Boston Globe, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Weigh in on Final Medical Privacy Regulations
New medical privacy regulations made official by the Bush administration last week received mixed reviews from privacy advocates and health care providers. The new rules build on guidelines first proposed by the Clinton administration and permit personal medical files to be shared only for purposes of treating patients, paying bills and carrying out various health care operations. However, the rules omit a provision included in the Clinton regulations that would have required providers to obtain written permission from patients before their records were disclosed (Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, 8/15). The following are summaries of two recent editorials on the new regulations:
- Boston Globe: Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), who both criticized Bush's regulations, should proceed with proposed legislation that would modify the guidelines and strengthen patient privacy protections nationwide, a Boston Globe editorial states. The legislation would reinstate the requirement that providers obtain prior written consent from patients to use their information and would eliminate the rules allowing the use of patient records for "certain forms of marketing." While Massachusetts lawmakers could pass their own medical privacy bills to strengthen patient privacy, it "would be far preferable for Congress to be alert to problems as they arise and to pass legislation that maintains an equilibrium between privacy rights and a constructive exchange of medical information," the Globe concludes (Boston Globe, 8/18).
- Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Although the new privacy rules do not satisfy everyone, they "represent a good-faith effort ... to balance the need for privacy with the need for open communication," a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial states. In addition, the rules "replace a spotty patchwork of state laws that virtually everyone agrees is confusing and obsolete." The editorial concludes that while the rules "may not be perfect ... they represent an honest attempt to stake out a middle ground and ... are a vast improvement on what they replaced" (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 8/18).
