7 ms·

My Doctor's Office Asked me to Lie (2011)

194 points by brandonhsiao 13y ago

philwebster 13y ago
Previous discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3958627 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3958627
- lowmagnet 13y ago
  This is the polite way of saying 'repost'. Submitter: please put the year in brackets in the future. (in this case [2011])
  - gus_massa 13y ago
    This is also useful to read the previous discussion and to see whether it has been debunked or there is some additional information. I prefer more information. My favorite format is: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3958627 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3958627 (516 points, 442 days ago, 234 comments)
    - soganess 13y ago
      I think that, in and of itself, would be a wonderful feature to promote the movement of discourse on a reoccurring subject. (1)I post something. (2)We discuss. (3)After a time(likely a function of the # of stories that get pushed to HN a day), we stop discussion[1]. (4)Someone, after an arbitrary period of time, reposts. (5)HN automatically moves the older comments over to the newer post[2]. [1]This is not to imply the conversation, has been resolved in any meaningful way, merely that we've elected to move on. [2]This allows the conversation to grow without much re-treading of the old.
    - jlgaddis 13y ago
      I don't think I've ever submitted anything here but I quite like that format. I wish others would follow it and I certainly will if I ever "repost" any content. Thanks.
  - MichaelApproved 13y ago
    It's much more than saying "repost" politely. Just saying "repost" provides practically nothing to the conversation. It's more of a waste of resources than it is useful. However, providing a link to previous conversation is extremely useful. Especially a conversation with so many comments.
_ak 13y ago
Nobody reads Software License Agreements. Barely anyone reads (and is able to fully understand) the GPL (no matter which version). That's real life. Suck it up, Stallman.
- daurnimator 13y ago
  Or you know, try and enact some change by loudly complaining?
  - jakethehuman 13y ago
    Yes, but to the proper people in a proper manner. Otherwise you may as well just take a megaphone to null.
- bpodgursky 13y ago
  How is this at all relevant? The GPL is always available to read (and usually included in full text in the project.) This is about having to agree to terms you don't have access to even if you want them.
- yuhong 13y ago
  I recently ranted to Marsh Ray of MS about anti reverse engineering clauses in MS EULAs.
- GlennS 13y ago
  It is real life, but is a problem. Things don't have to stay the way they are now.
- rhizome 13y ago
  You can't read and understand the GPL? It's pretty short and clear.
zdw 13y ago
This is an example of engineering by lawyers. To get rid of this, I recommend the follows - a mandatory "minimum reading period" given for any document, that prevents it from being turned in, calculated from the average HS graduate reading speed. Also, before any meetings regarding revisions of said document, everyone involved in revising the document must A: be present, and B: serially, read a copy of the document, invoking the reading penalty multiple times over. Optionally, to avoid this process, the document can be totally scrapped and replaced with an entirely new document, provided the new document is limited to 1/10th the reading length. This would greatly reduce the amount of stupid long documents, and I see no downside.
- jamesaguilar 13y ago
  You'd have to start by simplifying the legal code. Part of the reason that these long legal documents are necessary is the huge variety of theories of liability that companies are exposed to. If you want to avoid long disclaimers, you also have to remove the things companies need to disclaim to avoid huge legal expenses.
  - seldo 13y ago
    The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. http://shakespeare.mit.edu/2henryvi/2henryvi.4.2.html http://shakespeare.mit.edu/2henryvi/2henryvi.4.2.html
    - jamesaguilar 13y ago
      Everyone likes to blame the lawyers, but is the companies and non-company organizations that lobby for complicated laws to be made, and who employ lawyers to sue each other.
      - lmm 13y ago
        It's a classic tragedy of the commons. Every little special case in the law helps the organization that lobbied for it, and hurts everyone else.
gamerDude 13y ago
I love how not only do you sign for something that you didn't read. But they can then change the privacy policy without sending you a new copy to agree to. Seems a bit odd.
- haldujai 13y ago
  This is factually incorrect. Under 45 CFR §164.520(c)(2)(iv) any changes must be distributed to patients within 60 days. Additionally unlike most other agreements, for HIPAA notices of privacy practices you do not sign that you agree to the terms rather that you have seen the terms.
haldujai 13y ago
IANAL but I'm responsible for HIPAA compliance in my startup: Assuming this is a standard private practice, this office has several violations of 45 CFR §164.520(a)(b)(c), assuming that he was also not provided this privacy statement within 30 days with a reason for why it was not provided on the first visit. This makes them liable for $50,000 in fines per failure to a max of $1.5 mm (this would be a clear cut case of reckless indifference.) The DHHS OCR is always looking for some head to serve on a platter to justify themselves as well. His amendment to the form is damning evidence and that receptionist should be fired, there is no excuse for basic HIPAA noncompliance in 2011 (8 years after the fact). Edit: What some people don't seem to understand is that signing the privacy practices notice (the form in question here) does not mean you agree to the terms and conditions outlined. You only sign that you have received them. Additionally, whether you sign the form or not it applies to you, and whatever that form states HIPAA clearly outlines what powers the covered entity (the doctor in this case) has over your information.
- shmageggy 13y ago
  So are you saying that in order to comply, the office needs to furnish every patient with a 3000 page binder of privacy practices and that systematic failure to do so should mean over a million dollars in fines? I really hope I'm misunderstanding something because this seems insane.
