[quote]Ruggerlife wrote:
Professor X wrote:
More interesting than anything is how a doctor can be held liable if he discusses any personal info about a patient’s medical history without that patient’s consent…but people with prescriptions for medications can have their medical histories and prescriptions blasted on the news for the world to hear this easily.
If no one has been found guilty, how can the media get around privacy laws like this? Why is this company’s client list public info? Would anyone here tolerate the same treatment if you came home and found out your name was on the news because you were on a mailing list from your drug store?
That’s an excellent point.
This is not quite the same thing but, if you recall a couple of years ago Elliot Spitzer (?) was trying a number of companies executives for fraud. In one instance, an executive surrendered himself (with his lawyer) into custody. While he was being arrested, the media was notified and the police took him out the back door, put him in a car and drove around to the front of the same building and escorted him through the media and crowd (in handcuffs) and brought him back into the building.
It seems like the government is increasingly using the media to forward it agenda when it shouldn’t be doing so.[/quote]
Very good point. And they are scum for doing that. But what do you expect from Elliot Spitface.
So very true. Headline and deadline are the only rules that media know nowaday. Everything else is fair game
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
More interesting than anything is how a doctor can be held liable if he discusses any personal info about a patient’s medical history without that patient’s consent…but people with prescriptions for medications can have their medical histories and prescriptions blasted on the news for the world to hear this easily.
If no one has been found guilty, how can the media get around privacy laws like this? Why is this company’s client list public info? Would anyone here tolerate the same treatment if you came home and found out your name was on the news because you were on a mailing list from your drug store?
The law has nothing to do with it. This is a witch hunt, and the media is leading the charge.
Haven’t you learned by now that a rabid media ignores anything resembling personal privacy? Forget common sense and that pesky little detail called the truth - they have a deadline.
[/quote]
This is an excerpt from the 2006 Florida Statutes, Chapter 456.057 Ownership and control of patient records; report or copies of records to be furnished.
9)(a)1. The department may obtain patient records pursuant to a subpoena without written authorization from the patient if the department and the probable cause panel of the appropriate board, if any, find reasonable cause to believe that a health care practitioner has excessively or inappropriately prescribed any controlled substance specified in chapter 893 in violation of this chapter or any professional practice act or that a health care practitioner has practiced his or her profession below that level of care, skill, and treatment required as defined by this chapter or any professional practice act and also find that appropriate, reasonable attempts were made to obtain a patient release.
The department may obtain patient records and insurance information pursuant to a subpoena without written authorization from the patient if the department and the probable cause panel of the appropriate board, if any, find reasonable cause to believe that a health care practitioner has provided inadequate medical care based on termination of insurance and also find that appropriate, reasonable attempts were made to obtain a patient release.
The department may obtain patient records, billing records, insurance information, provider contracts, and all attachments thereto pursuant to a subpoena without written authorization from the patient if the department and probable cause panel of the appropriate board, if any, find reasonable cause to believe that a health care practitioner has submitted a claim, statement, or bill using a billing code that would result in payment greater in amount than would be paid using a billing code that accurately describes the services performed, requested payment for services that were not performed by that health care practitioner, used information derived from a written report of an automobile accident generated pursuant to chapter 316 to solicit or obtain patients personally or through an agent regardless of whether the information is derived directly from the report or a summary of that report or from another person, solicited patients fraudulently, received a kickback as defined in s. 456.054, violated the patient brokering provisions of s. 817.505, or presented or caused to be presented a false or fraudulent insurance claim within the meaning of s. 817.234(1)(a), and also find that, within the meaning of s. 817.234(1)(a), patient authorization cannot be obtained because the patient cannot be located or is deceased, incapacitated, or suspected of being a participant in the fraud or scheme, and if the subpoena is issued for specific and relevant records.
Notwithstanding subparagraphs 1.-3., when the department investigates a professional liability claim or undertakes action pursuant to s. 456.049 or s. 627.912, the department may obtain patient records pursuant to a subpoena without written authorization from the patient if the patient refuses to cooperate or if the department attempts to obtain a patient release and the failure to obtain the patient records would be detrimental to the investigation.
If this is then presented in a courtroom where media is allowed, the information is considered “open to the public”, depending on the advisement of the judge.