Slashdot Mirror
DEA Wants Access To Medical Records Without Warrant (thedailybeast.com)
mi writes from a report via The Daily Beast: Unlike in cases of commercially-held data, where the Third Party doctrine allows police warrantless access, prescription drug monitoring databases are maintained by state-governments. The difference is lost to the Obama Administration, which argues that "since the records have already been submitted to a third party (a state's Prescription Drug Monitoring Program) that patients no longer enjoy an expectation of privacy." The DEA has claimed for years that under federal law it has the authority to access the states' prescription drug databases using only an "administrative subpoena." These are unilaterally issued orders that do not require a showing of probable cause before a court, like what's required to obtain a warrant. Some states, like Oregon, fight it; some, like Wisconsin, do not. "The federal government is eager to see all these databases linked," reports The Daily Beast. "The Department of Justice has developed a software platform to facilitate sharing among all state PDMPs. So far 32 states already share their PDMP data through a National Association of Boards of Pharmacy program. The Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA), which passed Congress in March, calls for expanding sharing of PDMP data."
... then FBI, then DEA ...
The system rots, from within
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
As a Obama supporter (twice), can I just say:
Dude... Obama... stop. The tin foil hat brigade is giving me that knowing nod of "see? We fucking told you", and I have no reasonable retort. The Constitution was supposed to be your wheelhouse.
Fuck them forever. Fuck them from day one. Fuck anyone who works for them. Fuck anyone who supports them. Fuck any country that employs them. Lastly...FUCK THE DEA
What is with all these requests for data without a warrant? If they have a legitimate request for access, it will be very easy for them to get a warrant. The only reason I can think of to want warrantless access is to circumvent constitutional protections.
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
since the records have already been submitted to a third party (a state's Prescription Drug Monitoring Program) that patients no longer enjoy an expectation of privacy.
I don't buy into this bullshit normally, since people generally leave their information with third parties because they trust the third party will keep it in confidence. This case has the added force of law behind it -- HIPAA was written specifically to ensure that medical records are not passed around without the patient's consent.
...or so, any normal person would believe.
Unfortunately, it appears in this case, the DEA is correct. There is a specific exemption in HIPAA for administrative requests:
When does the Privacy Rule allow covered entities to disclose protected health information to law enforcement officials?
To respond to an administrative request, such as an administrative subpoena or investigative demand or other written request from a law enforcement official. Because an administrative request may be made without judicial involvement, the Rule requires all administrative requests to include or be accompanied by a written statement that the information requested is relevant and material, specific and limited in scope, and de-identified information cannot be used (45 CFR 164.512(f)(1)(ii)(C)).
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
>"The difference is lost to the Obama Administration, which argues that "since the records have already been submitted to a third party."
Of course... that pesky Constitution just gets in the way so much. Due process is overrated and the Fed should be able to do whatever they want, I mean, anything can be "interstate commerce", right? That the records are held by the States shouldn't matter, since the interpretation of the Constitution is now that the Federal Government has any rights DENIED to the States, not the other way around.
Think this is just a Democrat problem? Think again. It seems all politicians- from the President, through Congress and elsewhere think the government, especially the Fed, should grow and grow, spend and spend, make law after law taking away more and more rights from Citizens. What is the next "war"? We haven't yet "won" of the "war on drugs" which stripped countless rights... followed by the unwinnable "war on piracy", and then the "war on terror", in which everyone is a terrorist and if you are a good Patriot, you should surrender all your rights in the name of "patriotism". If you have nothing to hide...
It seems we continue to allow the evolution of the "Federal Fascist Socialist State of America" everyone loses. Where does it end?
OK, rant over... gotta go mow the stupid lawn now. Unless there is some Federal law against that I don't know about.
FTFA: The Obama administration disagrees, and argues that since the records have already been submitted to a third party (Oregon’s PDMP) that patients no longer enjoy an expectation of privacy.
How do *I* lose my rights if a second party turns over info to a third party?
Now I see why the Obama administration has had such a hardon for electronic medical records.
Massive collection of data by government is a necessary part of implementing financial regulation, health care regulation, environmental regulations, gun control, employment regulation, public education, and civil rights legislation. That is, federal and state governments cannot accomplish their goals of detecting fraud and inefficiencies, without detailed data on the health, drugs, purchases, sales, salaries, and education of every American. And, of course, the IRS, DEA, and other agencies are going to get access to it: it's their job to find fraud and abuse in the system. What rubs people the wrong way about it is that they are now starting to realize that once that data has been collected and the three letter agencies get access to it, they themselves are potential suspects and may be identified for idiosyncratic reasons by some data mining algorithm. That's in addition to the other abuses that such data collection engenders: political blackmail, government corruption, and massive leaks of personal information.
The combination of the war on drugs, anti-terrorism legislation, the ACA and the massive increase of financial services regulations in recent years have fundamentally changed the US from a country where you were left alone unless you did something wrong, to a country where every aspect of your life is recorded and scrutinized by state and federal agencies. I think we need to reverse that.
For f* sake, my doctors can't even get my medical records. Went to the emergency room, told them I just had a cat scan in the same hospital a few weeks ago of the problem area and they could use that for comparison. "Was it an out-patient procedure?", they asked. "Yes". "Then we can't use that." Another time I went to hospital, told them I had been to another hospital for the same thing but out of state, again oh well, they can't use those. Hell, every time I go to the doctor they ask for my height. That doesn't change very much. But they ask it every single freaking time. What's the point of all these records? We make an endless stream of them and never use them again.... oh, except when a foreign dignitary needs an organ, then they read them alright.
