bit befuddled when somebody actually asks to see it.
Since I asked for it, I figured I’d go ahead and read it. I’ve seen the statements about Protective Services for the President (though I’m not sure how the government knowing that my cholesterol is high will be necessary for national security), but this time, I noticed a new line added to the bottom of the list:
“A person of persons able to prevent or lessen a serious threat to health or safety.”
Which means, I suppose, that they can release my medical records to just about anybody for just about any reason.
Neat.
Just Jeepin'
> ttyymmnn
02/15/2020 at 13:52 | 2 |
I used to refuse to sign the bank paper acknowledging receipt of my money until they actually gave it to me, but I finally decided it wasn’t worth raising a fuss over.
facw
> ttyymmnn
02/15/2020 at 13:58 | 3 |
People are shockingly willing to sign things without looking at them. I get the sense that apartment leasing people find it extremely odd that I want to read the lease before agreeing to it.
That last bullet is pretty appalling vague. I’d probably sign anyway, but that might be bad enough for to find out if I can make alterations to that agreement. The “As permitted by law” bit may restrict what they can legally send though, even given that vagueness, though I am definitely not up to date on what is permitted by HIPPA, etc.
ClassicDatsunDebate
> ttyymmnn
02/15/2020 at 14:00 | 1 |
Complete guess from a guy that has to interpre t T&C’s for contracts sometimes:
I bet that clause is to be able to send your info to another healthcare facility/Doctor/Lab etc that isn’t legally part of the same entity you’re signing up with, such as a specialist or something . As i say, just a guess.
ttyymmnn
> facw
02/15/2020 at 14:01 | 2 |
There is a certain resignation about it. You look at that stuff and say, “Wow, that’s messed up,” but you realize that there’s little to nothing you can do about it. The only time I didn’t read all the fine print was when we bought our house. We did not use a real estate agent, and instead hired a property lawyer to handle all the paperwork. When we got to the closing, and had that giant stack of papers in front of us, I asked the lawyer, “You read all this, right?” And when he said that he did, I just went ahead and signed. That’s what I paid him for.
jimz
> ttyymmnn
02/15/2020 at 14:06 | 1 |
I’ve seen the statements about Protective Services for the President (though I’m not sure how the government knowing that my cholesterol is high will be necessary for national security)
I think this is more for cases of employment in certain sensitive roles. e.g. if you were in line to work for the Secret Service as part of the presidential detail, they would be requesting your medical records as part of their background check and vetting process; they’re saying that they would comply with such a request in that case. mostly so they can see if there’s anything in your past which could inhibit your ability to do your job, or anything that would be of use to someone trying to blackmail you.
based on the people I know, the two most stringent pre-employment background checks are for 1) working in government where you need a security clearance, and 2) working for a casino.
ttyymmnn
> ClassicDatsunDebate
02/15/2020 at 14:10 | 0 |
There was specific language dealing with that scenario elsewhere in the document or in the pages I signed.
jimz
> ttyymmnn
02/15/2020 at 14:24 | 1 |
more I think about it, it sounds like a shield for cases where they see evidence of e.g. domestic violence or child abuse/neglect where they may have reason or need to disclose it to someone not in law enforcement. kind of a “we had a legitimate reason to disclose this and it shouldn’t be a HIPAA violation.”
ttyymmnn
> jimz
02/15/2020 at 14:47 | 0 |
Interesting take. I read it more of releasing information to deal with an epidemic like Coronavirus or something. Either way, it’s vague enough to mean just about anything.
Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing.
> ttyymmnn
02/15/2020 at 14:50 | 2 |
About a decade ago I went to a new doctor. They provided me with a bunch of paperwork to sign (after I asked to read it first) and there were several documents that I didn’t like and refused to sign. For some reason they didn’t balk and treated me for years.
Contrast that with my oncologist: they have a digital pad that you sign on, and they tell you the gist of what you’re signing - you don’t even see the documents . For all I know I could have been signing a new lease and car loan for the receptionist...
jimz
> ttyymmnn
02/15/2020 at 15:02 | 2 |
that’s what I thought at first, but the second bullet point would cover that situation. It may be vague b ut HIPAA is still law, and the penalties for willfully disclosing patient information improperly are pretty stiff. they can’t (and they know they can’t) just handwave it away via a bullet point in a T&C document. I think- but am not certain- mandatory reporting laws only shield them in cases where they inform the authorities, either police or whatever your area’s family/child services agency is called. I’m still thinking it’s for cases where they have a situation they’re mandatory reporters for but have the need to inform someone outside of the normal legally prescribed channels.
it might actually be worth calling or writing the health system your Dr. belongs to and asking what that clause actually means. they should be easily able to tell you.
TheD0k_2many toys 2little time
> ttyymmnn
02/15/2020 at 15:28 | 1 |
Cool. I havent been to a doctor since like 2013 so i could care less what they see
Cé hé sin
> ttyymmnn
02/15/2020 at 15:44 | 0 |
No GDPR over
there?
ttyymmnn
> Cé hé sin
02/15/2020 at 15:47 | 0 |
??
Cé hé sin
> ttyymmnn
02/15/2020 at 16:03 | 0 |
Obviously not.....
GDPR
TheRealBicycleBuck
> ttyymmnn
02/15/2020 at 19:13 | 1 |
I went to a new clinic this morning. They had the privacy policy in a sheet protector that was taped to the clipboard. Taped in such a way that you couldn’t actually get the policy out of the sheet protector without tearing something up. It was clear nobody had ever asked for a copy since the lady was surprised when I pointed out that it was impossible to get the policy off the clipboard.....