Citizens’ Council on Health Care
CCHC HEALTH eNEWS
Friday, June 8, 2001
=====================================================
Providing news and commentary on health care
policy,
health insurance issues, and medical confidentiality.
=====================================================
* DEADLINE TO STOP GOVERNMENT ACCESS TO MEDICAL RECORDS - JUNE 15
* EMPLOYERS LOOKING AT NEW INSURANCE STRATEGIES
* CLONING-BAN BILLS DON’T BAN CLONING
* GOVERNMENT WEBSITE EXPOSES DATA ON CUSTOMERS
* BRITISH GOVERNMENT HOPES TO COLLECT ALL PATIENT DATA
* NATION FOLLOWS MAINE ON PRESCRIPTION DRUG PRICING
* GENETIC SCIENTISTS NEAR “TARGETED” CANCER TREATMENT
* REP. RON PAUL’s LETTER TO SPEAKER HASTERT - PRIVACY RESOLUTION
-----------------------------------------------------
TO BE REMOVED FROM THIS LIST UNSUBSCRIBE INSTANTLY
AT: http://www.cchconline.org/enews.php3
-----------------------------------------------------
_____________________________________________
DEADLINE FOR STOPPING “PRIVACY” RULE IMMINENT
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) submitted a Resolution on March 15,
2001 to stop the implementation of the so-called federal
medical privacy rule. Submitted under the Congressional
Review Act of 1996, H.J. Res. 38 would allow Congress to
repeal the rule without the normal time-consuming and
cumbersome legislative process. All Resolutions must be
acted on within 15 days. If allowed to come to the floor
of the U.S. House of Representatives, it will be voted on.
If passed, it will be sent to the U.S. Senate for a vote.
(Paul’s letter reprinted at end of this eNEWS)
DEADLINE FOR THE VOTE: Friday, June 15, 2001
According to the Liberty Study Committee, if the resolution
is not voted on it can only be reintroduced as a standard
bill, which would require it to go through the Senate Health,
Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. Chaired by Senator
Edward Kennedy and lead by Senator Hillary Clinton, the
prospects for passage are slim. The rule was required as part
of the Kennedy-Kassenbaum bill which is now known as HIPAA, the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.
Source: Alert from the Liberty Study Committee, June 5, 2001, http://www.thelibertycommittee.org
U.S. CAPITOL SWITCHBOARD - #202-224-3121
Citizens’ Council on Health Care
6/8/01
_____________________________________________
EMPLOYERS LOOKING AT NEW INSURANCE STRATEGIES
Writing in AMNews Julie Jacob reports that large employers
are “grim about controlling health care costs.” She cites
the recent Mercer study and the Health Affairs article, and
gets reaction from a number of sources including study author
James Maxwell who says “many (employers) believe that the
current system is unsustainable.” Both he and Larry Boress of
the Chicago Business Group on Health emphasize that employers
have to get more involved in improving clinical quality. But
Blaine Bos of William M. Mercer says that while employers may
not move to defined contribution, “they might try offering
high-deductible catastrophic health plans in combination with
employee health care spending accounts to cover routine
physicals and minor illnesses.”
SOURCE: Quoted directly from Health Policy Week, Greg Scandlen
NCPA’s Health Policy Week #167, May 28, 2001, http://www.ama-assn.org/sci-pubs/amnews/pick_01/bil20528htm
___________________________________
CLONING BAN BILLS DON’T BAN CLONING
Inexact scientific language may prevent either anti-cloning bill
in Congress from accomplishing its purported purpose. Neither
Senate Bill, S 790 (Sam Brownback) or Rep. Dave Weldon’s HR 1644,
the House version of the Senate bill, ban ALL cloning using human
tissue. There are no specific prohibitions against cloning by use
of organisms, cells, DNA and molecules of human beings.
Human embryologist C.Ward Kischer points out that molecular cloning
is the foundation of recombinant DNA technology. The American
Bioethics Advisory Commission (http://www.all.org/abac)
remains
concerned. As the bills stand now, there is no reason to believe
that they would prevent the cloning of human beings and human
organs, regardless of how the legislation is labeled.
Either bill can be accessed by going to the Library of Congress
site (http://thomas.loc.gov/) and
inserting the bill number in
the search
box.
Source:”WELDON/BROWNBACK HUMAN CLONING BILL WILL NOT STOP HUMAN
CLONING,” Communique, Vol. 11, No. 24, American Life League,
June 1, 2001. http://www.all.org
Citizens’ Council on Health Care
6/8/01
____________________________________________
GOVERNMENT WEBSITE EXPOSES DATA ON CUSTOMERS
Health.org revealed the names of thousands of individuals
who requested information and brochures on drug and alcohol
addiction. The site is maintained by a private contractor for
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Revealed
were names, e-mails and addresses.
Those who ordered certain other materials between September
2000 and May 2001 had their names, shipping address,e-mail
address and telephone number displayed. Computer experts
noticed the flaw and passed the information on to MSNBC.com who
contacted the site.
