How "Confidential" Works When The Government's All Up In Your Healthcare
A Toronto woman was denied entry to the United States when a U.S. border agent somehow knew about her confidential medical details.
Valerie Hauch writes in the Toronto Star:
Ellen Richardson went to Pearson airport on Monday full of joy about flying to New York City and from there going on a 10-day Caribbean cruise for which she'd paid about $6,000.But a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent with the Department of Homeland Security killed that dream when he denied her entry.
"I was turned away, I was told, because I had a hospitalization in the summer of 2012 for clinical depression,'' said Richardson, who is a paraplegic and set up her cruise in collaboration with a March of Dimes group of about 12 others.
The Weston woman was told by the U.S. agent she would have to get "medical clearance'' and be examined by one of only three doctors in Toronto whose assessments are accepted by Homeland Security. She was given their names and told a call to her psychiatrist "would not suffice.''
At the time, Richardson said, she was so shocked and devastated by what was going on, she wasn't thinking about how U.S. authorities could access her supposedly private medical information.
The piece continues:
MP Mike Sullivan said what has happened to his constituent is "enormously troubling. . . . How did U.S. agents get her personal medical information?''...U.S. authorities "do not have access to medical or other health records for Ontarians travelling to the U.S.,'' said health ministry spokeswoman Joanne Woodward Fraser, adding the ministry could not provide any additional information.
They don't have access, yet somehow they do.
Be very, very afraid of giving the government any information about you.
It's bad enough we have to give the government a financial stripsearch of ourselves to pay our taxes. Now our health information? If it can be used against you -- well, count on it being used against you.
via @larosalind
If "had a hospitalization" means she was committed by a judge's order, then it's not a health record, but a legal proceeding.
The two countries share access to criminal background checks. A Canadian guard can look American visitors up in the FBI database, and American guards can access Canadian criminal records.
James Fulford at November 29, 2013 1:31 AM
If you're on Medicare or Medicaid they already know everything about you. Our practice has been audited by both, as well as by state authorities. The auditors can request anyone's "confidential" medical record covered by the plans for inspection. We have no power to refuse this. There is no such thing as confidentiality if they govt. is paying the bills.
DrMaturin at November 29, 2013 5:38 AM
As a Canadian I'm offended that a foreign gov't official knows anything about the medical details of one of my fellow citizens. But all Americans should be equally outraged at how deeply into the lives of all citizens its government feels no hesitation to be.
Right now I'm sitting in the dining room of my cousin's family near Munich. They're absolutely law-abiding people who are considering taking their kids to America next summer. But they're hesitant because of all of the personal information that your government wants from them.
When did such intrusion into our lives become acceptable?
Robert W. at November 29, 2013 6:11 AM
"They don't have access, yet somehow they do."
Three little letters: NSA.
Cousin Dave at November 29, 2013 6:14 AM
"There is no such thing as confidentiality if they govt. is paying the bills."
And you will NOT be the one saying what treatment you will receive.
Don't imagine that you can call the shots with other people's money. Even if a government agency favors you, you are a commodity, not a customer.
Your doctor will have to please a Federal agent, NOT YOU, when treating you.
Radwaste at November 29, 2013 7:39 AM
When did such intrusion into our lives become acceptable?
The short answer is, it didn't. Of course, because of all the liberal idiots who chant "if you don't have anything to hide, what's the big deal?" and don't care if their privacy is kaput, they expect the rest of us not to care as well.
It offends me to high heaven, this blatant bullshit. The intrusion into our private lives is tantamount to treason, committed by our government, against its own citizens.
Enough! No more! (And can someone please tell me why that America-hating asshat we call "president" is still in that position? Anyone? Bueller?)
Flynne at November 29, 2013 7:55 AM
I'll repeat, as above, that it's not medical but legal data. The link above on "access her supposedly private medical information" points out that if you attempt suicide, and police have to be called, it goes in the police database. The United States is not obliged to admit crazy people.
Should the Canadian government keep this info a secret to help crazies infiltrate the US?
James Fulford at November 29, 2013 8:19 AM
Actually, it's been in the back-pages of the press that the Canadian government has allowed the American government to spy not only on Canadian citizens, but on Canadian soil.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/canadians-concerned-u-spying-canadian-soil-000204214.html
I'm impressed, really I am.
wtf at November 29, 2013 8:25 AM
Don't jump to conclusions on the basis of a few sound bites that hit the headlines.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2515362/Paraplegic-woman-blocked-traveling-U-S-suffers-depression-make-danger-others.html
"Richardson has long suffered from mental illness. In 2001, she became paralyzed from the waist down after attempting suicide by jumping from a viaduct.
Author: Richardson documented her struggle with depression in a book published in 2009 - but the security agent cited only a 2012 episode of depression as the reason she was denied entry to the U.S.
