3 ms·

One thing worth noting: Doctors aren't able to respond to reviews at all. If a patient posts a completely baseless, factually untrue review of a doctor, the doc

One thing worth noting: Doctors aren't able to respond to reviews at all. If a patient posts a completely baseless, factually untrue review of a doctor, the doctor cannot say anything due to privacy laws regarding the patient. This is in comparison to local businesses on a site like Yelp, where a business is allowed to talk about a customer's situation if the customer posts something defamatory. The doctor's only recourse in such situations is to sue the patient, something which is a) expensive b) time consuming and b) generates bad publicity. Not saying that patients should be forced to sign such agreements, but it's worth noting that the playing field is not level.

bennysaurus 15y ago
In saying that, even with the contract signed the doctor still has to do the same thing only under contract law rather than defamation.
dr_ 15y ago
That is not entirely true. HIPAA rules pertain to individually identifiable health information - one must be able to use the information and identify the person it is connected to. Online reviews are typically anonymous in nature, and the average person reading them would likely not know the actual identity of the individual by the person writing it or the physicians response.
- michael_miller 15y ago
  But what is 'personally identifiable'? Say a patient had a complaint about the cost of a visit, and stormed out of the office saying 'screw you' in the waiting room, and the review noted this. Other patients who were in the waiting room would likely be able to identify the patient. Would a doctor responding to the (anonymous) complaint, noting details about a patient's illness constitute personally identifiable information? It's not easy from a doctor's perspective to identify such situations, and it's a very sticky area. Given that it's a sticky area, do you think any doctor would risk crossing the line? There are large legal risks involved here.

bennysaurus 15y ago

In saying that, even with the contract signed the doctor still has to do the same thing only under contract law rather than defamation.

dr_ 15y ago

That is not entirely true. HIPAA rules pertain to individually identifiable health information - one must be able to use the information and identify the person it is connected to. Online reviews are typically anonymous in nature, and the average person reading them would likely not know the actual identity of the individual by the person writing it or the physicians response.

michael_miller 15y ago
But what is 'personally identifiable'? Say a patient had a complaint about the cost of a visit, and stormed out of the office saying 'screw you' in the waiting room, and the review noted this. Other patients who were in the waiting room would likely be able to identify the patient. Would a doctor responding to the (anonymous) complaint, noting details about a patient's illness constitute personally identifiable information? It's not easy from a doctor's perspective to identify such situations, and it's a very sticky area. Given that it's a sticky area, do you think any doctor would risk crossing the line? There are large legal risks involved here.