Doctor-Patient Confidentiality

[sKiTzo]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

Can somebody please give me an example scenario for why this clause exists? The reason I ask is that I am a heart-failure patient and am experiencing some difficulty getting into a clinical trial. When I was first being diagnosed with congestive heart failure I had had an upper respiratory infection that was presumed to cause viral myocarditis which damaged heart tissue resulting in congestive heart failure. When I mentioned to my doctor in confidence that I used methamphetamine, suddenly the diagnosis changed and now it was all because of the meth. I obtained a copy of my medical records and found that meth was mentioned all over it. I believe there may be a breach here because I told the doctor in confidence and he never sought my consent to splatter it all over my permanent medical records, which he most certainly knows he is not the only one who is ever going to view them. This breach is causing problems as I now believe I am being discriminated against because of the very personal information I disclosed to the doctor.

 

[I'mTheFather]

Um, that's part of your medical history and belongs in your medical records. If you okayed the release of your records for the clinical trials, then you okayed the release of that information.

You're not being discriminated against. You're simply not a good candidate due to your illegal drug use.

 

[sKiTzo]

Um, that's part of your medical history and belongs in your medical records. If you okayed the release of your records for the clinical trials, then you okayed the release of that information.

You're not being discriminated against. You're simply not a good candidate due to your illegal drug use.

Thanks, but you gave the expected answer without addressing the first part of my question, which, in itself, was there because of the expected answer. If I want others to view my records, I'm forced to okay the release of them containing the personal information breach of that doctor. That is my point. If not for something like what I'm experiencing, then what would be an example of a "valid" argument? I disclosed personal information to a doctor and he added that information to my permanent record without my consent. Unless he has some reason to think he is going to be the only one required to view my medical history, adding that information, by default then, is a breach of doctor-patient confidentiality. That is why me signing the release is irrelevant. As far as me "simply not being a good candidate due to my illegal drug use", you can call it not discrimination all you want. Look up the word "discrimination".

 

[Proserpina]

Thanks, but you gave the expected answer without addressing the first part of my question, which, in itself, was there because of the expected answer. If I want others to view my records, I'm forced to okay the release of them containing the personal information breach of that doctor. That is my point. If not for something like what I'm experiencing, then what would be an example of a "valid" argument? I disclosed personal information to a doctor and he added that information to my permanent record without my consent. Unless he has some reason to think he is going to be the only one required to view my medical history, adding that information, by default then, is a breach of doctor-patient confidentiality. That is why me signing the release is irrelevant. As far as me "simply not being a good candidate due to my illegal drug use", you can call it not discrimination all you want. Look up the word "discrimination".

And we're not here to debate the issue with you.


Most discrimination is perfectly legal - and perhaps you should go to the HIPAA website and learn.

 

[ShyCat]

I disclosed personal information to a doctor and he added that information to my permanent record without my consent.

No you didn't. It wasn't "personal information", it was important medical information, and the doctor didn't need additional consent from you to properly document it in your medical records.

Actions have consequences and you can't always expect to hide from them just because they're unfavorable.

 

[STEPHAN]

How should a clinical study that researchers (and later thousands of patients) rely on work, if you lie about your medical history?

 

[cbg]

Nothing in HIPAA or any other law requires your consent for your doctor to include medical information in your medical records.

 

[Just Blue]

Px Hx**************...

 

[Proserpina]

And here's the kicker.

If you want to take part in a clinical trial, the provider NEEDS honesty for several reasons but here are three, right off the bat:

1. They need to know that if you had a severe reaction, it's not necessarily because of their drug.
2. Well, when you do lie, do you realize what happens? You put the welfare of everyone else at risk.
3. LIABILITY. Hello? Bueller?

Though I'm not expecting a meth user to be overly concerned about anyone else, I suppose.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Though you may feel being a meth user only reflects on you privately, from a medical standpoint, it means a lot. They do not generally allow meth users in trials, organ donations and other things based on their intentional medical self destruction. It is a medical issue and therefore part of your medical record.

 

[ecmst12]

Your condition may or may not have anything to do with your history of drug use, but acceptance into clinical trials is strict for a reason - they need to be able to translate the results to the "typical" patient, which a former drug user is not.

At any rate, "doctor patient confidentiality" means that the doctor can't be forced to testify in court about your medical information, and HIPAA means there are a limited number of circumstances where your medical information can be disclosed, but other doctors treating you is on that list of circumstances and no special permission is required.

 

[sKiTzo]

Your condition may or may not have anything to do with your history of drug use, but acceptance into clinical trials is strict for a reason - they need to be able to translate the results to the "typical" patient, which a former drug user is not.

I understand and agree with what you're sayng, however, in this case, because of the type of treatment it is, my past drug use, or the effects thereof, would have zero influence on the outcome of the trial. Because my condition has improved dramatically with the conventional regimen, I'm a prme test subject who would serve to maximize the potential for success.

At any rate, "doctor patient confidentiality" means that the doctor can't be forced to testify in court about your medical information, and HIPAA means there are a limited number of circumstances where your medical information can be disclosed, but other doctors treating you is on that list of circumstances and no special permission is required.

Where can I find the documentation stating that my confidentiality with the one doctor extends to any and all doctors in the future whom I don't even know? Thanks for the input.

 

[Proserpina]

I understand and agree with what you're sayng, however, in this case, because of the type of treatment it is, my past drug use, or the effects thereof, would have zero influence on the outcome of the trial. Because my condition has improved dramatically with the conventional regimen, I'm a prme test subject who would serve to maximize the potential for success.

.

Yes it matters. Of COURSE it matters.

My background is in clinical trials (IIIb/IV). I have no idea why you're not grasping what is a very basic, but fundamental, part of the study criteria.

 

[justalayman]

I disclosed personal information to a doctor and he added that information to my permanent record without my consent.

you telling him was your consent. Anything you tell a doctor that concerns your medical issues should be placed in your medical records.

Unless he has some reason to think he is going to be the only one required to view my medical history, adding that information, by default then, is a breach of doctor-patient confidentiality.

no it is not. You gave him information. He noted that information in your records (as he should). There is no breach of confidentiality. You are the one allowing the release of the information to other parties, not the doctor.

That is why me signing the release is irrelevant. As far as me "simply not being a good candidate due to my illegal drug use", you can call it not discrimination all you want. Look up the word "discrimination"

I don't know if it makes you a bad candidate or not but apparently the medical community does.

I know what discrimination is and it happens (legally) every day of your life. If using meth makes you a bad candidate, then it is LEGAL discrimination.

 

[I'mTheFather]

Enough of this. OP is confusing the doctor-patient relationship with that of the priest-penitent.

Skitzo, read this:

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/summary/privacysummary.pdf

Then, if you feel your doctor has violated any part of it, contact the Office of Civil Rights:

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/office/file/