Covid vs HIPAA

a reply to: MykeNukem

Oh, sure you can provide the information to an employer, but your doctor absolutely cannot confirm nor deny any of the information you provide to your employer.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yes, my bad.

You didn't have to YELL so loud!

I have about a 20/80 record on HIPPA/HIPAA and I've been the dealing with it for years. I see it wrong so often I do it wrong too, that's why I say Ape-ricots now. It started as a joke and now I can't stop.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Ksihkehe

That makes sense.
I'm not real familiar with the fine details and exemptions in the hippa laws.

The exemptions apply to public health agencies for full release of records and, excluding personally identifying information, data can be released for study. Demographic data is scrubbed of all the identifiers. I'm not terribly familiar with the use of that, my guess is it's used for analytics at large medical groups and for research scientists requesting data from health agencies.

None of that should have an impact on employers.

There's going to a lot of interesting things happening, dangerous but interesting. Just one or two court cases could have big impacts on the whole country for many decades to come.

I can already foresee a child custody case where one parent will get full custody because the other parent in not vaccinated.

Walk in to your job tomorrow and tell them you're going on a medical leave of absence. When they ask for documentation, refuse because "HIPAA". Get fired. Your job can absolutely ask you for medical records.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

Me too! LOL! I do it all the time. For some reason it's just programmed into my brain box that way.

ETA - Must be all those "HIPOs" at the zoo!

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: MykeNukem

Oh, sure you can provide the information to an employer, but your doctor absolutely cannot confirm nor deny any of the information you provide to your employer.

Will that make any difference if they mandate a VaxPort?

They'll just ask for that, and since it's you providing it, presto.

Also, it's a crime to falsify one where they are mandated (NYC for example).

a reply to: MykeNukem

Nope. A medical provider is prevented by law from providing any of your medical information to anyone other than you, or someone you authorize, and/or an insurance company only related to services rendered for which there is a claim.

This is why you have to fill out (80) forms when you go see another doctor on a referral. One of those forms authorizes your doctor to release information to the other doctor.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You could say whatever you like though. Vaccination records might fall under protected health information an untrained entity isn't qualified to handle or access.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Where I work, we all take HIPAA training because we deal with patient info. It really boils down to whether vax records are protected health info.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
They will. The lions share will anyway. And i wont slight them for sticking to their beliefs.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: MykeNukem

Nope. A medical provider is prevented by law from providing any of your medical information to anyone other than you, or someone you authorize, and/or an insurance company only related to services rendered for which there is a claim.

This is why you have to fill out (80) forms when you go see another doctor on a referral. One of those forms authorizes your doctor to release information to the other doctor.

Yes. They ask you to provide it.

The doctor gives it to you.

You've heard of a sick note from your doctor, right?

Miss too many days at work and they ask for one.

It's between you and your doctor, then, you and the company.

Never your doctor and the company, as that would be a HIPAA violation, unless you authorized it.

ETA: Just want to clarify that there are indeed protections involved with privacy and discrimination. The note only has to say what is required ie; MykeNukem missed 3 days of work because he was sick on these dates sort of thing.

originally posted by: LordAhriman
Walk in to your job tomorrow and tell them you're going on a medical leave of absence. When they ask for documentation, refuse because "HIPAA". Get fired. Your job can absolutely ask you for medical records.

They cannot demand medical records for a condition covered by FMLA,. They can request exactly what the government allows. They're also obligated to inform you of your rights and responsibilities under FMLA, so the events you are describing are not accurate.

We get it, you love the COVID vaccines bigly.

originally posted by: ketsuko
You could say whatever you like though. Vaccination records might fall under protected health information an untrained entity isn't qualified to handle or access.

They aren't protected from you telling your employer.

originally posted by: drewlander
They will. The lions share will anyway. And i wont slight them for sticking to their beliefs.

Yeah, okay, I'm sure people making the median and above want to instead make dog s*** on unemployment.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

That is exactly correct.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

If your employer has no right to your records, then it's your word.

originally posted by: ketsuko
If your employer has no right to your records, then it's your word.

I'm not going to risk my job trying to play gotcha with my employer, also, they asked for an upload of your vaccination records so it isn't something you can lie about easily.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Ksihkehe

That is exactly correct.

No one is talking about "Medical Records". At least I wasn't.

We are talking about providing information that YOU may have to request from your doctor.

There are guidelines, but if they come up with a VaxPort, they will absolutely be able to request it, as per the guidelines.

Can an airline (which is a company) require a proof of vaccination?

Yes. Same thing. Don't comply, don't fly.

I don't agree with ANY of this "vaccine" crap, but that is what they're entitled to do.

a reply to: Bluntone22

privacy

Griswold and the Prenumbras

​In Griswold, the Supreme Court found a right to privacy, derived from penumbras of other explicitly stated constitutional protections. The Court used the personal protections expressly stated in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments to find that there is an implied right to privacy in the Constitution. The Court found that when one takes the penumbras together, the Constitution creates a "zone of privacy."  While the holding in Griswold found for a right to privacy, it was narrowly used to find a right to privacy for married couples, and only with regard to the right to purchase contraceptives. 

Justice Harlan's Concurrence in Griswold

Also important to note is Justice Harlan's concurring opinion in Griswold, which found a right to privacy derived from the Fourteenth Amendment. In his concurrence, he relies upon the rationale in his dissenting opinion in Poe v. Ullman (1961). In that opinion, he wrote, "I consider that this Connecticut legislation, as construed to apply to these appellants, violates the Fourteenth Amendment. i believe that a statute making it a criminal offense for married couples to use contraceptives is an intolerable and unjustifiable invasion of privacy in the conduct of the most intimate concerns of an individual's personal life."i believe that a statute making it a criminal offense for married couples to use contraceptives is an intolerable and unjustifiable invasion of privacy in the conduct of the most intimate concerns of an individual's personal life."

In privacy cases post-Griswold, the Supreme Court typically has chosen to rely upon Justice Harlan's concurrence rather than Justice Douglas's majority opinion. Eisenstadt v Baird  (1971), Roe v. Wade (1972), and Lawrence v. Texas (2003) are three of the most prolific cases in which the Court extended the right to privacy. In each of these cases, the Court relied upon the Fourteenth Amendment, not penumbras. 

Extending the Right to Privacy

In Eisenstadt, the Supreme Court decided to extend the right to purchase contraceptives to unmarried couples. More importantly, however, the Court found that "the constitutionally protected right of privacy inheres in the individual, not the marital couple." 

In Roe, the Supreme Court used the right to privacy, as derived from the Fourteenth Amendment, to extend the right of privacy to encompass a woman's right to have an abortion: "This right of privacy . . . founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action . . . is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

In Lawrence, the Supreme Court used the Fourteenth Amendment to extend the right to privacy to "persons of the same sex [who choose to] engage in  . . . sexual conduct." Relying upon the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of due process, the Court held: "The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government."

Supreme court turned Eisenhower's no communism executive order and reversed it in 1961....
So to say the supreme court of today is protecting the constitution is blasphemy.... Imoho.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

If your employer has no right to your records, then it's your word.

No employer has a right to your medical records.
But they don't have to employ you either