Comments on: Four Members of Congress Complain to Secretary of HHS About the Harm Standard http://law2point0.com/wordpress/2009/10/12/four-members-of-congress-complain-to-secretary-of-hhs-about-the-harm-standard/ This blog covers privacy, security, health information technology and e-discovery related topics. The primary goal of this blog is to raise public awareness of legal issues pertaining to the use of law and technology. Mon, 08 Mar 2010 18:03:38 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: black hattitude http://law2point0.com/wordpress/2009/10/12/four-members-of-congress-complain-to-secretary-of-hhs-about-the-harm-standard/comment-page-1/#comment-202 black hattitude Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:20:51 +0000 http://law2point0.com/wordpress/?p=1189#comment-202 hello, thanks for the great quality of your blog, each time i come here, i'm amazed. <a href="http://blackhattitude.rondeetvoyante.com" rel="nofollow">black hattitude</a>. hello,

thanks for the great quality of your blog, each time i come here, i’m amazed.

black hattitude.

]]> By: Steve Meltzer http://law2point0.com/wordpress/2009/10/12/four-members-of-congress-complain-to-secretary-of-hhs-about-the-harm-standard/comment-page-1/#comment-165 Steve Meltzer Mon, 12 Oct 2009 16:50:59 +0000 http://law2point0.com/wordpress/?p=1189#comment-165 I agree with the comment in most respects. The intent of the notification rule in the new statute seems clear and the letter from the framers should dispel any confusion regarding that intent. A more inclusive acquisition-based rule would be far more objective and easier to administer and enforce. I do, however, foresee more unnecessary notifications under an acquisition-based rule, not less. This I see as a necessary evil of a more objective and more inclusive system. I agree with the comment in most respects. The intent of the notification rule in the new statute seems clear and the letter from the framers should dispel any confusion regarding that intent. A more inclusive acquisition-based rule would be far more objective and easier to administer and enforce. I do, however, foresee more unnecessary notifications under an acquisition-based rule, not less. This I see as a necessary evil of a more objective and more inclusive system.

]]> By: HLGCDT http://law2point0.com/wordpress/2009/10/12/four-members-of-congress-complain-to-secretary-of-hhs-about-the-harm-standard/comment-page-1/#comment-164 HLGCDT Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:25:51 +0000 http://law2point0.com/wordpress/?p=1189#comment-164 It should be noted that the Congressmen who wrote the letter wrote the legislation underlying the notification rule as well. The letter also stated: - "[The harm standard] is not consistent with Congressional intent... [The] statutory language does not imply a harm standard. In drafting [the statute], Committee members specifically considered and rejected such a standard due to concerns over the breadth of discretion that would be given to breaching entities, particularly with regard to determining something as subjective as harm from the release of sensitive and personal health information." Also, I do not think New York has a harm standard, as you state in this article. Rather, it has an acquisition-based standard. Please see <a href="http://law.justia.com/newyork/codes/general-business/gbs0899-aa_899-aa.html" rel="nofollow">NY Gen. Bus. Law § 899-aa</a>. In fact, four of the five most populous states have acquisition-based notification standards, covering more than 30% of the population. The Federal Trade Commission also has an acquisition-based notification rule for personal health records. This would be a far more appropriate standard for HHS to adopt: it would reduce unnecessary notifications, align itself with Congressional intent, and preserve incentives for health care companies to protect data. It should be noted that the Congressmen who wrote the letter wrote the legislation underlying the notification rule as well.

The letter also stated:

- “[The harm standard] is not consistent with Congressional intent… [The] statutory language does not imply a harm standard. In drafting [the statute], Committee members specifically considered and rejected such a standard due to concerns over the breadth of discretion that would be given to breaching entities, particularly with regard to determining something as subjective as harm from the release of sensitive and personal health information.”

Also, I do not think New York has a harm standard, as you state in this article.
Rather, it has an acquisition-based standard.
Please see NY Gen. Bus. Law § 899-aa.

In fact, four of the five most populous states have acquisition-based notification standards, covering more than 30% of the population.
The Federal Trade Commission also has an acquisition-based notification rule for personal health records.
This would be a far more appropriate standard for HHS to adopt: it would reduce unnecessary notifications, align itself with Congressional intent, and preserve incentives for health care companies to protect data.

]]> By: Four Members of Congress Complain to Secretary of HHS About the Harm Standard | health http://law2point0.com/wordpress/2009/10/12/four-members-of-congress-complain-to-secretary-of-hhs-about-the-harm-standard/comment-page-1/#comment-161 Four Members of Congress Complain to Secretary of HHS About the Harm Standard | health Sun, 11 Oct 2009 23:59:33 +0000 http://law2point0.com/wordpress/?p=1189#comment-161 [...] Go here to read the rest: Four Members of Congress Complain to Secretary of HHS About the Harm Standard [...] [...] Go here to read the rest: Four Members of Congress Complain to Secretary of HHS About the Harm Standard [...]

]]>