CPAPtalk.com

Sonnyboy wrote:Bringing up HIPAA has gotten some people upset and I apologize for that and very possibly HIPAA does not apply and I used that term incorrectly...

This post is only meant to be food for thought.

No need to apologize -- you raised a good question about HIPAA that I've seen asked a couple of times before on the forum. So I offered the info just as a point of interest/clarification. No upset for me, and hopefully not for anyone else.

palerider wrote:well, at least one, if not multiple, acknowledged licensed professionals has stated, multiple times, that we should back away from all of this, and stop feeding into it.

something I got criticized for attempting to remind people of.

Ah yes, and in the future I'm going to remind you of that when you give advice or suggest or in any way attempt to get people to do things YOUR way, which you have done so often in the past.

obsession, it's not just a perfume.

BlackSpinner wrote:Meh - many of us are not in the USA so are safe.

Don't be too sure. The US invaded New Zealand to bust Kim Dotcom for having a file sharing site.

kaiasgram wrote:In a current thread someone has expressed concern that either forum members or the owners of this site could be in violation of HIPAA regulations....

That chart covers the question of whether you're a covered health care provider.

http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guid ... ntity.html

The more relevant part is the question of whether you're a "health care clearinghouse." The tricky part there is "Does the business or agency process, or facilitate the processing of, health information from nonstandard format or content into standard format or content or from standard format or content into nonstandard format or content (4)?"

The wording is BS. Classic government bureacratese that could mean anything. If I run an e-mail system and someone uses it without my knowledge to send health care information, they could claim I "facilitated the processing" of that info.

That's a classic government Gestapo tactic. Write the law to cover "facilitating" something. You can claim almost anything is "facilitating." It's like "possession of burglar tools." A tire jack or screwdriver can be a "burglar tool," so you can charge anyone with a car with possession of burglar tools. You might win in court, but still get jail time, a lot of expenses, hassles, time lost, and a criminal arrest record.

In concept, it shouldn't apply to any of us, but some government nitwit or scumbag lawyer could use it to harass someone.

The other important point is that HIPAA is one specific legal area. There are lots of other legal hassles that can happen to you. The medical mafia has influenced a lot of state and local governments to write bad laws about "practicing medicine without a license," that are completely ridiculous and leave a lot of room for the medical mafia to go after people.

Once again, this could cost you a lot of hassle and expense even if you "win" in the end.

Realize that the legal forces of darkness are often happy with a lot of harassment and expense, even if they don't "win" in the end. Also, they often win even if they're clearly in the wrong. "My lawyer is bigger than your lawyer" is one of the basic premises of the legal system in the US and many other companies.

I don't think we should just roll over and play dead, but we shouldn't think we're bulletproof.

archangle wrote:

kaiasgram wrote:In a current thread someone has expressed concern that either forum members or the owners of this site could be in violation of HIPAA regulations....

That chart covers the question of whether you're a covered health care provider.

http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guid ... ntity.html

The more relevant part is the question of whether you're a "health care clearinghouse." The tricky part there is "Does the business or agency process, or facilitate the processing of, health information from nonstandard format or content into standard format or content or from standard format or content into nonstandard format or content (4)?"

Actually, the wording is VERY precise. You just have to read the definitions of "healthcare clearinghouse", "health information" and "standard format" which are all precisely defined (ad nauseum). Health information in "layspeak" is information regarding healthcare premiums, payments, or eligibility. It also includes coordination of benefits forms and healthcare claims forms. A healthcare clearinghouse shares information among insurers and health care providers. The tricky thing about reading regulations is that you can't assume you know the definitions of the words they are using unless you look up the "definitions" section of the regulation.

While I agree with you that we should be careful what we say - the area at which we are most at risk would be providing medical advice without a license. This is not a HIPAA issue, it is a license to practice issue. As long as we are sharing our personal experiences and not suggesting that people take specific medications or undergo specific treatments (perhaps, against specific medical advice - hint, hint), we should be okay.

Hi

I will forever regret using the word HIPAA.

My primary concern relates to providing medical advice regarding specific medications without a license, dispensing medication without a license, and for the privacy of the patient diagnosing online.

My concern does not relate to Cpap treatment. With Cpap you are treating yourself at home, using your own equipment, often with little or no MD follow-up, and you darn well better know how to operate the equipment including changing settings.

There is a difference between education, prescribing, dispensing and diagnosing.

I hope this makes sense.

Sonnyboy wrote:Hi

I will forever regret using the word HIPAA.

My primary concern relates to providing medical advice regarding specific medications without a license, dispensing medication without a license, and for the privacy of the patient diagnosing online.

well, I, for one, am glad you brought it up, because it's sparked some thoughtful, and informative discussion. I don't see a downside, myself. but, I may just be half awake this morning and missing something

Sonnyboy wrote:
My primary concern relates to providing medical advice regarding specific medications without a license, dispensing medication without a license, and for the privacy of the patient diagnosing online.

There is a difference between education, prescribing, dispensing and diagnosing.

Exactly!!

Sonnyboy wrote:
My primary concern relates to providing medical advice regarding specific medications without a license, dispensing medication without a license, and for the privacy of the patient diagnosing online.

There is a difference between education, prescribing, dispensing and diagnosing.

The thing is the "patient" has requested the information AND put their info online. THEY have already made it public. There is no privacy online. If you announce to the world that you have a particular medical issue and some newspaper prints it you can't claim they violated your privacy. The fact that some one then suggests you try X, Y or Z is also meaningless unless they state falsely they are a doctor. All you have to do is phrase it "Many people find X, Y or Z is helpful to them in similar instances"

Or, "I tried _____, and it worked for me."

BlackSpinner wrote:

Sonnyboy wrote:
My primary concern relates to providing medical advice regarding specific medications without a license, dispensing medication without a license, and for the privacy of the patient diagnosing online.

There is a difference between education, prescribing, dispensing and diagnosing.

The thing is the "patient" has requested the information AND put their info online. THEY have already made it public. There is no privacy online. If you announce to the world that you have a particular medical issue and some newspaper prints it you can't claim they violated your privacy. The fact that some one then suggests you try X, Y or Z is also meaningless unless they state falsely they are a doctor. All you have to do is phrase it "Many people find X, Y or Z is helpful to them in similar instances"

Yes, the patient can provide all the information about themselves that they want to. Education is great always, but I feel we should all take care and avoid prescribing, dispensing, and/or diagnosing in response to the information received. This is my opinion. We can agree to disagree and that's okay.

Sonnyboy wrote: but I feel we should all take care and avoid prescribing, dispensing, and/or diagnosing in response to the information received.

What do you mean by that?

We do get our share of inquiries, "What do I have?"
Sometimes I cannot help but wonder if one might be trying to get us to say something actionable.
Maybe not yet, but when?

While it may not be appropriate for an individual to give "medical" advice, I do not believe it is illegal or "actionable", unless, of course, the individual claims to be a professional and is not. Otherwise, any advice given by a lay person is just personal advice and though it may be bad advice I don't think there is an accountability issue unless, perhaps, it could be shown the advisor had an intent to harm the recipient.
Just as all of the forgoing could not be considered "legal" advice, since I am not a lawyer, non-professionals, by definition, can not give "medical" advice.
Now, "dispensing" medications which fall under the Controlled Substances Act is a different story.