3 ms·
I'm sure someone smarter than me has a solution. Those papers you're required to sign are generally the result of regulation. Some law got passed that say "you
by socalgal2 4mo ago
I'm sure someone smarter than me has a solution. Those papers you're required to sign are generally the result of regulation. Some law got passed that say "you can't share info unless you get signed permission". The person dreaming up the law thought that would be enough to stop getting them to share info. But, even if they cared about privacy, they don't want to increase all their expenses and run their own IT department so they contract out for 3rd party billing, 3rd party document infra, etc etc. Like if they wanted to store your appointment in MS Word 365 or Google Docs, suddenly the regulation kicks in. They're not going build a document sharing platform to get their job done just so they can meet the regs. They're just going to get you to sign that they can do what they need.
As one example, I went to a doctor, he ordered an x-ray. I went over to the x-ray company then back to my doctor. He pulled up the x-ray immediately. He's only able to do that because I signed that he can share my info with the x-ray company and visa-versa.
Again, I don't have a solution. No regulation = he'd probably share my data. But regulation = he gets me to sign so he can legit provide the service, and still shared my data (Because I signed). So all the regs did is make visiting the doctor more annoying, and add $$$$ to push all the paperwork around.
- ghssds 4mo ago> They're not going build a document sharing platform to get their job done just so they can meet the regs. What is so hard in respecting the spirit of the law?
- throw1234567891 4mo agoThere are many dollars in between.
- cwmoore 4mo agoLike with criminal fraud?
- sandworm101 4mo agoBecauae "spirit of the law" doesnt exist. It is a saying used by people when they want to do something that isnt in the law. You dont see lawyers, judges or law makers use the phrase.
- dgellow 4mo agoYes they obviously do use it?
- cwmoore 4mo agoI agree but please, provide citations instead of a question mark, to make what you believe is obvious actually in fact obvious.
- dgellow 4mo agoI think the question mark is good enough for such an absurd claim. If the author cares they can find quotes with no effort
- Telaneo 4mo ago> New combinations of circumstances — that is, new cases — constantly call for the application, which means in truth the extension of old principles; or, it may be, even for the thinking out of some new principle, in harmony with the general spirit of the law, fitted to meet the novel requirements of the time. Law And Public Opinion In England, page 361 -> https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.40146/page/n381/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.40146/page/n38...
- 4mo ago
- ihodes 4mo agoRegarding information sharing, not quite. Covered entities (term of art in HIPAA), which include providers (and also payers!) including both the lab and your doctor, do not need your permission to share information between them for the purposes of treatment, payment, or operations (commonly, "TPO"). A BAA between a covered entity and a vendor (like an EHR or PACS [viewer for your imaging]) also does not require any patient consent. There are sometimes things you might not like hidden in the releases you're signing, beyond the run of the mill acceptance of financial responsibility / assignment of benefits, notice of privacy policy acknowledgment, consent to treat.
- FireBeyond 4mo ago> do not need your permission to share information between them for the purposes of treatment, payment, or operations (commonly, "TPO") In fact, for the purposes of treatment, providers can share that information, even if you explicitly refuse, as needed.
- jonhohle 4mo agoMany people now have devices with secure storage with them at all times. Maybe it’s time we owned our data and decided who gets it and when. Obviously this doesn’t work in all situations and for all people, but it’s a start.
- goosejuice 4mo agoI do wish this was an option for some data, but emergency care would be an absolute shit show. People can't even remember passwords let alone keep track of keys and devices.
- soco 4mo agoZero trust device, with emergency channels pre-trusted. Like, the ambulance service is known to your device and can already suck your blood type and whatnot. And the police your name and emergency contacts. Or whatever schema with a similar idea. There's the technology to do this already, but we're lacking awareness and initiative.
- filoeleven 4mo ago> And the police your name and emergency contacts. Hell no. The fuzz ain't getting my info without reasonable, articulable suspicion that I have committed, am committing, or am about to commit a crime, or if I'm pressing charges and need to ID for that process.
- soco 4mo agoThe parent comment was about an accident where you're unable to give any details yourself. Maybe when you're under a truck you'd like your folks to know what happened to you, right? But again, such are implementation details. First let's have that zero trust device, then we can be negotiate who gets to see what and when.
- miyoji 4mo ago
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- wongarsu 4mo agoAre you even legally signing anything if they can't show you the document you are signing? I am not familiar with the nitty gritty of US law, but under German law that signature would be worthless. Even signing a document you have but are unwilling to read is legally a bit iffy (which is why for things like real estate a notary will read the paperwork to you and ask if you understood it, or why surprising clauses in terms of service are unenforceable). Signing something without being able to know what you are signing would be worth exactly nothing, because you didn't actually knowingly consent to any particular thing, and neither did you have the "meeting of minds" required to form a contract.
- Telaneo 4mo agoIt probably would be unenforceable in the US too, given you have no opportunity to know what you're signing, but you'd probably have to drag it before a court to settle that, and US companies know that no* individual is actually going to do that over what ultimately is (likely to only be) a minor inconvenience. * Within margin of error
- exogenousdata 4mo ago[dead]