Privacy, especially as it relates to healthcare and protecting sensitive medical information, is an important issue. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, better know as HIPAA, is a legislative action that helps to safeguard personal medical information. This protection is afforded to individuals by the Privacy Rule, which dictates who can access an individual’s medical records, and the Security Rule, which ensures that electronic medical records are protected.
Access to someone’s healthcare records by a medical provider typically requires a direct health care-related relationship with the patient in question. For example, if you have a regular doctor, that doctor can access your medical records. Similarly, if you call your doctor’s office off-hours, the covering doctor, whom may have no prior relationship with you, may similarly access these records. The same holds true if you go to the emergency department or see a specialist. No provider should be accessing protected information however, without a medical need.
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has centralized suits in the Northern District of Ohio.
As waves of opioid lawsuits have mounted in the federal courts, one district court was chosen to shepherd all the cases, and one judge is motivated to step up to stem the tide of the epidemic.
In the Northern District of Ohio, Judge Dan A. Polster was chosen by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, which centralized hundreds of suits, and created the Opioid MDL.
“The federal court is probably the least likely branch of government to try and tackle [the opioid epidemic], but candidly, the other branches of government, federal and state, have punted,” said Judge Polster during the first hearing of the MDL in January. “My objective is to do something meaningful to abate this crisis and to do it in 2018.”
Dr. Jonathan J. Darrow, an expert on FDA policy and faculty member at Harvard Medical School, spoke with Bill of Health editor Alex Pearlman this week about the new so-called “Right to Try” law, how it is different from existing regulations, and why expanded access programs will never work without thinking about resources differently.
An earlier version of this article was published in STAT.
The National Institutes of Health wants your DNA, and the DNA of one million other Americans, for an ambitious project called All of Us. Its goal — to “uncover paths toward delivering precision medicine” — is a good one. But until it can safeguard participants’ sensitive genetic information, you should decline the invitation to join unless you fully understand and accept the risks.
DNA databases like All of Us could provide valuable medical breakthroughs such as identifying new disease risk factors and potential drug targets. But these benefits could come with a high price: increased risk to individuals’ genetic data privacy, something that current U.S. laws do not adequately protect. Continue reading →
Each month, members of the Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law (PORTAL) review the peer-reviewed medical literature to identify interesting empirical studies, policy analyses, and editorials on health law and policy issues relevant to current or potential future work in the Division.
The push toward commodification of health care is a luxury not everyone has. (toons17/Thinkstock)
Recently there has been a shift in popular parlance toward referring to PCPs as primary health care providers. Not primary health care physicians or practitioners, but providers.
This change seems to have increased in popularity after the original passage of the ACA, specifically with the opening of the health insurance marketplaces.
But it was particularly jarring, as a Canadian, to become accustomed to terminology that reframes physicians as providers, and patients as consumers.
Ostensibly, this language comes from a movement to empower patients to be more engaged in their health care rather than to accept passively that the “doctor knows best.” It is an effort to shift away from health care delivery by paternalistic doctors of the past, and toward the contemporary active patients who take ownership of their health and participate in making decisions. As a result, doctors are framed as service providers who cater to the needs of their consumers.
And increase in diagnosis of the hepatitis C virus increase goes hand in hand with the opioid epidemic. (Zerbor/Thinkstock)
The opioid epidemic and the toll it is taking is on American lives has resulted in the declaration of a public health emergency by the Trump administration.
There were 42,000 deaths from suspected opioid overdose in 2016, more than in any previous year to date. These deaths illuminate the direct impact of the epidemic, but this is only the tip of the iceberg. Hepatitis C is another epidemic that goes increasingly hand-in-hand with the opioid crisis, and is likely to take a long-term toll on American lives as well. Intravenous drug use accounts for approximately 80 percent of new cases of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in the United States, and without intervention these numbers could continue to climb. Continue reading →
Pedestrian entrance to the Accident and Emergency Unit at University College Hospital as viewed from the pavement on the Euston Road. (Amanda Lewis/Thinkstock)
In the UK, emergency and urgent care patients visit the A & E (Accident and Emergency) units of local hospitals (known as ERs in the U.S.) A & E service provision is the public face of the NHS. It is seen by many as the bellwether of the national health care system and the basis on which its performance is judged.
The Health and Social Care Regulator of England, the Care Quality Commission (CQC), which maintains important patient safety and health quality reviews, has recently published a report on A & E urgent care that found that the 2017-2018 winter season saw an unprecedented demand for emergency services, continuing a year-over-year increase. The number of emergency admissions has grown by 42 percent over the last 12 years, adding pressure to the NHS.
This new working group, known as ELSA, focuses on the ethical, legal and social aspects of the modern life sciences. ELSA aims to serve as a country-wide interdisciplinary platform for the exchange of information and for the analysis and discussion of challenges facing basic and applied stem cell research in Germany.
Doctors in North Dakota perform a kidney transplant. (Photo by ndguard/Flickr)
In recent years, alleged instances of discrimination against people with disabilities in organ transplantation have captured public attention.
