ObamaCare: Whether You Like Your Privacy or Not, You Don’t Get to Keep It

In a proposed rule from Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the federal government is demanding insurance companies submit detailed health care information about their patients.

(See Proposed Rule: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Standards Related to Reinsurance, Risk Corridors and Risk Adjustment, Volume 76, page 41930. Proposed rule docket ID is HHS-OS-2011-0022 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-07-15/pdf/2011-17609.pdf)

The HHS has proposed the federal government pursue one of three paths to obtain this sensitive information: A “centralized approach” wherein insurers’ data go directly to Washington; an “intermediate state-level approach” in which insurers give the information to the 50 states; or a “distributed approach” in which health insurance companies crunch the numbers according to federal bureaucrat edict.

—

There are major problems with any one of these three “options.” First is the obvious breach of patient confidentiality. The federal government does not exactly have a stellar track record when it comes to managing private information about its citizens.

—

The second concern is the government compulsion to seize details about private business practices. Certainly many health insurance companies defended and advocated for the president’s health care law, but they likely did not know this was part of the bargain.

They are being asked to provide proprietary information to governments for purposes that will undermine their competitiveness. Obama and Sebelius made such a big deal about Americans being able to keep the coverage they have under ObamaCare; with these provisions, such private insurance may cease to exist if insurers are required to divulge their business models.

Just like FDR’s dishonest methods for pushing Social Security, these hidden features in ObamaCare are all part of the plan.

PJ Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:

1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.

2. Stay on topic.

3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.

4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.

5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.

These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that PJ Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. Please note that comments are reviewed by the editorial staff and may not be posted immediately. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pjmedia.com.

7 Comments, 6 Threads

1. Allston

“Whether You Like Your Privacy or Not, You Don’t Get to Keep It”

Odd…we didn’t see that occur with Barry-O’s birth certificate, now did we? Or his college writings, or his grades.

I suppose “some people’s records are more private than others,” huh?!

September 24, 2011 - 11:37 am Link to this Comment
- HeatherRadish
  
  He never released any of his health records, either–just a one-page “he’s fine” note from a doctor.
  
  September 26, 2011 - 6:30 am Link to this Comment
2. GDI

The Obamacare “secrets revealed” database sounds just dandy. What could possibly go wrong?

True or not, I’ve read many IRS systems, which contain SS numbers and income stats, are considered among the most porous, hackable and vulnerable.

The Obamacare database with personal healthcare information has “disaster waiting to happen” written all over it.

And, yes, requiring inside business details is all part of the grand plan. Through accident or design your competitive advantages are leaked to a hapless competitor who immediately implements similar strategies. No more advantage, no more competition.

September 24, 2011 - 12:13 pm Link to this Comment
3. ConservativeWanderer

And yet, take a look at what doctor’s offices, hospitals, insurance companies, and other companies involved in healthcare have to do to comply with privacy regulations.

And don’t forget the penalties:

Civil Money Penalties. OCR may impose a penalty on a covered entity for a failure to comply with a requirement of the Privacy Rule. Penalties will vary significantly depending on factors such as the date of the violation, whether the covered entity knew or should have known of the failure to comply, or whether the covered entity’s failure to comply was due to willful neglect. Penalties may not exceed a calendar year cap for multiple violations of the same requirement.

The table didn’t copy and paste, but for violations after 2/18/09, it can be “$50,000 or more per violation” with a cap of $1,500,000.

Oh, and then there’s the criminal penalties:

Criminal Penalties. A person who knowingly obtains or discloses individually identifiable health information in violation of the Privacy Rule may face a criminal penalty of up to $50,000 and up to one-year imprisonment. The criminal penalties increase to $100,000 and up to five years imprisonment if the wrongful conduct involves false pretenses, and to $250,000 and up to 10 years imprisonment if the wrongful conduct involves the intent to sell, transfer, or use identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal gain or malicious harm. The Department of Justice is responsible for criminal prosecutions under the Privacy Rule.

Will HHS and other government agencies be subject to the same penalties?

With Sebelius’ HHS and Holder’s DOJ in charge of enforcement? Only an idiot or an Obama supporter (but I repeat myself) could think that the government will be held to the same standards of accountability.

September 24, 2011 - 2:06 pm Link to this Comment
4. You have to wait...

– for the Regulations “to know what’s in it.”

September 24, 2011 - 4:44 pm Link to this Comment
5. slider

Hmmmmm…..Wasn’t a right to privacy from the prying eyes of government, with regards to medical procedures, the essence of the left’s sacrosanct Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision?

And since health insurance companies are forbidden from doing interstate business, doesn’t that essentially nullify any regulatory authority the federal government can claim over the insurance companies’ intrastate activities?

Sebelius can’t have it both ways.

September 24, 2011 - 6:52 pm Link to this Comment
6. Lark

Looks to be just in time for the press to vet Cain and Perry.

September 25, 2011 - 6:02 am Link to this Comment