|
The Scientist: NewsBlog:
Revise HIPAA: Health researchers
Posted by Bob Grant [Entry posted at 17th June 2008 10:48 PM GMT]
Rate this article
Idle Bioethicists? by anonymous poster [Comment posted 2008-06-19 12:51:44] I think the problem is that there are too many bioethicists with not enough to do. Idle hands are the Devil's workshop, and I think that consciously or unconsciously these people need to show some output. As a result, we have the continuing discovery of additional and increasingly improbable needs for protection.
Unfortunately, the greatest risk of all may be attempting to achieve a no-risk society. The people who die because a new drug is not developed or is delayed by absurd HIPAA regulations or interpretations are never counted. As the first poster said, the intent is proper. However, as we know from recent news articles, even with all these protections in place, the records of celebreties routinely manage to find their way to the press. HIPAA can definitely hinder by anonymous poster [Comment posted 2008-06-18 14:35:49] As the article states, the goal of HIPAA is a proper one. However, a very large problem is that the language in HIPAA regs is subject to inconsistent interpretation across individual institutions, with some Institutional Review Boards taking an excessively restrictive approach. In a clinical study that required age at diagnosis and age at treatment data for statistical analyses, one major midwest center repeatedly insisted that they could not provide date of birth, date of diagnosis, or even age at diagnosis because those could be used as "identifiers" and would violate HIPAA. This, despite the fact that the records were extracted and completely anonymized before being transmitted to the sponsor, so it would be impossible to trace back to a specific individual. That lack of data would have rendered those subjects useless for the study, so that site was dropped. Whose interests were served by that? Comment on this blog |