In 2012, for example, the parents of Amelia Rivera, a child with Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome, alleged that they were told their daughter was not a candidate for a kidney transplant because of her “mental retardation.” The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia denied “disqualify[ing] transplant patients on the basis of intellectual ability.” Nevertheless, more than 51,000 individuals signed a change.org petition demanding that the hospital “allow the life saving [sic] transplant four-year-old Amelia Rivera needs to survive.” Ultimately, Rivera received a living donor kidney transplant from her mother.
This week on the pod I welcome Amy McGuire, the Leon Jaworski Professor of Biomedical Ethics and Director of the Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy at Baylor College of Medicine and Natalie Ram, a Professor of Law at The University of Baltimore School of Law. Our conversation revolves around the arrest of the suspected Golden State Killer who was partially identified by a DNA match through a publicly accessible database. Legal topics range from the Fourth Amendment to HIPAA and the Common Rule as we discuss implications for personal privacy and major, DNA-led projects such as Precision Medicine. For background see this and this.
Do the provisions of the 2008 Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA) address challenges faced by medical professionals with disabilities (MPD)?
A 2012 report on Americans with disabilities from the US Census Bureau suggests that it is highly unlikely. There is every reason to be alarmed by the increasing number of medical professionals with disabilities who leave their jobs, or express the intention to quit employment. There is also a rapidly decreasing number of MPD who express the desire to seek employment. Could this trend be attributed to the challenges faced by the MPD in the workplace?
Anyone fortunate enough to live beyond middle age faces a risk of developing dementia. Dementia is a widely feared disability. People often say they wouldn’t want to live if they developed the condition.
Experts in law and ethics praise advance directives, or instructions to follow on behalf of patients, as a tool giving people control over the life-sustaining medical care they later receive as mentally impaired dementia patients. Some advance directive supporters also want the law to recognize advance requests to withhold ordinary food and water in the late stages of dementia. And some argue that the U.S. should follow the Netherlands in allowing doctors to give lethal drugs to people who made advance directives asking for assisted death if dementia makes them unable to live at home or to recognize their loved ones.
The EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, which came into force two years ago but became directly applicable in all EU Member States only last week, aims to establish an equal level of protection for the rights and freedoms of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data in all EU Member States.
May marks the annual Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month, which recognizes the history and contributions of this diverse population in the United States. Accounting for that diversity though is one of the challenges facing the Asian American-Pacific Islander (AAPI) community: for example, the Library of Congress commemorative website recognizes that AAPI is a “rather broad term” that can include
all of the Asian continent and the Pacific islands of Melanesia (New Guinea, New Caledonia, Vanuatu, Fiji and the Solomon Islands), Micronesia (Marianas, Guam, Wake Island, Palau, Marshall Islands, Kiribati, Nauru and the Federated States of Micronesia) and Polynesia (New Zealand, Hawaiian Islands, Rotuma, Midway Islands, Samoa, American Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu, Cook Islands, French Polynesia and Easter Island).
Public health law can integrate medical and social understandings of disability in ways that promise to reduce disability stigma and enhance epistemic justice.
However, models of disability currently embedded in public health law do precisely the opposite, at least partly due to the fact that public health laws have historically assimilated medicalized models of disability.
“Congress acknowledged that society’s accumulated myths and fears about disability and disease are as handicapping as are the physical limitations that flow from actual impairment.” Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., School Bd. of Nassau, Fl. v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273 (1987).
Historically and across societies people with disabilities have been stigmatized and excluded from social opportunities on a variety of culturally specific grounds. These justifications include assertions that people with disabilities are biologically defective, less than capable, costly, suffering, or fundamentally inappropriate for social inclusion. Rethinking the idea of disability so as to detach being disabled from inescapable disadvantage has been considered a key to twenty-first century reconstruction of how disablement is best understood.
Our National Health Service turns 70 in July and has made remarkable achievements since its inception on July 5, 1948. The NHS is quite rightly an institution to be proud of, and it is envied across the world. Admittedly, the NHS does have its problems, but these should not detract from an overall appreciation of its core value to our society.
In 70 years a lot has happened. Nursing and medicine have evolved, new treatments, and medicines have been developed to cope with new diseases, and our concept of health has also changed.
Health is no longer just the absence of disease; it’s a far more holistic concept today.
Since its inception, the NHS has had to deal with clinical negligence claims. Today there is mounting concern that the high level and costs of clinical negligence claims threaten the very existence and fabric of the NHS.
Exactly what must be done to reduce levels and costs remains a topic of intense speculation and conjecture.
Another anniversary of President Bush’s signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is coming up in late July, yet the nation remains far from offering even a semblance of equitable societal opportunity to most individuals with disabilities.
For them, full social participation is dismissed as merely an idealistic dream. With its focus on restoration of full functioning for patients, the health care delivery system might be supposed an exception, but a closer look shows the opposite is true.
Physicians’ offices, clinics, and hospitals too often have not been made accessible. Too frequently, these facilities have diagnostic or treatment equipment that some people, due to disability, cannot use. Health care provider staff are not trained to interact with or assess disabled individuals, and may be swayed by implicit biases that target disability, just as are non-medical personnel or laypersons in the population.
Photo by The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights/Flickr