  - smacktoward 13y ago
    The only reason to believe the privacy statement is 3,000 pages long is because the receptionist said it was, and given the rest of her statements there's little reason to believe she knew what she was talking about. She may have just made up a large number to try and scare him off from inquiring further. I've been given privacy statements from my doctors' offices in the past, and they've never been more than a couple of pages.
  - haldujai 13y ago
    Notices of privacy practices for practices are a boilerplate form that shouldn't be more than 10 pages long. Whatever they write is meaningless if it gives them more power than the law does, most places just use the AMA or state agency recommended forms. The law actually states what needs/should be written. Here is an example [doc file]: www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/hipaa/privacy-practices.doc‎ That said, places with their own websites need only upload the form and tell patients it is able to be viewed at at whatever link and have the binder accessible in the office for viewing. Uploading to dropbox/filesharing without a website is not a valid option.
skore 13y ago
I suspect there is some kind of mathematical ratio concerning EULAs (in whatever form) that somebody figured out and that is just getting more and more absurd with each year that passes. The basic idea is that the user wants something (in this case medical treatment, but it could also be music via iTunes) and that's all nice and well - BUT! - one last caveat, we need you to sign this thing here. Now the ratio kicks in - if your desire for "the thing" is big enough, "the thing you need to sign" just needs to look both terribly unimportant ("yadda yadda, nobody reads this") but at the same time important enough to be understood as necessary ("oh everybody has legalese upfront these days, that's just the way things work, who cares"). Bonus points if the process you're going through happens very often to a lot of people ("everybody just clicks OK and chuckles about it"). Asking anybody to sign 3000 pages of legal statements without giving it too much thought is bonkers, but everybody just assumes "well, they probably can't do anything terrible, because our laws prevent that, right?". So we click through EULAs and sign agreements that are now just nuisances getting inbetween us and our desire for "the thing we want". The people who make these agreements do them because they are required to have them, by law or circumstance (CYAs). Not having an agreement is not an option. The people who sign the agreements do that because they have already decided that they want "that thing" no matter what. Not having the thing is not an option. What a profoundly weird situation. Through what I would guess were a couple of outlandish precedents, we now have established a custom that none of the involved parties cares about nor has anything to gain from, really. But we still do it. It's like two sides playing soundwaves with opposite phases, cancelling eachother out. Everybody assumes that's ok, because it's quiet. But you could just as well simply stop playing the damn sounds.
antiterra 13y ago
While I doubt the policy was anywhere near 3000 pages, this kind of thing is indeed ridiculous. Reading the document means very little in regards to understanding what it says, much less what it means in regards to court doctrine. I also insist on reading the privacy policy at doctors offices. Once, a receptionist gave me a great deal of grief, then finally handed me their only printed copy. It was just one two-sided page, but it was ragged, creased and stained. Classy. What's less pointless and far more upsetting is the practice of pharmacies instructing customers to sign/check the "I do not wish to have a consultation" area on forms when buying prescription medicine. That has happened to me at a number of pharmacies in NYC. When I ignore their instructions and start signing the area that requests a consultation they sternly tell me I'm signing in the wrong place. Then there's a big sigh when I say I actually want to talk to the pharmacist. Inexcusable and disgusting.
- maqr 13y ago
  I've seen that "I do not wish to have a consultation" box countless times, but I've never questioned why it's there. What happens if you request the consultation? My understanding has always been that pharmacies are drug dispensaries with very little to offer in the way of medical consultations, as that's the role of the doctor who prescribed the drugs. I'm not even sure what they would consult with you about.
  - travisp 13y ago
    Actual pharmacists are very knowledgeable about the drugs that they give out, in some cases more so than the doctors prescribing them (as many doctors will readily tell you). Doctors in hospitals frequently consult the hospital's pharmacists with questions about particular things (like drug interactions).
    - TillE 13y ago
      Yes, it's entirely normal in Germany to just walk in and consult a pharmacist about minor problems. They're generally quite friendly and not too busy, even in the middle of Berlin.
jonknee 13y ago
I usually just do not sign without saying anything and have not had a problem returning doctors forms mostly empty (especially no SSN, that's asking for trouble). It's highly likely that no one at the office has any more insight into why the information is being asked than you do. If it's critical they won't leave it to a line on one of many forms.
justgottasay 13y ago
I have heard that these Privacy policy statements also make the doctor (or his assignee) a 'co-author' of anything that you may write about your experience in their office. This allows them to issue take-downs on bad reviews that end up online.
- ceejayoz 13y ago
  Yep. Some doctors have sued patients over bad reviews. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101110/19053611809/doctor-sues-patients-over-bad-yelp-reviews.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101110/19053611809/doctor...
8ig8 13y ago
The whole song and dance bugs me. It's not practical. What patient is really going to read a 3,000 page document? How long would that even take? How much would a typical patient even understand? Who benefits here? Lawyers? Insurance companies? It's like that fine print on TV commercials. No human can read it given the size and the duration on screen, but that company covered their ass by having it there.
