Young mans brain kept after autopsy.

In support of allowing names to be called out in waiting rooms, I'm gonna go with the HIPAA website:

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/coveredentities/incidentalu&d.pdf
Q: May physicians offices use patient sign-in sheets or call out the names of their patients in their waiting rooms?
A: Yes. Covered entities, such as physician’s offices, may use patient sign-in sheets or call out patient names in waiting rooms, so long as the information disclosed is appropriately limited. The HIPAA Privacy Rule explicitly permits the incidental disclosures that may result from this practice, for example, when other patients in a waiting room hear the identity of the person whose name is called, or see other patient names on a sign-in sheet. However, these incidental disclosures are permitted only when the covered entity has implemented reasonable safeguards and the minimum necessary standard, where appropriate. For example, the sign-in sheet may not display medical information that is not necessary for the purpose of signing in (e.g., the medical problem for which the patient is seeing the physician). See 45 CFR 164.502(a)(1)(iii).
Click to expand...
 
UncaYimmy said:
In support of allowing names to be called out in waiting rooms, I'm gonna go with the HIPAA website:
Click to expand...
Of course you would. Because you can ignore the details and go with the over-generalizations. You seem to think there is nothing to this sentence in the quote for your citation:
However, these incidental disclosures are permitted only when the covered entity has implemented reasonable safeguards and the minimum necessary standard, where appropriate.
Click to expand...
I posted a detailed analysis of what this means. And cited cases where a clinic can support their use of last names in a waiting room IN SOME CASES.

If you read what I posted and the expert supporting opinions, you would have noticed the overriding concepts as well as the specific applications. But instead you continue to attempt to apply a lay person's view of a complex issue. Do you think the majority of clinics in the US, experts like the one I cited, health care attorneys, the attorney physician I cited with an opinion on the OP case are all incapable of interpreting HIPPA.

But you, with no expertise whatsoever, no experience in this field, can read a paragraph on the HIPAA web page and conclude all those medical providers and legal experts are simply wrong.

That's classic poor critical thinking skills, UY. It's akin to reading the Merck Manual and declaring your medical opinion to be the equivalent of a physician's.


And you owe me an apology for denigrating my education, experience and expertise, though I don't expect you will ever admit that.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
UY, you can reject all you want. You've posted claims based on no qualifications,
Click to expand...
That is incorrect. I provided citations with claims. There is a difference. I don't need to be a physicist to reference experts.

You proclaimed to me, "You thought that medical offices couldn't call out names in the waiting room.
* You seemingly knew nothing about incidental disclosure in HIPAA.". That error on your part, IMO, comes from the fact you only have a lay person's basic understanding of professional confidentiality.
Click to expand...
The HIPAA website expressly deals with this issue. I take them as the final authority. Now, if you can show me where a company was cited for a violation that contradicts what it says on the HIPAA website, then we've got something.

But if you cannot show you need an exception to the rule, it is not automatically considered the 'incidental' information you mistakenly think it is.
Click to expand...
Do you recall why this is even part of the discussion? It's that some information simply isn't a "serious breech [sic] of confidentiality," and the mere fact of a person's presence in a doctor's office is not particularly confidential. They don't make medical professional jump through hoops to keep things anonymous because it's not a serious breach.

HIPAA requires medical professionals to use discretion (speaking softly, for example) when speaking in hallways or in shared hospital rooms. They don't require them to put a bag over a patient's head when he steps on the scale in the hall nor do they require the display to be read only with a Secret Decoder Ring. However, when the information is sensitive, they need to take more stringent precautions. I have said this all along. You'd know that if you actually read my posts before replying to tell me I'm wrong.

A brain in a labeled jar in a cabinet is simply not a serious breach. You're the only one carrying this torch. Perhaps you should write to the proper authorities. I'm sure they will be grateful, especially considering that not even the lawyers involved or any of the people in the press caught this "serious breech [sic] of confidentiality" that you caught.

Continuing to argue this point based on your so-called expertise is pointless. Did you ever write to the authorities to request the DNA test (to check for human DNA) you thought was warranted based on seeing a blurry picture of an aborted sheep fetus with a human-like face? If so, did other experts agree that it was warranted? If they did, then I would give your testimony here a bit more credence. If not, then my doubts about your expertise in the medical field remain, and I choose my layperson's interpretation of the situation over yours. You have demonstrated serious difficulty in forming deductions based on facts.

At this point simply repeating the same testimony without addressing your credibility or showing a concurring opinion from an expert is little more than bickering. You've gotten incredibly far away from supporting you claim of a serious breach. You're now arguing over what you think I've argued, and you've displayed time and again that you've done more than skim my arguments.

Go re-read the appellate judge's ruling and you'll see public display was the issue the judge addressed. 'Public' as in the confidentiality aspect, not 'mishandling' like playing catch with the jar, or leaving it unattended on a table in the lobby.
Click to expand...
Already resoundingly debunked here. Repeating the same poor argument so long after ignoring my explanation is precisely what I'm talking about. You're not going to convince me at this point, and I doubt you've succeeded in convincing anyone else.
 
UncaYimmy said:
That is incorrect. I provided citations with claims. There is a difference. I don't need to be a physicist to reference experts.
Click to expand...
You continue to argue in an area you have no experience in. You don't recognize you can't argue with a doctor because you read the Merck Manual and think you know what it means.


UncaYimmy said:
The HIPAA website expressly deals with this issue. I take them as the final authority. Now, if you can show me where a company was cited for a violation that contradicts what it says on the HIPAA website, then we've got something.
Click to expand...
You are having trouble with context here.

First, I pointed out clinics call people by first name. You tried to claim that wasn't true. Clearly it was true.

Next, you've pointed out that one can use last names in a clinic waiting room. I said that was true, in some cases. But you are trying to argue that all the clinics with all their expertise and legal advice are overreacting to HIPAA, and that you, UY, with no expertise at all can read the HIPAA rule, ignore the community standard and community interpretation of HIPAA and declare all those professionals and experts don't know as much as you know.

Have you shown my expert opinion citations to be woo, the experts fake, the clinics using first names to call patients imaginary? No, you've simply declared that you, UY, with no experience or education know more than all these professionals and experts in the matter.
 
UncaYimmy said:
I reject your claim because it is based on nothing more than your expertise in the medical field. I find your claim of expertise to be dubious at best considering that you thought a DNA test was in order to verify that an aborted sheep with a distorted face was not a human-sheep hybrid. I reject your expert opinion considering that you thought women were physically incapable of having an orgasm while being raped. These are egregious errors that laypeople wouldn't even make. Thus your unsubstantiated claims do nothing to advance the discussion.
Click to expand...

QFT
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom