5 ms·
How is that not a huge HIPPA violation? Shouldn’t this be a slam dunk case?
by arijun 4y ago
How is that not a huge HIPPA violation? Shouldn’t this be a slam dunk case?
- giantg2 4y agoBecause government cares about government rules only when it suits them. The rest of the time they make up excuses for why something should be allowed.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoTell me what part of HIPAA you think was violated.
- hoppyhoppy2 4y agoTell me why everyone spells HIPAA wrong. (It's the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act)
- smegsicle 4y agowant to spell it like hippo
- Someone1234 4y agoBecause the people often mis-citing HIPAA also know so little about it they don't even know what it stands for. People think it is a magical incarnation, that they can wield in any vaguely relevant discussion. Whereas I'd argue that HIPAA is a very weak law with poor enforcement. It is a "better than nothing" law and nothing more[0]. It isn't some kind of medical data super weapon like people believe. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Insurance_Portability_and_Accountability_Act#Violations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Insurance_Portability_a...
- johnbellone 4y agoThis is a gray area for sure, but I'd argue that it violates the [HITECH Act][^1] Part D (privacy & disclosure). The rub here is that the patient, newborn in this case, did not consent because they were underage. In many cases this blood sample is taken "by default" and requires an opt-out due to religious objection. [^1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Information_Technology_for_Economic_and_Clinical_Health_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Information_Technology_...
- asdff 4y agoLegal guardians consented.
- pseudalopex 4y agoThe article said it's mandatory.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoWas the legal guardian served a warrant signed by a judge?
- pseudalopex 4y agoNot likely. Was this an indirect argument the mandate is unconstitutional?
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y agoTo be honest, I am not sure HIPAA exists anymore in any way but name these days. In the advent of apps, that information flows way too freely. Case in point, Alex Jones' lawyer was able to obtain medical history of the defendants. That said, it may be time to actually demand some basic protections in that sphere.
- tablespoon 4y ago> Case in point, Alex Jones' lawyer was able to obtain medical history of the defendants. Do you mean plaintiffs not defendants? My understanding is Alex Jones was being sued, not doing the suing. I'm not aware of the details of that case, but could those records be something his lawyer legitimately demanded during discovery? My understanding is that HIPAA only controls the disclosure of medical records by the medical provider and related parties, and I'd be surprised if there wasn't a carve out for court orders. If the records leave the provider's custody for any reason, HIPAA is irrelevant for any dissemination after that point.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y agoYou are right about the defendant part; somehow it didn't translate in my head as I was typing. As for the second part, maybe? Unfortunately, that part is very much unclear with everyone having a reason to spin it to their advantage. I could not find the actual origin at this time. Maybe we will be able to learn it eventually.
- Someone1234 4y agoHIPAA not HIPPA. Since search warrants were issued, rather than healthcare data volunteered by healthcare providers, HIPAA doesn't apply at all. > Covered entities may disclose protected health information to law enforcement officials for law enforcement purposes as required by law (including court orders, court-ordered warrants, subpoenas) and administrative requests; or to identify or locate a suspect, a fugitive, a material witness, or a missing person.
- dekhn 4y agoHIPAA is a wildly misunderstood law. its very existence/purpose is to make transfer of medical data easier, not harder.
- ensignavenger 4y agoThe article says nothing about a warrant being issued for the babies DNA, only that it was issued for the father's DNA after the babies DNA indicated the father was the likely suspect.
- pseudalopex 4y agoThe article said police didn't have probable cause for a search warrant.
- Someone1234 4y agoFor DNA from the adult suspects. Earlier in the article it says that: > police in California had issued five search warrants to access such samples, and that at least one cold case there was solved with the help of newborn blood. Then goes on to reference the cold case. So I assume they somehow got a warrant for this DNA even though they couldn't from an adult suspect which is odd.
- pseudalopex 4y agoThis was New Jersey not California. It said police asked the lab. A warrant isn't asking. And what would be the probable cause? So I think the lab gave it to police without a warrant.