Then they would bitch about the beer.
You would be correct to assert that for this group to release medical information about people is not a HIPAA violation. However, the way I read the post, it was saying that *whoever gave them the information about the women’s pregnancies *probably violated HIPAA.
I agree it’s possible. I have no idea how you (or the post in question, assuming you are merely pointing out its message without adopting it) reach “probable.” As I mentioned above, my organization keeps track of clients’ due dates for the purpose of providing various types of material and referral aid, and yet would not be a “covered entity” under HIPAA. Since we don’t appear to have any clue as yet where the data came from, it doesn’t seem …er… possible to confidently say “probable” here.
You really think there are more non-HIPAA groups tracking due dates than ones that fall under HIPAA? I mean, I’m sure it’s a WAG coming from either of us, but.
What have you got against bears? What did they ever do to you?
And the guys stumbles back into the bar, a bloody mess, cut to ribbons and slashed to pieces and says “OK, so where’s the Eskimo woman I’m supposed to shoot?”
- from the Archives of Lost Punchlines, Volume Six
For what it’s worth - I think this is precisely the correct response to this mess. It protects against both subpoenas and ne’er-do-wells, and it adhers to the common-sense principle that you should never retain more personal information about a client than you absolutely require. Good on you for taking this step, Bricker.
Out of curiosity, why did you record residency status originally? Was it to get an idea of what public social services these women would be eligible for?
ETA: Read first, then post. Read first, then post. I’ll learn someday, I promise.
I suppose if I had to guess, I’d say there are more HIPAA covered entities keeping track of due dates than entities that aren’t HIPAA covered.
But against that, I’d have to weigh the fact that HIPAA provides punishments for disclosure and non-covered entities don’t, so the odds of the information coming from a non-covered entity seem to improve slightly; all other trhings being equal, i assume the presence of civil and criminal penalties has at least some deterrent effect.
But this is angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin business. We don’t know nuthin’, and thus can only confidently say, “We don’t know nuthin’.”
I could respect a group like this if they did this differently. If they had use publicly available sources to find things such as duplicate SSN numbers or even DOBs (say there are two hundred people working temp jogs in the state with the same name and DOB) and turned the list, including references to sources over to the authorities. I would even respect them for then turning the list over to media if, and only if, it appeared that the authorities were not pursuing the issue.
But as it stands, this seems more an attempt to intimidate than a genuine effort to deal with illegal immigration.
Correct. Since some resources are available to anyone, others only to people who qualify for them based on income, and others available only to legal residents, we kept track of those characteristics. Sometimes we could short-cut things – for example, if a person was already qualified for TANF, we didn’t need to do an income test for the state programs, but it was possible to get state help even if you made just a bit too much for TANF. We distribute free child safety seats for cars under yet a third formula for income eligbility. Etc etc. Same with legal presence – some state benefit programs were conditional on being provided only to citizens or qualified aliens, under the provisions of 8 USC § 1621.
So our caseworkers and casework directors would use information provided during the interview to assemble a list of possible referrals that could be made.
We have a board meeting at the end of this month, and this change will be on the agenda.
Bricker, check your PMs.
Are you Howard Zinn’s imaginary friend? Sorry about his recent demise.
They’re… outside.
I guess I’m just having a hard time thinking of reasons why anybody other than a medical care provider, insurance provider, etc. would need to track someone’s due date. Probably because I’ve never been pregnant.
OT: I hope this isn’t one of those “crisis pregnancy centers” that masquerades as an abortion provider or abortion referral service.
If it’s truly a no-strings service offered honestly, then thank you. It’s a great thing to do.
The 31 SSNs attached to the list are a bit of a concern no matter where the “Concerned Citizens” got them. As I said elsewhere on this board just today, part of my job is finding the unfindable. SSNs are one of the things that, even if I could track them down (and I can’t, so don’t ask, as some people have asked in the past), I’m not going to track down. Period. It’s identity-theft heaven.
So someone’s got some explaining to do somewhere.
Stupid question – if you’re an illegal alien, how would you have a sosh #?
No, we are openly, unabashedly, and clearly pro-life. Our theory is that the best pro-life tactic there can be is providing resources and options so that abortion doesn’t seem a necessary step to a woman. We don’t, of course, refer clients to abortion clinics, but neither do we get them by masquerading as having anything to do with abortion.
And yes, it’s a no-strings attached set of services.
Right. in our case, it’s because we have X clients and Y resources, and seldom is Y > X. So if Client 1 is due in a month, and Client 2 is due in three weeks, I know that in two weeks I better have two cribs and two car seats for them. (The hospital won’t even let them leave without a car safety seat for the newborn!)
But if Client 3 isn’t due for eight weeks, I can relax on the pressure of getting a third set in, and hope that donations come along in the meantime. I won’t spend precious cash if i don’t have to, and managing our cash flow is kinda key to our survival.
ETA: I say “I,” as though I’m actually doing all that work. I’m a board member, so my actual participation is somewhat removed from the day-to-day, but I’m also the corporate treasurer, so the finances do involve my general purview…
Lots of people currently without legal status used to have legal status that expired, or for which they otherwise no longer qualify (student or employment visa, former spouse of someone in a legal category or of a U.S. citizen, etc.) The SS# doesn’t disappear just because the person is no longer authorized to work in the U.S. - it sticks with the person forever, and if they later legalize, their earnings will be credited to the same SS#.
I think you mean “wholesale genocidal displacement and conquest of the aborigines, and in some areas brutal enslavement of another ethnic group.”