- lnanek2 13y ago
  I couldn't care less personally, but theoretically there are people who wouldn't want their treatment information shared. I suppose if they have diseases such as HIV or something. It's kind of a bummer it makes it so tough to do startups in the field. I suppose I do like the provisions that prevent sharing information with marketers that came along with all the other laws, but would have been just as happy if that was left up to the free market. E.g. check this box for $50 dollars more expensive treatment or we might share your records with pharma companies that will market medicine to you.
  - jessaustin 13y ago
    ...theoretically there are people who wouldn't want... Whatever the patient wants, how will she find that topic addressed in two paragraphs out of 3,000 (or even 20) pages? It's hard copy; there's not even a search function! A situation in which people are forced to surrender rights in order to receive service, especially if they've gone to some inconvenience even to get an appointment, is neither equitable nor just.
jlgaddis 13y ago
I do the same thing that RMS did on many (but not all) occasions and it really annoys the hell out of people. A year or two ago, I rented one of those storage units to put a bunch of stuff in (although really I should probably just get rid of it). The guy hands me a copy of a "rental agreement" to sign that's several pages long (printed on both sides) and says, "Just flip to the back page and sign there at the bottom." Having never rented one of these units before, I was completely ignorant as to the "rules" or what might even be included in such an agreement so I really did want to read it (whereas most of us can probably guess 98% of what the standard HIPAA/Privacy Policy says). When I get to the bottom of the front of the first page, I look up and the guy is clearly annoyed (despite the fact that he didn't appear to be doing anything important when I walked in -- he was on Facebook on his computer). I apologized to him and explained, saying, "I'm sorry, I've never rented one of these before so I really don't know what's allowed and I want to make sure I don't do anything wrong." At the time I was genuinely curious as to what could or couldn't be stored in the unit. Could I keep some really old guns in there? Maybe I could park my motorcycle in it during the wintertime and free up some space in my garage? I asked him if he had a FAX machine in his office and he said that he did. "How about if I take this with me so I can read it at home and then I'll sign the back page and FAX it to you?" I asked, thinking that he'd be happy that he didn't have to sit impatiently and watch me for the next 20 minutes as I finished reading the document. "Okay, that'll work." I slid the document back over to him and asked him to write the FAX number on it. I gave him my credit card to cover the initial payment, he ran it and I walked out. I actually did sit and read the whole document when I got home but I didn't really like that I was required to give them 90 days notice prior to terminating the agreement (30 days would be more reasonable, IMO). If I decided today that I was going to move everything out of the unit tomorrow, I'd still have to pay for the next three months (at $46 USD per month) even though I wasn't using it any longer. I never signed the document and I never FAX'd it back. I'm sure the guy probably forgot all about it before I even made it home and I haven't been contacted by the company since -- regarding the document or anything else. Every month they charge my credit card $46 and life goes on. I'll be moving everything out of there in a few weeks. When I do, I fully intend to walk into the office, hand them the key, and point out that I never signed the document and will fight any attempts to charge me the next three months worth of rent. Like most people, I usually just blindly click through EULA's and sign whatever documents wherever somebody tells me to but in this case not doing so paid off. I certainly wouldn't have expected that I'd be required to give them 90 days notice before vacating the storage unit.
ivanbrussik 13y ago
its just a waste of everyone's time. no one cares even if you are able to prove a point we all know there are rooms off the grid where their are agents that can make you do or say anything they want. but I forget you are in the USA and I am in Russia.
laurenstill 13y ago
I never understood, since HIPAA is theoretically designed to protect the patient's privacy, why doctors/practioners aren't required to sign notices/contracts to the patient.
bambax 13y ago
When I take cash out of the bank I'm usually handed a form that says that I have received the money that I have to sign in order to receive the money. I say very politely that I can't say that I have received the money until I actually have. Usually the teller has this smile that means "here's another one of them". Sometimes they don't smile at all, and I had to really argue once or twice, but in the end they all accept my reasoning.
- imrehg 13y ago
  Here in Taiwan businesses have to give a so called "fapiao", which is an invoice and a receipt in the same time. If another company wants to buy something from your company, you have to give them fapiao (since it's a 'invoice') and pay your taxes based on that to the government immediately (since it's a 'receipt' as well), even if you haven't received a dime yet. And since in its receipt capacity there's no other thing to issue to the company once they pay, they could pretty much just not pay and say "why would I have gotten a fapiao[receipt] if I haven't paid, dude?" It's just amazing how many truly stupid things keep being done with finance, and I'm puzzled about how could they be fixed.
stefanix 13y ago
Amending contracts before signing is a perfectly fine practice and should be done more often. I routinely do this to some reasonable extend. I once singed up for a gym membership that had terrible stipulation to the point it was offending. I plastered the entire contract with "no" and "not" additions. It still went through.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