According to the agency who runs the site, most orders come
from schools, hospitals and other health agencies so few
individuals were exposed. Nonetheless, the flaw is an
embarrassment for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, which contracts the site out to Social &
Health Services Ltd.
The flaw was found in the PDG shopping cart software called PDG.
Because the flaw was widespread and easy for hackers to exploit,
the FBI, through its National Infrastructure Protection Center,
issued a warning about it on April 6 which Health.org claims
never to have received.
Source: “Health site exposed customer info, Government substance-
abuse prevention page flawed, Bob Sullivan, MSNBC, June 25, 2001, http://www.msnbc.com/news/578476.asp?0nm=T219&cp1=1
Citizens’ Council on Health Care
6/8/01
____________________________________________________
BRITISH GOVERNMENT HOPES TO COLLECT ALL PATIENT DATA
In a little known or publicly debated clause of the Health
and Social Care Bill that may still be going through Parliment,
the British Government would win unprecedented power over
patient data: to collect it and to restrict others from
disclosing it.
Despite the Health Minister’s claims that the provision would
protect data, Clause 67 would grant the secretary of state for
health power (a) “to collect all personal health information in
identifiable form not just from the NHS, but from the private
sector too; and (b) to regulate (or even ban) the use of personal
health information by third parties...”
Ross Anderson wrote in the British Medical Journal that such
action would “certainly have a chilling effect on the doctor-
patient relationship: non-consensual data sharing is contrary
to medical ethics and appears to violate the European Convention
on Human Rights.”
Source: “Undermining data privacy in health information,”
Editorial, Ross Anderson, BMJ 2001;322:442-443, February 24, 2001.
Citizens’ Council on Health Care
6/8/01
________________________________________________________________
”AS MAINE GOES, SO GOES THE NATION” ON PRESCRIPTION DRUG PRICING
Politicians have discovered that cheaper prescription drugs are
the way to older voters’ hearts—and they are hopping on the
bandwagon to keep those prices down. In fact, lawmakers in 40
state capitals this year introduced proposals aimed at curbing
drug spending.
o In creating the Maine Rx Program last year, that state
created price controls—allowing its commissioner of
human services to establish maximum retail prices
effective in 2003 if negotiations between the state and
drug manufacturers to lower prices turn out to be less
than satisfactory from the state’s standpoint.
o West Virginia has approved a plan to form a multistate
purchasing pool open to consumers—including provisions
to “enact fair prescription pricing policies.”
o Maryland lawmakers have agreed to ask the federal
government for permission to allow Medicare patients to
buy drugs at the lower Medicaid program prices.
o New Jersey has created a senior discount program allowing
lower-income individuals to pay just 50 percent of the
”reasonable” cost of a drug.
But Maine’s program represents the harshest action approved thus
far. And lawmakers in 27 other states are using parts of Maine’s
law in their own proposals. The drug industry is fighting Maine’s
program in the courts.
Source: Julie Appleby, “States Act to Keep Drug Prices Down,” USA
Today, June 4, 2001.
For text
http://www.usatoday.com/money/general/2001-06-04-drugprices.htm
SOURCE: Directly taken from the Daily Policy Digest, National
Center for Policy Analysis, 6/4/01, http://www.ncpa.org
___________________________________________________
GENETIC SCIENTISTS NEAR “TARGETED” CANCER TREATMENT
Diagnostic differentiation of cancer cells by their genetic
structure was recently demonstrated for the first time ever
by scientists at the National Human Genome Research institute
and Lund University in Sweden. With this discovery, there
exists the possibility of new cancer therapies directed at
killing only the cancer cells, and not non-specifically at
all cells in the body of cancer patients.
According to Paul Meltzer, M.D., Ph.D., a senior investigator
in the Cancer Genetics Branch of the NHGRI Division of
Intramural Research, “This is the first time anyone has taken
several different kinds of cancer, and used their gene
expression patterns for diagnostic classification,” Meltzer
says. The NIH press release notes that “the data form a complex
pattern of signal intensities that represent the fingerprint
for each tumor type.”
The technique uses 1) artificial intelligence called neural
networks which are created to mimic the activity of the brain’s
neurons, and 2) gene chips, glass slides with an array of gene
samples placed on them. The genetic tissue is manipulated
and chemically treated to bring about luminescent patterns
within the cells. These patterns are then surveyed and scanned
through the neural network software for computerized pattern
analysis. As a result, it may now be possible to differentiate
between various similar cancers at a very early stage of
diagnosis.
”I am convinced that we will find good targets for new drug
treatments with this kind of approach,” says Paul Meltzer,
M.D., Ph.D., a senior investigator in the Cancer Genetics
Branch of the NHGRI Division of Intramural Research. “We are
clearly moving away from using chemotherapy to nonspecifically
kill cells to developing targeted treatments.”
Richard Klausner, director of the National Cancer Institute
says, “As this study suggests, our growing knowledge of the
’molecular fingerprints’ of cancer cells can and will
translate into clinical benefits.”
Source:”GENE CHIPS ACCURATELY DIAGNOSE FOUR COMPLEX CHILDHOOD
CANCERS, Artificial Intelligence Used With Gene Expression
Microarrays for the First Time” May 30, 2001 National
Institutes of Health press release announcing research
reported in the June 2001 issue of “Nature Medicine, Volume 7,
Number 6.
