|
medical privacy vs. the public interest: a reporter's guide front page • rcfp home
|
|
|
<<< previous • front page • next >>>
Although the rules do not require health care providers and insurers to comply fully until April 14, 2003, journalists report that the fallout has already started. Charles Davis, director of the Freedom of Information Center at the University of Missouri, said the hospital system run by Kansas University recently informed reporters in Missouri and Kansas that because of the HIPAA rules, it must give a patient the opportunity to object to the release of any information. If the patient does so, the hospital could not even acknowledge the patient's presence there. "And that's exactly the way hospitals are being advised and precisely the kind of information they are giving their public relations people," Davis said. Tom Curran, assistant managing editor at The Star Ledger in Newark, N.J., noticed the change recently, even though the newspaper had worked out an acceptable arrangement years earlier with the New Jersey Hospital Association to secure directory information from member hospitals. The University Hospital Trauma Center in Newark, citing HIPAA rules, said it would only give out patient condition if given the name of the patient. For the newspaper, that meant following accident reports involving anonymous victims would be impossible. Curran and a few members of the New Jersey Press Association began meeting again with hospital officials, but with little results so far. "We've met a couple of times, but the fact is, the people who have paid much of the attention to HIPAA are lawyers," Curran said. "So, they're driving the bus. They have every hospital administrator scared to death and afraid they will get sued. This is not a good thing for reporters." But Curran noted that most hospital officials do not like this result of the rules either and are not keen on securing permission from every single patient every time a journalist calls. "They don't want to be having those interviews at 11 o'clock at night," he said. "They'll be afraid they'll be on the hook for it. They'll instead shut down." The Virginian-Pilot in Norfolk, Va., ran into such a logistical nightmare last summer after sharks began attacking swimmers at the famous Virginia Beach nearby. Mike Abrams, assistant public safety editor for the paper, said reporters were stifled in their efforts to secure information and records about the attacks and the status of shark victims. After much prodding, reporters managed to get a police report and a 911 transcript. But they had to rely on a hospital spokesman to offer only periodic updates on the victims. |
|
|
© 2002 The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. All rights reserved. Use for most nonprofit and educational purposes is allowed without fee. Please contact us for reprint information. |