194 points by brandonhsiao 13y ago

philwebster 13y ago

Previous discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3958627 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3958627

lowmagnet 13y ago
This is the polite way of saying 'repost'. Submitter: please put the year in brackets in the future. (in this case [2011])
- gus_massa 13y ago
  This is also useful to read the previous discussion and to see whether it has been debunked or there is some additional information. I prefer more information. My favorite format is: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3958627 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3958627 (516 points, 442 days ago, 234 comments)
  - soganess 13y ago
    I think that, in and of itself, would be a wonderful feature to promote the movement of discourse on a reoccurring subject. (1)I post something. (2)We discuss. (3)After a time(likely a function of the # of stories that get pushed to HN a day), we stop discussion[1]. (4)Someone, after an arbitrary period of time, reposts. (5)HN automatically moves the older comments over to the newer post[2]. [1]This is not to imply the conversation, has been resolved in any meaningful way, merely that we've elected to move on. [2]This allows the conversation to grow without much re-treading of the old.
  - jlgaddis 13y ago
    I don't think I've ever submitted anything here but I quite like that format. I wish others would follow it and I certainly will if I ever "repost" any content. Thanks.
- MichaelApproved 13y ago
  It's much more than saying "repost" politely. Just saying "repost" provides practically nothing to the conversation. It's more of a waste of resources than it is useful. However, providing a link to previous conversation is extremely useful. Especially a conversation with so many comments.

_ak 13y ago

Nobody reads Software License Agreements. Barely anyone reads (and is able to fully understand) the GPL (no matter which version). That's real life. Suck it up, Stallman.

daurnimator 13y ago
Or you know, try and enact some change by loudly complaining?
- jakethehuman 13y ago
  Yes, but to the proper people in a proper manner. Otherwise you may as well just take a megaphone to null.
bpodgursky 13y ago
How is this at all relevant? The GPL is always available to read (and usually included in full text in the project.) This is about having to agree to terms you don't have access to even if you want them.
yuhong 13y ago
I recently ranted to Marsh Ray of MS about anti reverse engineering clauses in MS EULAs.
GlennS 13y ago
It is real life, but is a problem. Things don't have to stay the way they are now.
rhizome 13y ago
You can't read and understand the GPL? It's pretty short and clear.

