- By firstname.lastname@example.org
Nevertheless, data protection has value for everyone in our society and therefore has special requirements on our attention. In his crucial book Privacy and Freedom, Westin (1967) described it as « the claim of individuals, groups, or institutions to determine for themselves when, how, and to what extent information about them is shared with others » (p. 7). This definition served as the basis for the Privacy Act of 1974 (P.L. 93579; 5 U.S.C§ 552a). This law, arguably the most important step in protecting privacy in recent decades, was passed to control the use of personal data in federal government databases. Fourthly, the Committee on the Treatment of Privacy – the issue of access to personal data – made recommendations on who should and should not have access to personal data and under what circumstances. Since HDO databases contain many pieces of personal data that are collected for individual and specific purposes and then used for multiple and different purposes, they may conflict with the principle of secondary use. However, if such secondary use does not involve a decision about the individual, the threat to privacy is by no means as acute as it would be if the information were used to make a decision that directly affects the individual (USDHEW, 1973). For example, the interests of the individual have not been affected if this data is used anonymously for statistical or research purposes and not for administrative decisions that directly affect them. Although the Harris/Equifax survey (1993) found that respondents objected to such use of their health information without their explicit consent (64% of respondents), the IOM Committee believes that individuals – and the public at large – may need to better understand the benefits of health care research by using non-personally identifiable data and safeguards used for usage research. data and safeguards used for research on the use of data and non-personally identifiable safeguards. personal data.
Researchers` access to HDO databases is addressed in the Committee`s recommendations. In addition to constitutional guarantees (which will be limited at best), a statutory law would also apply to HDOs if they were considered public bodies. For example, federal agencies and agencies in each state are covered by Freedom of Information (FOI) or public records. The purpose of these Acts is to make the records of government agencies available to the public. However, the national FOIA contains explicit language that exempts from disclosure « personal, medical and similar records the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unjustified invasion of privacy » (5 U.S.C§ 552[b]). Most state freedom of information laws contain a similar exception. For example, the Washington State FOIA includes an exception for medical records, pharmacy records, customer records of domestic violence programs, and various types of research data. Washington courts have also ruled that medical records are exempt from disclosure under the Washington Freedom of Information Act.16 To ensure that individuals (i.e., patients, parents of minor children, or legal guardians) are not put in an untenable position with respect to the disclosure of information, the Committee has chosen a position that is not based on consent procedures for most uses or data disclosures. It prefers to rely on strict policies against the disclosure or disclosure of personal information about individuals. It should be noted that the consent procedures described in this recommendation apply to the disclosure of information by the HDO. Patients will still be able to consent to the sharing of information by each of their service providers. However, in certain circumstances, the Committee provides that consent procedures must be used before OHDs disclose personally identifiable information.
Security risks can be exacerbated for OHHs that have a large number of remote online terminals. OHFs must put in place comprehensive, state-of-the-art administrative, human, physical and technological safeguards. employment contracts and the design of safety systems are of particular interest. Regardless of the privacy policies adopted by OHDs or required by law, OHDs must be able to implement them and ensure their effectiveness. Existing ethical, legal and other approaches to protecting the confidentiality and privacy of personal health data offer some safeguards, but there are still large gaps and limitations. The recommendations at the end of this chapter aim to strengthen current privacy protection and health data protection, particularly for information collected by hacked organisations. The principles for the use and disclosure of health information are set out in the Privacy Act under the Australian Privacy Principle 6, which states that an organisation may not use or disclose personal data about an individual for any purpose other than the primary purpose of the collection, except in a number of situations, including where an organisation has reasonable grounds to believe: that the use or disclosure is necessary to reduce or prevent a serious and immediate threat to the collection. the life, health or safety of a person or a serious threat to public health or safety. In short, health workers are not allowed to disclose a person`s health information without consent, except in a very limited number of circumstances.
These can usually be summarized as follows: In Whalen v. Roe (429 U.S. 589 ), for example, the Supreme Court weighed the threat to privacy and benefits posed by a New York State law. New York state law required pharmacists and doctors to report sensitive health information to state officials, in this case controlled drug prescriptions. It required physicians to report the names of patients who received certain types of prescription drugs to a state agency. The court concluded that the law is constitutional for two reasons: the social interests served by the law (combating the illicit use of otherwise legal drugs) and the full protection of privacy and confidentiality in the law (the disclosure of drug information, for example, was prohibited). The Court suggested that if the law had not benefited from this protection of confidentiality, it would have been found to violate constitutional principles of data protection (Chlapowski, 1991). Thus, derived and non-explicit rights must be regarded as personal rights.
Recently, the U.S. Congress has paid serious attention to the reform of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (Public Law [P.L.] 102-550; see below). He also addressed technology-driven privacy issues: the most relevant are legislative proposals to restrict caller identification programs (p. 652; R.H. 1305; see also House Report No. 102-324, 102nd Session of Congress), junk telephone calls and unwanted faxes (P.L. 102-243, « Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 »). Some congressional efforts, such as bills related to DNA testing and DNA profiling (p. 1355, « DNA Identification Act of 1991 »; H.R.
2045, « Human Genome Privacy Act »), should protect individuals from threats from medical technologies or initiatives. In October 1991, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Operations, Subcommittee on Government Information, Justice and Agriculture, held hearings on genetic privacy issues, and in April 1992 it issued a report calling for reforms related to the confidentiality of genetic information. In terms of confidentiality, USCIS staff must treat these files like other documents in support of the GST in the GST claim file. Unauthorized disclosure of information relating to a protected person can have significant consequences. USCIS employees must maintain confidentiality in these cases. Victims of domestic violence, victims of trafficking in human beings and victims of crime can be put at risk, as can their family members, if information is passed on to an unauthorized person. Authorization. A covered entity must obtain the individual`s written consent to use or disclose protected medical information that is not intended for treatment, payment or health care services, or that is otherwise authorized or required by the confidentiality rule.44 A registered entity may not make eligibility for treatment conditional, payment, registration or services to any person who gives permission to: except in certain circumstances.45 This section describes three categories of disclosure of patient information that are common. today and the problems and damages that may result from it: (1) joint disclosures that constitute breaches of confidentiality; (2) the secret, illegal or unethical acquisition and use of information; and (3) damages resulting from the disclosure of inaccurate data. It also raises questions about unplanned uses of databases accessed by OHFs. A Privacy Working Group was established in 1990 by the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation to report on the confidentiality of private sector medical records.
Another DHHS group established at the same time, the Working Group on Electronic Data Interchange (WEDI, 1991), also dealt with information protection in the electronic processing of health insurance claims. .