It looks like our good neighbors across the pond have vetoed an all-in-one ID card proposal by the British government.

The BBC reports:

Plans to combine new compulsory identity cards with passports and driving licences have been dropped by Home Secretary David Blunkett.

The UK Home Office’s official response: “When cost, implementation and risk considerations are assessed together, we now think the option of a free-standing card is more attractive.”

Similar efforts have failed here in the states as well. Right after September 11th, I would have been much more inclined to support a national ID card system here in the US. These days, it would take a seriously uptick in terrorism here in the states for something like this to gain acceptance.

InformationWeek is reporting:

A federal advisory panel on Tuesday issued a 14-point report of recommendations for what’s needed to develop, implement, and foster the secure nationwide exchange of electronic medical information.

The report was issued by the Commission on System Interoperability, which was created by Congress as part of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. The commission was charged with developing recommendations, priorities, and a timeline for implementing an electronic health information exchange network.

A nationwide healthcare system would be a ripe target for hackers. Let’s hope these recommendations are heeded by the Federal gov.

Not only could the suggestions reduce security threats, but also help save lives.

As you know, medical mistakes such as prescriptions being filled incorrectly, cost thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of lives yearly.

The article continues:

Government researchers estimate that health IT, like physician order-entry and standards-based electronic medical record systems, can help reduce tens of thousands of medical mistakes and billions of dollars in health-care costs annually in the U.S. There are already a handful of incentive programs underway by some private insurers, as well as a Medicare pilot program, that reward health-care providers who improve their quality-of-patient care using health IT.

Read more here

Here’s an interesting twist on the old federal vs. state jurisdictional dispute.

First Amendment Center is reporting:

COLUMBUS, Ohio — A newspaper wants to report on homes, many of them rented, where lead paint has harmed children. The city health department fears federal fines and penalties if it complies with the state’s open-records law.

In what attorneys say is one of the first such tests nationwide, the Ohio Supreme Court must decide if state law trumps the federal rule.

The 2-year-old federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act prohibits health insurers, medical care providers and entities that process medical information from releasing any information that identifies the patient. However, the information can be released by a public agency if a state records law mandates it.

This seems like one of those grey areas of the law where the legislature did not fully understand some of the ramifications of HIPAA legislation.

Read more here

This is probably more of a local interest, as it’ll be located in Nashville, but to whomever it may concern, I found this press release today, announcing that a HIPAA compliance forum would be held in nashville on November 14th and 15th:

The NYU Medical center is part of a “23% minority of healthcare organizations that are fully compliant today,” (source: American Health Information Management Association).

Integrating new security and compliance standards into a long-established system, which prioritizes patient-care, is a complex and challenging task for many in the healthcare industry. For this reason the Strategic Research Institute assembled a group of healthcare experts who will discuss just that, how to deploy effective security strategies that can safeguard data without undermining the organization’s commitment to healthcare urgency and data integrity:

HIPAA Compliance 2005: New Strategies That Safeguard Data
November 14-15, 2005
Loews Vanderbilt Hotel
Nashville, Tennessee

The complete announcement with registration details can be read here on PRNewswire.

The Ohio Supreme Court is going to rule on whether state disclosure laws overrule the federal HIPAA mandates for protecting patient privacy. This may be one of the first rulings on the HIPAA regulations and should help establish precedent for exactly when state laws should rule instead of federal law.

The newspaper’s attorney, Jack Greiner, argues that the open-records law wins. Guidance by federal attorneys says that when a records law mandates disclosure, rather than just permit it, the state law takes precedence.

Are lead paint violation notices really covered by HIPAA?

“The Health Department was concerned about the potential for civil and criminal penalties for the violation of this somewhat vague and confusing … mandate,” Nestor said.

Both sides in the case, and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, knew of only two similar cases in Texas and Kentucky. Attorneys general in both states said the public-records law takes precedence, but both those cases dealt with records requests to police agencies, which don’t count as health care entities under the federal rule.

Greiner says the records are essential for the public to know where public health hazards are, and whether the Health Department is acting on them.

A ruling to seal the lead citations could hamper investigative reporting, public-records advocates say.

“This would have a chilling effect in the release of more general information, and that would be a shame because it would deny communities information that would clearly be in the public interest,” said Frank Deaner, lobbyist for the Ohio Newspaper Association.

Read the entire article at firstamendmentcenter.org