Slashdot Mirror
DEA Argues Oregonians Have No Protected Privacy Interest In Prescription Records
schwit1 writes "Like emails and documents stored in the cloud, your prescription medical records may have a tenuous right to privacy. In response to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) over the privacy of certain medical records, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration is arguing (ACLU response) that citizens whose medical records are handed over to a pharmacy — or any other third-party — have 'no expectation of privacy' for that information."
Oregon mandates that pharmacies report information on people receiving certain drugs to a centralized database (ostensibly to "...help people work with their health care providers and pharmacists to know what medications are best for them."). State law does allow law enforcement to access the records, but only with a warrant. The DEA, however, thinks that, because the program is public, a citizen is knowingly disclosing that information to a third party thus losing all of their privacy rights (since you can always just opt out of receiving medical care) thanks to the Controlled Substances Act. The ACLU and medical professionals (PDF) don't think there's anything voluntary about receiving medical treatment, and that medical ethics override other concerns.
You've lost sight of your own Constitution and what you stand for.
Now you're a bunch of witless idiots cowering in the dark.
crack (they're on it, apparently)
Of these three-letter-agencies twisting the law to fit their needs. And, without any of the necessary oversight that we were promised.
So, I guess my question is, are things going to get better because we have a more aggressive flashlight for exposing these secret interpretations of our law, or, will this just keep getting worse until something significantly worse happens? Something like, Egypt, Syria, etc...
Revolutions are nothing new... I just wish they weren't so damned violent and terrifying.
"Helping to keep you two steps ahead of the Thought Police!"
I'm puzzled; I'd think that this was covered by the Medical Records Privacy laws.
Personal information you give to your doctor is shared with insurance companies, pharmacies, researchers, and employers based on specific regulations.
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/index.html
https://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs8-med.htm
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Seriously! We MD's and other hospital staff all have to get mandatory patient privacy and security training every year. Some people at the DEA need to do this too because they are WAY out of line.
Hmmm, let's see...if I'm being treated for a condition, any condition not involving an illegal act, and someone walks into my doctor's office and says "Give me Example Guy's current medical records", the first words out of my doctor's mouth will be "Show me your warrant or get out of my office."
So if the doctor prescribes medication to treat my medical condition, that comes under doctor-patient confidentiality. The ONLY people I have to share that information with are the pharmacy tech and pharmacy manager who do not share that information with anyone else outside that doctor's office.
So why do authority and police organizations think it's okay to grab my records at a whim because I'm taking, say, Ritalin to treat severe ADHD? They have no business or right to be pawing through peoples' records looking for criminals unless they serve a warrant to every physician involved. There is no condition under which legally prescribed medication falls outside of those parameters unless the patient himself gives said organization written authorization gained in a legal manner to search their own records.
So take your 'public disclosure' bull and stick it up your backside along with badge, Mr. Policeman. The rules apply to EVERYONE, not just the people who don't own their very own cheap tin badges.
"Courage is being afraid to do the Right Thing, and doing it anyway."
Why would the DEA waste their time and money on this? HIPAA thoroughly establishes prescription records as being contained within the scope of medical privacy.
The DEA has become the enemy of the American people and needs to be disbanded, or at least have it's house cleaned.
Arguably, it would be more amusing to apply genetic engineering techniques to construct a virus that splices in cannaboid synthesis mechanisms when it infects and organism. Then release it into their ventilation system.
An entire department full of psychoactive DEA agents whose bodies synthesize Schedule I controlled substances would be the ultimate in zany stoner comedy.
The DEA jumped the shark a while back. If marijuana is a Schedule I drug (no accepted medical use, high probability of harm) and Marinol (concentrated, synthetic THC, the active ingredient in marijuana) is a Schedule III (Like low dose hydrocodone - Vicodin) then something's pretty wacky.
They have no interest in doing anything but increasing their fiefdom. Which is a shame. There is a complex interplay between useful and dangerous drugs and uncontrolled drug abuse is dangerous (witness the bath salts issue). But no one wants to work the with the DEA since administratively they're still mired in the Reefer Madness mindset.
