Last-Minute Lawsuit Filed Against Privacy Rule

Philadelphia, April 10, 2003 -- A broad coalition of consumers and health care practitioners today filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court to restore the long-held right to privacy and patient consent for use of personal health information. The legal challenge is part of a wide-scale campaign to challenge the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, (HIPAA), which mandates the way medical records will be handled by doctors, hospitals, pharmacies and other health care providers.

The lawsuit contends that HIPAA's little-known provisions actually grant unprecedented, unconstitutional access to files without the consent of patients. The federal rule may allow insurance companies, employers, law enforcement and even bankers to review a patient's cradle-to-grave medical history. It is in fact a "health information disclosure rule," says Jim Turner, president of Citizens for Health, one of the consumer groups filing today's suit.

"We agree with the federal government's initial findings in 2001 that 'privacy is a fundamental right' of all Americans," says Turner. But, he adds, "the federal government abandoned this principle by quietly reversing its position in August 2002 and authorizing thousands of corporations and their "business associates" to use and disclose personal health information without regard to the individuals' wishes."

Dr. Deborah Peel, an Austin, Texas, psychiatrist agreed that "the federal government was right in 2001 in initially finding that medical privacy is essential for quality health care." In fact, numerous surveys show that citizens avoid seeking needed health care and refuse to confide in their physicians if they fear confidentiality will be breeched.

Dr. Newell Fischer, president of the American Psychoanalytic Association, another plaintiff in the suit, lamented the loss of privacy. "It is regrettable that we and other citizens must resort to courts to preserve rights that the reason and experience of the country demonstrate are necessary for quality health care." He noted that the United States Supreme Court has found that the privacy of therapist-patient communications are essential for effective psychotherapy. Doctors who practice other specialties have raised similar concerns, particularly on behalf of patients who are HIV-positive or who may have had abortions, both of which can lead to discrimination in the workplace and elsewhere.

The suit was filed in Philadelphia, according to Jim Pyles, attorney for the plaintiffs, because "The fundamental rights at stake in this suit were initially adopted here." Other plaintiffs listed in the case are the National Coalition of Mental Health Professionals and Consumers, American Assocation for Health Freedom, American Association of Practicing Psychiatrists, American Mental Health Alliance-USA, and the New Hampshire Citizens for Health Freedom.

Read the text of the complaint (PDF).