zdw 13y ago

This is an example of engineering by lawyers. To get rid of this, I recommend the follows - a mandatory "minimum reading period" given for any document, that prevents it from being turned in, calculated from the average HS graduate reading speed. Also, before any meetings regarding revisions of said document, everyone involved in revising the document must A: be present, and B: serially, read a copy of the document, invoking the reading penalty multiple times over. Optionally, to avoid this process, the document can be totally scrapped and replaced with an entirely new document, provided the new document is limited to 1/10th the reading length. This would greatly reduce the amount of stupid long documents, and I see no downside.

jamesaguilar 13y ago
You'd have to start by simplifying the legal code. Part of the reason that these long legal documents are necessary is the huge variety of theories of liability that companies are exposed to. If you want to avoid long disclaimers, you also have to remove the things companies need to disclaim to avoid huge legal expenses.
- seldo 13y ago
  The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. http://shakespeare.mit.edu/2henryvi/2henryvi.4.2.html http://shakespeare.mit.edu/2henryvi/2henryvi.4.2.html
  - jamesaguilar 13y ago
    Everyone likes to blame the lawyers, but is the companies and non-company organizations that lobby for complicated laws to be made, and who employ lawyers to sue each other.
    - lmm 13y ago
      It's a classic tragedy of the commons. Every little special case in the law helps the organization that lobbied for it, and hurts everyone else.

gamerDude 13y ago

I love how not only do you sign for something that you didn't read. But they can then change the privacy policy without sending you a new copy to agree to. Seems a bit odd.

haldujai 13y ago
This is factually incorrect. Under 45 CFR §164.520(c)(2)(iv) any changes must be distributed to patients within 60 days. Additionally unlike most other agreements, for HIPAA notices of privacy practices you do not sign that you agree to the terms rather that you have seen the terms.

haldujai 13y ago

IANAL but I'm responsible for HIPAA compliance in my startup: Assuming this is a standard private practice, this office has several violations of 45 CFR §164.520(a)(b)(c), assuming that he was also not provided this privacy statement within 30 days with a reason for why it was not provided on the first visit. This makes them liable for $50,000 in fines per failure to a max of $1.5 mm (this would be a clear cut case of reckless indifference.) The DHHS OCR is always looking for some head to serve on a platter to justify themselves as well. His amendment to the form is damning evidence and that receptionist should be fired, there is no excuse for basic HIPAA noncompliance in 2011 (8 years after the fact). Edit: What some people don't seem to understand is that signing the privacy practices notice (the form in question here) does not mean you agree to the terms and conditions outlined. You only sign that you have received them. Additionally, whether you sign the form or not it applies to you, and whatever that form states HIPAA clearly outlines what powers the covered entity (the doctor in this case) has over your information.

shmageggy 13y ago
So are you saying that in order to comply, the office needs to furnish every patient with a 3000 page binder of privacy practices and that systematic failure to do so should mean over a million dollars in fines? I really hope I'm misunderstanding something because this seems insane.
- smacktoward 13y ago
  The only reason to believe the privacy statement is 3,000 pages long is because the receptionist said it was, and given the rest of her statements there's little reason to believe she knew what she was talking about. She may have just made up a large number to try and scare him off from inquiring further. I've been given privacy statements from my doctors' offices in the past, and they've never been more than a couple of pages.
- haldujai 13y ago
  Notices of privacy practices for practices are a boilerplate form that shouldn't be more than 10 pages long. Whatever they write is meaningless if it gives them more power than the law does, most places just use the AMA or state agency recommended forms. The law actually states what needs/should be written. Here is an example [doc file]: www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/hipaa/privacy-practices.doc‎ That said, places with their own websites need only upload the form and tell patients it is able to be viewed at at whatever link and have the binder accessible in the office for viewing. Uploading to dropbox/filesharing without a website is not a valid option.