Citizens’ Council on Health Care
6/8/01
______________________________________________________________
REP. RON PAUL’s LETTER TO HASTERT - PRIVACY RULE RESOLUTION 38
______________________________________________________________
June 7, 2001
The Honorable J.
Dennis Hastert
Speaker of the House of Representatives
H232 Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable Sam Johnson
Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations
2181 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Speaker Hastert and Chairman Johnson:
I respectfully request that you move H.J.Res. 38, my Medical Privacy Protection
Resolution, to the House floor before June 15, 2001. As you may know, H.J.Res.
38 uses the procedures established in the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to
repeal the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)’ so-called “medical
privacy” resolution, however, Congress has only until June 15th to
use the CRA to repeal the medical privacy rule. If we do not act by June 15
then any legislation passed by the House dealing with this subject will have to
go through the Senate Health, Education, Pensions, and Labor (HELP) Committee,
which is now dominated by supporters of the HHS “privacy” rule. Thus, if
Congress does not act by the 15th, it will become more difficult to
repeal this misnamed “privacy” rule.
According to a Gallop survey commissioned by the Institute for Health Freedom,
92% of Americans oppose allowing government agencies to have access to medical
records without patient consent. The American people are more opposed to
government agencies having unfettered access to medical records than they are
to any private party, with the exception of financial institutions, having
access to their medical history. Yet HHS’s rule increases the power of
government agencies to seize medical records without consent!
For example, these regulations allow law enforcement and other government
officials access to a citizen’s private medical record without having to obtain
a search warrant. Allowing government officials to access a private person’s
medical records without a warrant is a violation of the fourth amendment to the
United States Constitution, which protects American citizens from warrantless
searches by government officials. The requirement that law enforcement
officials obtain a warrant from a judge before searching private documents is
one of the fundamental protections against abuse of the government’s power to
seize an individual’s private documents. While the fourth amendment has been
interpreted to allow warrantless searches in emergency situations, it is hard
to conceive of a situation where law enforcement officials would be unable to
obtain a warrant before electronic medical records would be destroyed.
In addition to law enforcement, these so-called “privacy protection”
regulations create a privileged class of people with a federally-guaranteed
right to see an individual’s medical records without the individual’s consent.
For example, medical researchers may access a person’s private medical records
even if an individual does not want their private records used for medical
research. Although individuals will be told that their identity will be
protected, the fact is that no system is fail-safe. I am aware of at least one
incident where a man had his medical records used without his consent and the
records inadvertently revealed his identity. As a result, many people in his
community discovered details of his medical history that he wished to keep
private!
As an OB-GYN with more than 30 years experience in private practice, I am very
concerned by the threat to medical practice posed by these regulations. The
confidential physician-patient relationship is the basis of good health care.
Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on the patient’s ability to place
absolute trust in his or her doctor. The legal system has acknowledged the
importance of maintaining physician-patient confidentiality by granting
physicians a privilege not to divulge confidential patient information. What
will happen to that trust between patients and physicians when patients know
that any and all information given their doctor may be placed in a government
database or seen by medical researchers or handed over to government agents
without so much as a simple warrant?
These regulations violate the fundamental principles of a free society by
placing the perceived “societal” need to advance medical research over the
individual’s right to privacy. They also violate the fourth and fifth
amendments by allowing law enforcement officials and government favored special
interests to seize medical records without an individual’s consent or a warrant
and could facilitate the creation of a federal database containing the health
care data of every American citizen. These developments could undermine the
doctor-patient relationship and thus worsen the health care of millions of
Americans.
If Congress fails to repeal this rule, we will have failed to protect the
majority of Americans who oppose giving government sweeping powers to violate
medical privacy. Therefore, I once again respectfully request that you place
H.J.Res. 38, the Medical Privacy Protection Resolution, on the House calendar
before June 15. Thank you for your consideration of my views.
Sincerely,
Ron Paul
cc: Hon. Richard Armey
Source: The office of Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)
================================================
* Link quickly to starred (*)
articles - online
newspapers may remove them soon after published
================================================
NOTE: These news items have been taken directly
from email received by CCHC or from Internet
newspaper publications. Titles in ALL CAPS are
CCHC creations except for those heading articles
from the National Center for Policy Analysis,
the Health Law Pulse, PrivacySecurityNetwork,
and LIST.HEALTHPLAN. Credit to the sending
organization or news service is listed at the
end of each article.
================================================
CITIZENS’ COUNCIL ON HEALTH CARE
1954 UNIVERSITY AVE. W., SUITE 8
ST. PAUL, MN 55104, 651-646-8935
HTTP://WWW.CCHCONLINE.ORG
-----------------------------------------------------
TO BE REMOVED FROM THIS LIST UNSUBSCRIBE INSTANTLY
AT: http://www.cchconline.org/enews.php3
-----------------------------------------------------
ALL
INFORMATION, DATA, AND MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR
GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE
KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED
AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO
VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU
ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.