By Jon E. Dougherty
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com
Although Thursday marks the close of the 60-day public
comment period on the Department of Health and
Human Services' new and controversial proposed
medical rules -- which critics say will destroy patient
confidentiality and lead to a centralized medical data base
-- the giant federal bureaucracy has made it so difficult
for citizens to comment that even the ACLU is up in
arms.
The proposed rules, unveiled last fall by HHS, cite the
need for new standards "to protect the privacy of
individually identifiable health information maintained or
transmitted in connection with certain administrative and
financial transactions."
However, critics of the plan say the new rules, if
approved, would instead move government closer to
digitally warehousing medical information on all
Americans, while providing third parties easier access to
private medical records.
In accordance with federal rulemaking processes, the
department established a 60-day commentary period,
which ends Thursday, for the public to voice opinions
about the proposed rules.
But Health and Human Services has made the process
too cumbersome, say those who have tried to submit
their views, prompting the American Civil Liberties Union
to complain about the process.
At one point the department accepted public comments
by regular mail, fax and via email over the Internet. But
after receiving an inordinate amount of complaints by fax
-- some 2,400 according to the ACLU -- officials at
HHS stopped accepting faxes and admonished those
seeking to voice their opinions to use regular mail or the
Internet.
Yet the email option consists of "registering" at the HHS
website, answering a list of invasive questions, and being
assigned a unique identifier ID and password before
allowing comments to be submitted.
Mailing one's opinion is even more burdensome. Kent
Snyder of the Liberty Study Committee, which opposes
the new rules, said an HHS advisory asks citizens to
"mail comments -- one original and three copies and if
possible a floppy disk as well."
The guidelines also say, "you should include your full
name, address, telephone number, and a central or
knowledgeable point of contact with your comments."
The ACLU issued a press advisory complaining about
the cumbersome commentary requirements.
"This is a classic case of David vs. Goliath," said Laura
W. Murphy, director of the ACLU's Washington Office.
"The HHS system is set up so that it is far easier for
special interest groups like the insurance industry to
weigh in than it is for the average person to make their
views known."
The civil rights organization said the Health and Human
Services website is "so complicated to use that it is
virtually impossible to submit. And once a user locates
the form, HHS has made it unnecessarily complicated
and decidedly user-unfriendly."
"Where is the opportunity for the American public to tell
Secretary Shalala, 'I am concerned,' without having to
submit their comments in quadruplicate or spend hours
combing the agency's website?" said Murphy. "It is time
for the reality of how HHS operates to match the
President's promise of public participation."
Worse, after thousands of people had faxed comments to
Health and Human Services, ACLU officials were told
by an agent of the Criminal Intelligence and Investigations
section of the Federal Protective Service that the
department would no longer accept faxes, suggesting the
department considered them threatening or dangerous to
the safety of HHS officials.
Snyder said his organization has created a much simpler
commentary form on the home page of their website.
Internet users wishing to send their opinions about the
proposed medical privacy rules will see a "copy" of a
simple "memo" addressed to HHS, along with general
information questions and a comments box.
"We plan to hand-deliver each and every response we
get -- no matter the point of view -- to HHS personally,"
Snyder said.
Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala
said Nov. 3 that her new proposals were "an important
first step" in protecting the medical privacy of all
Americans.
"Our proposals will provide Americans with greater
peace of mind as they seek care, yet they are balanced
with the need to protect public health, conduct medical
research and improve the quality of health care for the
nation," Shalala said.
Snyder said the rules would actually harm medical
privacy by giving access control of all medical records to
a number of groups who don't currently have access.
They also give the federal government authority to set the
terms over who has access to records, and patients will
not be guaranteed access to medical malpractice
information obtained for a legal proceeding. Patients will
not be able to sue if their medical privacy is breached, he
added, and the proposed rules are little more than a first
step toward creating a centralized medical record
database.