I think they are violating your privacy

• Legal issue - me
  • Legal issue - Albert
  • Let me tell you a story....... - No, no, no
    • wow - me
    • I left another company because the owner sent out - not on my computer
  • I got the same email and I can't go along with it - not on my computer
    • Glad somebody else disagrees with it - me
    • If they want that access, they would have to pay for the computer, the high-speed and the - MTSO in IL - long time no visit
      • It mentions... - me
  • do NOT sign any such agreement - nm
  • I think we would all like to know what company this is. - NJMT
    • Hint - me
    • part of the agreement is to not portray the company in a - bad light on the internet. nm
      • That would have been the first red flag! LOL - ROFL
      • You have GOT to be kidding. There is a difference - IL MTSO
  • I think they are violating your privacy - sm
  • Legal issue. Please let us know how this one turns out? nm - No, no, no
  • Just wondering, if you used your - me
  • This opens up the possibility of - me
  • They'd be ice skating in a place that is normally very hot before that would happen here. nm - Long-time MT
  • Absolutely NOT. If they are that concerned about their information, they - NO WAY!!!
  • Legal issue - No, no, no
    • One more thing....... - No, no, no
  • Tricky situation for both here. - Busy MT'ing
    • The scope of the agreement is much broader - than would you elude to
    • I disagree with you. SM - Becky
    • I refuse - me
      • Good for you!!! nm - No, no, no

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

You're not serious are you?  There is no HIPAA violation at the eye doctor.  When you go to the eye doctor everyone knows you have bad eyes.  Do you wear glasses?  Are you hiding the fact that you can't see?  Please!  It isn't like sitting in a doctors office when no one knows what is wrong with you.  You're a joke!  Get a life!  You're the reason everything costs so darn much.  The rest of us have to pay the docs insurance because of morons like you.  I cannot even believe you would post such nonsense.

Its is all getting so frightening, the invasion by companies into peoples lives.  I have worked at nine hospitals, two trans companies on-site, three trans companies at home and never have I had a background check OR drug screen.  The policy for drug screening at the hospitals was if you seemed like you were under the influence your boss could request a drug screen but never happened to ME or any of my coworkers.  Physical exam, sure I got those when I worked at the hospitals but they paid for the physical exam and they also covered me for insurance.  The trans company I work for now does not provide medical coverage or life insurance coverage for statutory employees, so I dont see why they would be concerned about my health status.  Lets face it, they are concerned with how much we can pound away each day and that is it.  We get paid for what we produce.  So under these circumstances, they dont need to be poking their nose IN my background, my urine or my physical body.  If it is checking on my experience, well they already did that by talking to previous employers and coworkers and guess I passed the test, as I was hired.

it only cost $2/month extra - today I think it costs $19.95 but to me it's worth it because #1 it cuts all telemarketer calls (and I have been on the Do Not Call list since that began) and I can also take my phone charges off my MTSO business at tax time......

call your phone company and ask them if they offer anything like Privacy Director.  *S* 

I do occasional IC work for a provider that I have known a while now. Today i did some work for her and found something that really bothers me. The physician dictates the patient's full name, street address and home phone number in addition to her DOB. Is that HIPPA compliant? I'm sorry folks but I really don't want my street address and phone number available across the internet even if it is "so called" secure. I would like your thoughts.

...requires a covered entity to make "reasonable efforts to limit use, disclosure of, and requests for PHI to the minimum necessary to accomplish the intended purpose."  The only AHA-approved HIPAA training program, HIPAA Academy, specifically states in its training materials that HIPAA intends that personal information be limited to document headers unless absolutely required   I will quote page 4-56:

"In practice, we expect the minimum-necessary requirement to lead to compartmentalization of the medical record so that one portion of the record (the body of the report) may be readily disclosed for one purpose without compromising the privacy of the entire record."

By limiting PHI to headers, reports can easily be redacted of personal information; when the PHI is scattered throughout the reports, this information cannot be redacted.

the healthcare provider , i.e. the doc, establishes the standards for protecting privacy of records. You (or your service) is the Business Associate who COMPLIES with whatever standards the doctor sets. Some docs send files by email, some want encryption. Hospitals, obviously, generally do more locking down on their stuff, as they are more open to lawsuits. All YOU have to do to be HIPAA compliant is to COMPLY witih the standards the doc sets. It is not up to you to set them. Also what you and everyone else forgets about HIPAA is it is a two part process. Not only does the patient's medical records have to be disclosed BUT the patient must also suffer a loss because of the disclosure. So even if your doc stands out on the street and tells passers-by about Mrs. So and So and her athlete's foot, unless she incurs a loss from that, it's not a HIPAA violation. Remember this whole thing came about because a pharmacy tech went home and told her high school son that another classmate's father was coming in for HIV drugs...get the picture? Something private was disclosed inappropriately and that's how the girl found out her father was HIV positive.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/15/octuplet.mom.hospital/index.html

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- The hospital where a California woman gave birth to octuplets in January has been fined $250,000 by the state because nearly two dozen medical workers, including doctors, illegally viewed her medical records, according to state health officials.

Nadya Suleman was the subject of controversy after giving birth to octuplets in January.

Kaiser Permanente's Bellflower hospital, where Nadya Suleman's eight babies were born, revealed in March that 15 employees lost their jobs and eight others were disciplined for improperly accessing her computerized medical records.

There was no evidence that information from the medical files was leaked to the news media, which has intensely covered Suleman's story, according to Kathleen Billingsley, deputy director of the California Public Health Department's Center for Health Care Quality.

Six of the privacy breaches happened at other Kaiser Permanente facilities, which are linked into the same computer system housing medical records.

Suleman -- already a single mother with six children -- gave birth to octuplets conceived through in vitro fertilization, fueling controversy. News of her collecting public assistance for some of her children outraged many taxpayers.

nm