Editorial: Medical privacy still has a place after all

Tuesday, July 10, 2001 | 9:03 a.m.

Many health care providers were beside themselves last year when the Clinton administration adopted tough regulations protecting the privacy rights of patients. So hospitals, doctors and insurance companies lobbied the incoming Bush administration to gut these important protections, which were to ensure that medical records would not be disclosed without a patient's consent. Fortunately the Bush administration, after sending early signs that it may soften the rules, eventually said it would protect patient privacy rights.

In April the Department of Health and Human Services said it would issue guidelines on how to interpret the rules, which go into effect in 2003. Last week HHS released a common sense handbook on the privacy regulations, putting to rest the notion that the rules couldn't work. In one example, hospitals had made the specious argument that in order to comply with the rules they would have to build private, soundproof rooms in order to ensure that others wouldn't overhear a medical conversation a nurse or doctor would have with a patient. But HHS noted last week that as long as reasonable privacy steps were taken during a consultation, such as using curtains or screens (which are present in nearly all hospital rooms), that would sufficiently guarantee a patient's privacy.

Medical records certainly are a valuable piece of information, but no one should have the right to disclose them without first getting the patient's permission. The Bush administration has taken an important step in ensuring that such highly personal records aren't viewed as just a scrap of paper to be sold to the highest bidder.