:T:R:A:N:S:
If for no other reason than privacy, this is why a cashless society is totally undesirable if you value privacy. Literally every transaction you do is visible by or through a third party to the transaction. Therefore the third party doctrine would apply to your entire economic life.
And you know that if we get there, no one in Congress is going to propose, let alone get passed, a bill that formally abolishes that doctrine and requires a warrant for every data request.
The government can't (or should not) pass a law that requires collection of data, then claim that people have no expectation of privacy in that data.
What if the government passed a law requiring you to upload the contents of your computer to a massive database, then decided that it didn't need a warrant to access that same data?
If the Supreme Court allows this, it shows that the justices are themselves corrupt.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
I would recommend that you never tell your doctor that you use marijuana.
That will usually go into your medical record, because it's part of your medical and social history.
Now with electronic medical records, anybody with access can do a text search for "marijuana" and find it.
The most obvious problem that I can identify is that years later, you might have a legitimate need for opioids.
For example, hip and knee replacements are very painful. In order to be successful, they require physical therapy, which is also very painful, and often can't be done right without opioids. (See Jane Brody's story in the New York Times about her own knee replacements.)
If your medical record mentions marijuana, that can set off some (unscientific) guidelines for using opioids, which require that you sign a "pain contract." You have to take (unnecessary and expensive) drug tests, with (unnecessary and expensive) doctors' visits, with lower doses than would be medically appropriate, and they can discontinue opioids if you test positive for marijuana. Normally it would be a violation of medical ethics to abandon a patient, but these pain contracts allow doctors to unethically abandon a patient if they violate some of these provisions.
The Veterans Administration just backed off on one of those pain contracts after a veteran sued them. But not everybody can afford a lawyer.
http://journalofethics.ama-ass...
Veterans Health Administration Policy on Cannabis as an Adjunct to Pain Treatment with Opiates
Michael Krawitz
AMA Journal of Ethics.
June 2015, 17(6):558-561.
If a doctor specifically asks about marijuana, I think a good answer would be, "You can't guarantee me that this information will be confidential, right?"
Because there were about 30,000 deaths a year recently from opioids in the US.
This widely-reported number deliberately confuses
--people who take heroin to get high
--people who take prescription drugs without a prescription to get high
-- people who were appropriately prescribed opioids and died anyway
-- people who were appropriately prescribed opioids but given doses that were too low and got additional drugs somewhere
-- people who were prescribed opioids but couldn't afford them so they used cheaper heroin, etc.
It is a legitimate problem, but the Drug Enforcement Agency runs things and their solution to all problems is to put people in prison. When you've got a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
You could get a rational discussion of the problem in those silly European magazines like Lancet, BMJ or New Scientist. Unfortunately some of the Europeans are following the American example of stupidity.
We ask height because it's part of the 'vital signs package'. Admittedly it's stupid when it's done every week, but federal regulations (who else?) kinda sort of encourage this (it's complicated). It's also a way to track identity abuse. If you gained 50 pounds and 8 inches in a month then somebody ought to look into it a bit closer. This happens not infrequently with Medicaid patients.
It's hardly the most idiotic thing US medicine does.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
I totally understand where you're coming from. In Texas we had a pretty good governor from 1995-2000. He did a good job, earning praise from Democrats in the state legislature as well as Republicans. He was good at working across the aisle and getting things done, so I had high hopes when he was elected president. Oops.
I hoped that Obama would inspire the nation, JFK-style. While his own radio ads about "going after corporations" let me know he was intending to cause harm to business owners such as myself, I hoped he would be special. Not so much.
The good news in all of that is this:
I thought Bush would be good. I was wrong.
I thought Obama would be good, for a Dem. I was wrong.
I thing Trump would be bad. I'll be wrong? I hope so!
I've learned that what a candidate says doesn't tell me much about what a president will do.
Let the addicts have their favored poison, and quietly remove themselves from the gene pool.
I would rather we had a drug problem than suffer the continuing existence of the DEA. Oh, wait - we still do have a drug problem as well as a DEA. And when the agency goes, can we have back the parts of the Constitution that we deleted for their benefit?
The entire idea that the DEA would remove the drug "problem" is laughable on the face of it. Their existence is predicated on the problem continuing to exist.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Those who accept "reasonable" exceptions to the Second Amendment should not be surprised when "reasonable" exceptions to the Fourth (or any other) Amendment are also accepted.
After all, these exceptions are all "for the good of society" - who can argue with that?
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
WTF are you talking about? This isn't about drug abuse.
This is about a blatant violation of patient confidentiality and government overreach in a time when the fourth amendment has apparently been rescinded by fiat.
the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
Drug addict: You mean if I come forward as a drug addict and try to get clean, they're going to arrest me and charge me with a crime? Forget that... I'll just put up with the addiction and try to keep it as quiet as possible.
In other words, you will refuse to treat anyone who won't agree to entirely give up doctor-patient privacy, and consent to mandatory additional potentially inconvenient procedures at their expense. You get away with this because it beats two months of intense pain. If a patient has any objection to unreasonable demands, you will let that patient suffer.
The only difference between you and a CIA "enhanced interrogator" is that you're more smug about it.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes