Coorsh is concerned that some employers who are under pressure to meet the demands of higher premiums for health-care coverage may pull out of the health plan altogether, leaving some employees without health care coverage. Coorsh complains that this requirement will add a significant burden to insurers. We have to police to make sure on behalf of the federal government that health plans' business partners comply with these regulations. However, employers who also sponsor health plans may not obtain information for non-health purposes like hiring, firing or determining promotions, without permission from the individual. Similarly, insurers may not use such information to underwrite other products, such as life insurance.
Disclosure is to be kept to the minimum information needed for the purpose of the disclosure.
For the first time, specific federal penalties for criminal and non-criminal violations are spelled out. Twila Brase, RN, the president of the Citizen's Council on Health Care, a non-profit organization that advocates public access to health information, says that from the consumers' perspective, the privacy regulations are a good idea, but she is concerned that some provisions may mean less privacy for patients than before. The new regulations call for the need to balance privacy protections with the public responsibility to support such national priorities as protecting public health, and medical research, says Brase. In essence, she adds, what it means is that the government leaves the access to patients' records open to local, state and federal public health officials and law enforcement while requiring consent for private entities. Brase explains that what the government has done is to require consent for private access, and mandate access without consent for its own access to medical records.