Having gone through a medically necessary abortion with my wife, and having held her hand as she cried for the pre-op procedure the night before the D & E even took place, I am so sad for all women, children, families and providers who will suffer needlessly due to republicans and their inhumane laws banning access to abortion.
But wouldn't that mean people have to actively go digging for that info, thus violating HIPAA and other privacy laws themselves? Lets say you have a patient in CO on a specific drug. This drug is only used by one in a million people so you can find out who it is by digging around. Just saying that however is leading but not confirmation - it lets you know such a situation exists but doesn't give you enough on its own to figure it out. If anything, the court case is gonna be what outs the girl since we know the man's name and finding any 10 yr associated with him won't take much effort.
The OCR will look at whether someone who knows those facts could reasonably figure out who the patient is. In the case I cited, if someone hears that a guy had that injury and also knows that Joe was in the hospital after a car accident they could figure out that it is Joe. In the case of the raped child, anyone in the local community who knows her age and that she suddenly had to go to Indiana could piece the facts together.
OTOH, if someone really has to dig to figure out who the patient is then the OCR will likely find that there was no breach.
BTW - HIPAA only binds healthcare covered entities from releasing personal health information. It has no effect on people looking for PHI. That is the same for state confidentiality laws. Therefore, let's say that a doctor treats a celebrity. That doctor cannot release their PHI, but reporters are not violating the law if they hunt for it.
BTW2 - The child's identity can be shielded during the trial and likely will be.
I'm pretty sure he's using it with the meaning, "so great as to be monument-worthy."
"We have lots of theories, we just don't have the evidence yet."
more like owning everything.
Having gone through a medically necessary abortion with my wife, and having held her hand as she cried for the pre-op procedure the night before the D & E even took place, I am so sad for all women, children, families and providers who will suffer needlessly due to republicans and their inhumane laws banning access to abortion.
Nothing says professional integrity or promotes confidence like a state AG bombastically accusing doctors of breaking laws without evidence on tv.
But wouldn't that mean people have to actively go digging for that info, thus violating HIPAA and other privacy laws themselves? Lets say you have a patient in CO on a specific drug. This drug is only used by one in a million people so you can find out who it is by digging around. Just saying that however is leading but not confirmation - it lets you know such a situation exists but doesn't give you enough on its own to figure it out. If anything, the court case is gonna be what outs the girl since we know the man's name and finding any 10 yr associated with him won't take much effort.
Mr Rokit Man HAS to look important .
On other sites commenters use right wing talk show and blog people as expert opinions on the ultimate truth.
So tired of all these tiny little men with huge egos who try to lord whatever authority they have over everyone else... just fuck off
True, but if they can sneak in some lib owning, it's a red letter day for them.
The OCR will look at whether someone who knows those facts could reasonably figure out who the patient is. In the case I cited, if someone hears that a guy had that injury and also knows that Joe was in the hospital after a car accident they could figure out that it is Joe. In the case of the raped child, anyone in the local community who knows her age and that she suddenly had to go to Indiana could piece the facts together.
OTOH, if someone really has to dig to figure out who the patient is then the OCR will likely find that there was no breach.
BTW - HIPAA only binds healthcare covered entities from releasing personal health information. It has no effect on people looking for PHI. That is the same for state confidentiality laws. Therefore, let's say that a doctor treats a celebrity. That doctor cannot release their PHI, but reporters are not violating the law if they hunt for it.
BTW2 - The child's identity can be shielded during the trial and likely will be.
As a character in Pogo once said, Dr. Bernard is "under suspicion of being suspect."
Sorry, Wonkette doesn't allow fundraising links, so I have removed the ones in your comment. Nothing personal, just one of the rules.
— Dok Zoom, Yr Friendly Neighborhood Comments Moderator
You know, I usually like blow job jokes, but that PARTICULAR blow job joke was a bridge too far.
I am happy to know you have limits. I stayed up all night last night worrying about that
How is this NOT harassment of a private citizen by a public official?