NewsMax.com Wires
Thursday, Dec. 11. 2003

The federal regulations, which took effect in April, were designed to tighten patient privacy protections. But the group said they instead leave patients powerless to stop disclosures of sensitive information.

U.S. District Judge Mary McLaughlin heard arguments on the regulations' constitutionality; she did not indicate when she would rule.

The group of medical privacy advocates sued in April, arguing that the department sacrificed patient privacy when it deleted a rule that would have required a patient's written consent any time confidential data were released.

James C. Pyles, an attorney for the group, said that change left patients unable to stop private information from being given to people and companies not directly involved in their care.

"All sorts of things can be revealed: your sexual orientation, whether you have been tested for a sexually transmitted disease, whether you have ever had an abortion," Pyles said in an interview. "Under the new rules, it's impossible to know where the information is going, or who is seeing it."

Defenders of the regulations say those fears are unfounded.

Lawyers for the government argued that safeguards built into the law ensure that medical records are distributed to as small a circle of caregivers as possible.

In a legal brief, the Department of Health and Human Services said the proposed rule requiring patient consent was rejected after regulators got thousands of complaints that it would have unintended consequences, including depriving medical providers information needed to review the quality of their care.

Plaintiffs include Citizens for Health, a Washington-based health consumer group, and the American Psychoanalytic Association.

© 2003 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Editor's note:
FREE e-mail alerts from NewsMax.com - Click here now!

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Health Issues
Privacy