The Impact of the HIPPA Act on the Healthcare Industry

I chose this topic for my individual report because it interests me. I was interested in the HIPPA act because as a consumer, I am interested in protecting my medical records and privacy. In the next paragraph I'll explain more about what the HIPPA act is.

Main Discussion

The HIPPA act stands for "Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996." The act was enacted in 1996, but it allowed three years for congress to apply laws to it. Congress did not meet the deadline, and the HIPPA act was not enforced until about April of 2003 (Health Privacy Website). The act basically protects the rights of patients. It protects them from having their personal health records and information improperly disclosed. The act protects eighteen different fields on a person's health record from being disclosed (Health & Human Services Website).

Through my research I noticed that there were many conflicting viewpoints on the HIPPA act. Even though there are many players in the medical industry, the viewpoints seemed to break into three sides. The first group, the patients were concerned about their rights and were in support of the HIPPA act. The second group, the doctors, hospitals, researchers, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and other healthcare providers were against the act (March to HIPPA Website). It seems like they were not against it because it protected information, but that they were against it because of the cost to implement. The healthcare providers were concerned about the costs aspects and not the patient rights. The third group, the government was in support of the act because they were acting as the regulator and had to balance the needs of the patients and the medical field. In the following paragraphs I am going to focus on each of these three positions in more detail.

I think that the patients were in support of HIPPA because they felt that the medical field had an obligation to protect their information. I did some research to see if the American Medical Association had a code of ethics, and they do. I found the following from their code: "Maintain your patient's confidentiality. Exceptions to this must be taken very seriously. They may include where there is a serious risk to the patient or another person, where required by law, where part of approved research, or where there are overwhelming societal interests (American Medical Association Website)." Patients expect confidentiality from their doctors because it is part of a doctor's code of ethics. I think that patients have seen that damage that can be done by releasing health data inappropriately. Patients have felt discrimination, been denied for insurance or a job and even just embarrassed. According to an organization called "Health Privacy", 1 in 5 health records are improperly disclosed. Patients have a right to want their records protected and they feel that the medical field should have a respect for person's viewpoint.

I now want to focus on the other part of the picture, the medical field. The medical field creates wonderful medical advances everyday, but without HIPPA could harm individuals and impact their lives by leaking their data (Health Privacy Website). We need to strike a balance between letting the medical field do their jobs, but yet protecting the public. The medical field was very opposed to HIPPA because it opened them up to lawsuits over data leaks and required them to invest money in protecting information.

The medical field consists of insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, doctors and researchers. If you look at this segment, it is not as clear cut as the patient view was. Within the medical field, you have similar viewpoints with their own distinct differences. The doctors and other medical staff are on middle ground. They are faced with respect for persons, but also utilitarian thinking. Doctors want to help their patients, but they also need to work with the people who advance science like drug companies and researchers. Two other interesting players in the medical field are the insurance companies and the drug companies. I noticed that the doctors have to hold themselves to the American Medical Associations code of ethics, and as far as I could tell, there is not a code of ethics for the Pharmaceutical industry and Insurance industry. These two industries do probably have internal mission statement and values that they need to uphold. Both of these fields have many uses for patient data and without the HIPPA act, they could have unlimited resources to confidential data. I know that the insurance company that I work for has a huge data warehouse and since the restrictions with HIPPA, has had to change the way data is collected. The researchers for example, have a utilitarian view. The researchers want to advance science. The utilitarian point of view is where you try to bring about the greatest good (Engineering Ethics, 80). I think most researchers look at the greatest good in the long term and not in the short term. The government is there to limit their freedom to protect the safety of patients and their data. The government steps in to ensure that the medical field is doing the correct thing and next I will talk about the government.

The government has a very clear role in the HIPPA act since they created it and helped back the regulation. The government is trying to balance the needs of everyone involved and play the role of the regulator. They need to ensure patient safety while balancing the needs of advancing the medical profession.

Conclusion

It has been interesting exploring the three different viewpoints that are impacted by the HIPPA act. I believe that the HIPPA act is ethical and is critical. I support the act because I think it finds the balance between the medical community, the government and the patients. I think that many of these professions have a code of conduct, and those codes of conducts often mention protecting patients. The HIPPA act just reinforces those codes of conduct. I've also noticed that there are conflicting viewpoints like respect for persons, regulator and utilitarian views. As both a patient and an employee of an insurance company, I am torn between the two views and that is why I am glad the government has put forth a ruling that tell us the proper way to behave.

Bibliography

1) "Health Privacy." Health Privacy Website. 1 Oct. 2006 http://www.healthprivacy.org/newsletter-url2305/newsletter-rl_show.htm?doc_id=33936 >.

2) "March to HIPPA." Website. 1 Oct. 2006 http://searchdatamanagement.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid91_gci113727,00.html >.

3) "American Medical Association Code of Ethics." AMA Website. 3 Oct. 2006 http://www.ama.com.au/web.nsf/tag/amacodeofethics >.

4) "HIPPA." Health and Human Services. 3 Oct. 2006 http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/ >.

5) Harris, Charles E., Michael S. Pritchard, and Michael J. Rabins. Engineering Ethics. 3rd ed. Belmont: Thompson, 2o05.