skore 13y ago

I suspect there is some kind of mathematical ratio concerning EULAs (in whatever form) that somebody figured out and that is just getting more and more absurd with each year that passes. The basic idea is that the user wants something (in this case medical treatment, but it could also be music via iTunes) and that's all nice and well - BUT! - one last caveat, we need you to sign this thing here. Now the ratio kicks in - if your desire for "the thing" is big enough, "the thing you need to sign" just needs to look both terribly unimportant ("yadda yadda, nobody reads this") but at the same time important enough to be understood as necessary ("oh everybody has legalese upfront these days, that's just the way things work, who cares"). Bonus points if the process you're going through happens very often to a lot of people ("everybody just clicks OK and chuckles about it"). Asking anybody to sign 3000 pages of legal statements without giving it too much thought is bonkers, but everybody just assumes "well, they probably can't do anything terrible, because our laws prevent that, right?". So we click through EULAs and sign agreements that are now just nuisances getting inbetween us and our desire for "the thing we want". The people who make these agreements do them because they are required to have them, by law or circumstance (CYAs). Not having an agreement is not an option. The people who sign the agreements do that because they have already decided that they want "that thing" no matter what. Not having the thing is not an option. What a profoundly weird situation. Through what I would guess were a couple of outlandish precedents, we now have established a custom that none of the involved parties cares about nor has anything to gain from, really. But we still do it. It's like two sides playing soundwaves with opposite phases, cancelling eachother out. Everybody assumes that's ok, because it's quiet. But you could just as well simply stop playing the damn sounds.

antiterra 13y ago

While I doubt the policy was anywhere near 3000 pages, this kind of thing is indeed ridiculous. Reading the document means very little in regards to understanding what it says, much less what it means in regards to court doctrine. I also insist on reading the privacy policy at doctors offices. Once, a receptionist gave me a great deal of grief, then finally handed me their only printed copy. It was just one two-sided page, but it was ragged, creased and stained. Classy. What's less pointless and far more upsetting is the practice of pharmacies instructing customers to sign/check the "I do not wish to have a consultation" area on forms when buying prescription medicine. That has happened to me at a number of pharmacies in NYC. When I ignore their instructions and start signing the area that requests a consultation they sternly tell me I'm signing in the wrong place. Then there's a big sigh when I say I actually want to talk to the pharmacist. Inexcusable and disgusting.

maqr 13y ago
I've seen that "I do not wish to have a consultation" box countless times, but I've never questioned why it's there. What happens if you request the consultation? My understanding has always been that pharmacies are drug dispensaries with very little to offer in the way of medical consultations, as that's the role of the doctor who prescribed the drugs. I'm not even sure what they would consult with you about.
- travisp 13y ago
  Actual pharmacists are very knowledgeable about the drugs that they give out, in some cases more so than the doctors prescribing them (as many doctors will readily tell you). Doctors in hospitals frequently consult the hospital's pharmacists with questions about particular things (like drug interactions).
  - TillE 13y ago
    Yes, it's entirely normal in Germany to just walk in and consult a pharmacist about minor problems. They're generally quite friendly and not too busy, even in the middle of Berlin.

jonknee 13y ago

I usually just do not sign without saying anything and have not had a problem returning doctors forms mostly empty (especially no SSN, that's asking for trouble). It's highly likely that no one at the office has any more insight into why the information is being asked than you do. If it's critical they won't leave it to a line on one of many forms.

justgottasay 13y ago

I have heard that these Privacy policy statements also make the doctor (or his assignee) a 'co-author' of anything that you may write about your experience in their office. This allows them to issue take-downs on bad reviews that end up online.

ceejayoz 13y ago
Yep. Some doctors have sued patients over bad reviews. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101110/19053611809/doctor-sues-patients-over-bad-yelp-reviews.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101110/19053611809/doctor...

8ig8 13y ago

The whole song and dance bugs me. It's not practical. What patient is really going to read a 3,000 page document? How long would that even take? How much would a typical patient even understand? Who benefits here? Lawyers? Insurance companies? It's like that fine print on TV commercials. No human can read it given the size and the duration on screen, but that company covered their ass by having it there.

lnanek2 13y ago
I couldn't care less personally, but theoretically there are people who wouldn't want their treatment information shared. I suppose if they have diseases such as HIV or something. It's kind of a bummer it makes it so tough to do startups in the field. I suppose I do like the provisions that prevent sharing information with marketers that came along with all the other laws, but would have been just as happy if that was left up to the free market. E.g. check this box for $50 dollars more expensive treatment or we might share your records with pharma companies that will market medicine to you.
- jessaustin 13y ago
  ...theoretically there are people who wouldn't want... Whatever the patient wants, how will she find that topic addressed in two paragraphs out of 3,000 (or even 20) pages? It's hard copy; there's not even a search function! A situation in which people are forced to surrender rights in order to receive service, especially if they've gone to some inconvenience even to get an appointment, is neither equitable nor just.