The executive branch, ie. Obama, needs to slap on some testosterone patches (a Schedule III drug) and knock some upper level bureaucrats silly. There really is no possible law enforcement reason for this. If you are looking for the few doctors that really are the bad apples, the pill mill guys, then all you need to do is track the docs prescription volumes. Start looking at the folks, say two standard deviations from the mean. That should give you enough homework. You don't need to drill down to the individual patient level - that's not where the public health issue is.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Ask a silly question...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
2c
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
IANAL, but HIPAA is very very clear on this. The information, even if turned over to a third party, needs to continue to be treated as HIPAA information. Since pharmacies are under HIPAA jurisdiction, either the Oregonian DB is HIPAA certified, or they're in violation of HIPAA. There is no leeway in the law. If, at any point, you have HIPAA information and fail to treat it as such, you will be fined, etc.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Repeat after me "the federal government does not have general police power". "The federal government does not have general police power".
See United States v. Dewitt, Employers' Liability Cases, Keller and the 10th amendment, which reads:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
"Find scam doctors" is not one of those delegated powers, which are listed in article 1, section 8.
This part of the filing on page was interesting:
The DEA is not required to obtain a court order based on probable cause to issue a subpoena or to have it enforced.
Fourth amendment, anyone?
Judging from the AC post below, I think you have your answer: deflect, deflect, deflect.
Nevermind the fact that Obama lied to the nation, repeatedly, about the extent of NSA spying.
Nevermind the fact he's still, still pushing for a war with Syria, despite the opposition of pretty much every single American citizen.
Nevermind the fact that Obama claimed to want the "most transparent adminstration in history," he's prosecuted more whistleblowers than even Bush did.
Obama makes Bush look like a regular champion of civil liberties.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
If the DEA wins, then surely Oregon's database (PDMP) is in violation of HIPAA, which means the database should be shut down, which means that there would no longer be any data for the DEA to collect.
So, great work DEA. Shut down a useful database.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
This is a trend that has been going on more-or-less continuously since the J. Edgar Hoover administration and will continue to go on long after you die of old age.
I honestly can't tell if you're implying that Hoover, the first FBI director, was really the man pulling the strings of one or more US Presidents, or if you meant to type "Herbert Hoover".
I am not a crackpot.
Obama is a conservative Reaganite republican 5th column plant who masqueraded as a liberal during his first campaign. And the only reason we didn't kick is gestapo ass out of office for the second term was that the alternative was even worse.
I think its ludicrous that there are classes, defined by a bunch of stuffy old politicians, few of whom have any medical credentials.
Simple fact is, marijuana use is drug use. Period. There are more pot users than the next 3 major illicit drugs COMBINED. You take pot out of the mix and it is hard to justify any of this crap.
Even worst is the drug related crime, an entire class of petty crimes that happen really, for no other reason, than the artificially inflated price of drugs. Just look at portugal or the swiss heroin study. Criminality amongst drug users is clearly driven not by drug use but by drug high prices.... prices which prohibitionist tactics aim to raise.
Just look at alcohol problems today, and tell me that they are real problems when compared to the alcohol problems during prohibition. When was the last time some people were executed by a street gang over alcohol distribution? When was the last rash of people blinded by methanol added to bootleg liquor?
Its not just bad scheduling of marijiuana, its the very idea that the government should regulate what people can choose freely to put into their own bodies that was wrong.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Now I'm going to say the same thing I have said about every president during the last 30 years: They aren't Omnipotent. They do not know what everyone under them is doing, and they aren't really hands on running each agency beneath them.
If *I* know about it, what's the President's excuse for not knowing about it? When he finds out about these issues, what's his excuse for not firing the head of the agency? Why is Eric Holder still AG, when he violated Obama's promise to respect state laws on medical marijuana? Why is James Clapper still DNI, when he lied to Congress? For that matter, has Obama disciplined ANYONE underneath him for well established abuses of power?