jlgaddis 13y ago

I do the same thing that RMS did on many (but not all) occasions and it really annoys the hell out of people. A year or two ago, I rented one of those storage units to put a bunch of stuff in (although really I should probably just get rid of it). The guy hands me a copy of a "rental agreement" to sign that's several pages long (printed on both sides) and says, "Just flip to the back page and sign there at the bottom." Having never rented one of these units before, I was completely ignorant as to the "rules" or what might even be included in such an agreement so I really did want to read it (whereas most of us can probably guess 98% of what the standard HIPAA/Privacy Policy says). When I get to the bottom of the front of the first page, I look up and the guy is clearly annoyed (despite the fact that he didn't appear to be doing anything important when I walked in -- he was on Facebook on his computer). I apologized to him and explained, saying, "I'm sorry, I've never rented one of these before so I really don't know what's allowed and I want to make sure I don't do anything wrong." At the time I was genuinely curious as to what could or couldn't be stored in the unit. Could I keep some really old guns in there? Maybe I could park my motorcycle in it during the wintertime and free up some space in my garage? I asked him if he had a FAX machine in his office and he said that he did. "How about if I take this with me so I can read it at home and then I'll sign the back page and FAX it to you?" I asked, thinking that he'd be happy that he didn't have to sit impatiently and watch me for the next 20 minutes as I finished reading the document. "Okay, that'll work." I slid the document back over to him and asked him to write the FAX number on it. I gave him my credit card to cover the initial payment, he ran it and I walked out. I actually did sit and read the whole document when I got home but I didn't really like that I was required to give them 90 days notice prior to terminating the agreement (30 days would be more reasonable, IMO). If I decided today that I was going to move everything out of the unit tomorrow, I'd still have to pay for the next three months (at $46 USD per month) even though I wasn't using it any longer. I never signed the document and I never FAX'd it back. I'm sure the guy probably forgot all about it before I even made it home and I haven't been contacted by the company since -- regarding the document or anything else. Every month they charge my credit card $46 and life goes on. I'll be moving everything out of there in a few weeks. When I do, I fully intend to walk into the office, hand them the key, and point out that I never signed the document and will fight any attempts to charge me the next three months worth of rent. Like most people, I usually just blindly click through EULA's and sign whatever documents wherever somebody tells me to but in this case not doing so paid off. I certainly wouldn't have expected that I'd be required to give them 90 days notice before vacating the storage unit.

ivanbrussik 13y ago

its just a waste of everyone's time. no one cares even if you are able to prove a point we all know there are rooms off the grid where their are agents that can make you do or say anything they want. but I forget you are in the USA and I am in Russia.

laurenstill 13y ago

I never understood, since HIPAA is theoretically designed to protect the patient's privacy, why doctors/practioners aren't required to sign notices/contracts to the patient.

bambax 13y ago

When I take cash out of the bank I'm usually handed a form that says that I have received the money that I have to sign in order to receive the money. I say very politely that I can't say that I have received the money until I actually have. Usually the teller has this smile that means "here's another one of them". Sometimes they don't smile at all, and I had to really argue once or twice, but in the end they all accept my reasoning.

imrehg 13y ago
Here in Taiwan businesses have to give a so called "fapiao", which is an invoice and a receipt in the same time. If another company wants to buy something from your company, you have to give them fapiao (since it's a 'invoice') and pay your taxes based on that to the government immediately (since it's a 'receipt' as well), even if you haven't received a dime yet. And since in its receipt capacity there's no other thing to issue to the company once they pay, they could pretty much just not pay and say "why would I have gotten a fapiao[receipt] if I haven't paid, dude?" It's just amazing how many truly stupid things keep being done with finance, and I'm puzzled about how could they be fixed.

stefanix 13y ago

Amending contracts before signing is a perfectly fine practice and should be done more often. I routinely do this to some reasonable extend. I once singed up for a gym membership that had terrible stipulation to the point it was offending. I plastered the entire contract with "no" and "not" additions. It still went through.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]