Obama doesn't give a shit about us, our rights, or America. All he cares about are his cronies.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Indeed, the Interstate Commerce Clause is one of the most abused sections of the Constitution. If something is grown and consumed locally, you and I might deny it has much to do with interstate commerce. Indeed, it would seem to be the very definition of intrastate commerce. But the sophists, er... sorry, the Constitutional lawyers will argue that growing drugs locally rather than buying them from other states will affect the markets in those other states. Since the activity has interstate effects it will be counted as interstate commerce.
So it's not just that an air molecule might cross the state border. It's also that by having air within the state borders, we have no vacuum within the state. Our lack of a vacuum in the state means that we will not draw on other state's supply of air, so affecting the air market in those states. We're in charge now...
Lest what I say seem to absurd, consider this from the font of all knowledge:
Oh I disagree entirely, I see no evidence that government involvement actually helps. Drug abuse is, at its worst, a medical problem. Prohibition does jack shit to address the real issues. In fact, what it really does is create these drugs.
Yes create them. Over and over we see prohibitionists setting their sights on whatever happnes to be popular at the moment, disrupting the market, and then something else crops up. Prohibition encourages increasing potency, encourages ignoring safety protocols and releasing untested and unsafe drugs onto the street.
Many of these drugs would never have gained any serious popularity at all if not for prohibitionists creating the market for them.
And beyond all that.... my body my choice. Fuck you for even having an opinion about what I, or anyone else, might or might choose to use.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Yes, the DEA enforces more than just marijuana laws.
They enforce laws against opiates. This jacks up the price, and driving addicts to commit crimes to get a fix. This also decreases the quality and consistancy of the supply, killing people.
They enforce laws against cocaine, turning people towards more easily obtained, yet far more harmful stimulants like meth.
The enforce laws against psychedelics, depriving most of the country from one of the most awe inspiring, and still incredibly safe experiences life has to offer.
And to top it all off, they drive these industries underground, enriching violent cartels at great human cost.
The DEA serves no desirable purpose whatsoever. I challenge anyone to put forth a single well meaning, well informed argument for prohibition of any drug.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Prohibition works quite well when alternatives are available for the same market - it works so well that you only notice it in cases where there is no or poor alternatives, and so a black market is created. The FDA bans lots of drugs because they're just too dangerous for the goal they achieve, and that's a worthwhile goal - it's effectively fraud prevention. That's quite different from drugs like pot that are banned because of the goal they achieve.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
That is not hyperbole in the least. They are both examples of the exact same thought process in different contexts. Both are wanton cruelty justified by a twisted sense of morality. In both cases, the agressor believes that he is doing the right thing while harming individuals and his community.
If I'm wrong, what exactly is the difference?
This fails the "well meaning" test. Whether or not they have to use drugs, or can get clean is irrelevant. What matters is what policy yields the best public health outcomes. Prohibition has absolutely failed on this measure. It has no effect on rates of addiction, and makes addiction far more dangerous. Continuing prohibition in light of this fact is simply being cruel because "those people deserve it".
Also, consider that an islamist could use the same argument. "She didn't have to get an education/refuse the veil/drive a car/etc." This is just blaming the victim.
Oh, and "Addiction is no excuse for breaking the law." is begging the question. Presuming that opiates should be illegal because addicts should be punished for breaking the law is circular reasoning.
He's wrong in the first case, as you'd expect from a police officer lecturing about pharmacology. Cocaine and methamphetamine both act at the norepinephrine and dopamine transporters. Cocaine blocks reuptake, while methamphetamine runs the transporter in reverse. Both lead to extra neurotransmitter in the synapse of stimulatory/pleasure systems. The main pharmacological difference is that methamphetamine is metabolized much more slowly.
He's right in the second case, but the reasons for that are largely cultural and economic. If everything is equally available at reasonable prices, and people are educated properly, cocaine would likely displace a lot of meth use, leading to better public health. You'd also eliminate meth labs in one fell swoop.
As if nobody ever dies at the Grand Canyon? As if psychedelics that unlock corners of the mind and put us in touch with the closest thing to divinity that can be scientifically reproduced are not a natural wonder of the world, every bit as worthy of experiencing as the Grand Canyon? As if I couldn't say "If your life is so boring that you MUST see some giant hole in the ground, you need to
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!