Richardson has detailed her battle with depression in a book, Hope for the Heavy Heart: For the War-Weary and the Heaven-bent, but it was published before her 2012 hospitalization. . . "
So her medical history has not been so private. It's just this one last incident that she thinks should be private, and the Canadian Privacy Commissioner will look into it. I'd like to wait for that report before going into a spasm of outrage.
Fran at November 29, 2013 8:38 AM
I'll second (actually third) what James Fulford said above; this doesn't seem to be about medical records (despite that being the "slant" that the journalists are trying to take); it is about legal information.
And, yes, the US does have the right and the responsibility to keep "the crazies" out.
Also, this isn't a blanket "she not and never will be allowed." They are giving her the opportunity to be cleared for entry.
Does it suck? Yes, it does, but she did try to commit suicide and some folks do try to commit suicide by involving others. I'm not saying she did or will; but, I have no problem with an "approved" shrink checking her out before giving her entry.
Charles at November 29, 2013 8:39 AM
Canadian soil is pretty dangerous and always up to something. We need to keep tabs on it.
Conan the Grammarian at November 29, 2013 9:28 AM
> As a Canadian I'm offended that a foreign gov't
> official knows anything about the medical
> details of one of my fellow citizens.
It's because you're Canadian that our essential agreement about such things matters so little. I mean...
> When did such intrusion into our lives
> become acceptable?
It became at least much less odious when I was in sixth grade and Canada, despite holding (by far) the longest coast on the planet, beached her last and only aircraft carrier, leaving the United States of America to patrol her three oceans' worth of shore, including each of the THIRTY-SIX THOUSAND islands of her Arctic Archipelago... At no cost to the Canadian taxpayer. Sometime around then, I'd say.
Sometime around that moment, intrusion into your lives became much more probable, if not more acceptable.
Germany, huh? Well listen, Nuggets, before you tease your hosts about #1, be give some thought to #10.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 29, 2013 1:20 PM
Story no longer the the link crid.
lujlp at November 29, 2013 2:35 PM
Linkrot.
Crid at November 29, 2013 3:19 PM
See also.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at November 29, 2013 3:20 PM
✔ Posted by: James Fulford at November 29, 2013 1:31 AM
(There are some playazz in here.)
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at November 29, 2013 3:33 PM
"There is no such thing as confidentiality if they govt. is paying the bills."
How come that doesn't apply to taxpayers who are really paying most bills?
Dave B at November 29, 2013 9:28 PM
What's weird is that the original link is (at this hour) back live, again... As if the publisher didn't know anyone would care, but restored the files after seeing the (failed) hits on the website link.
I wish that worked for people who've been taken offline as well.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 30, 2013 2:51 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/11/29/about_how_confi.html#comment-4086309">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]You weren't here for the Bora controversy but that one is particularly depressing to me.
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/10/17/if_theres_anyth.html
There's been a real quashing of free speech on campus and elsewhere.
Amy Alkon at November 30, 2013 5:20 AM
Short take---
[1.] People are always saying shitty things on campuses. Most people at colleges are, in essential human measurement, good fer nuthin'. They can't do anything with their hands, and they sure as Hell can't do anything with their backs. All they're really good for is bickering and petty intrigues at the office (or faculty meeting). Dutton quoted Posner:
We shouldn't be surprised that the men of this realm, even the successful and bloggy-up-to-date ones, aren't gifted at seduction. Nor should we be surprised that their targets are mouselike and spotty-menstrual in their handling of tepid eroticism.[2.] The whole point blogs is that they eradicate publishing chokepoints. Blogs can be had for literally no money. If you want a specific URL and some graphics and some ads and stuff, you'll have to pay a few dollars. Literally a few dollars. Anyone who whines —"No, only a few websites have the standing in their fields sufficient to advance my slog towards tenure!"— is probably trying to sneak under the wire in terms of excellence and innovation anyway.
I have a professional contact in the library business who reports that the journals which have dominated academe for the past century or two have overplayed their hand in pursuit of fast cash... New and dirt-cheap arrangements for peer review are everywhere in evidence.
(I didn't read beyond a couple paragraphs.)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 30, 2013 9:12 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/11/29/about_how_confi.html#comment-4086702">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail][1.] People are always saying shitty things on campuses.
Approved (PC) shitty things fly. Unapproved ones do not.
And when I say "do not," I mean that professors lose their jobs and students get booted from school. (See theFIRE.org)
Amy Alkon at November 30, 2013 10:48 AM
Well, right, but... These discussions quickly infect curricula, so we gotta move cautiously... Meanwhile the sheer expense (and thus the risk) of an education nowadays is making it clear to incoming generations that academics are often just coddled shits.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at November 30, 2013 5:31 PM
OK, that was mean. But let's just say education is about to get a fresh price, just like pop songs did when Napster happened.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 30, 2013 11:33 PM
Props also for the expropriation of "all up in your" [X].
I love these hepcat kids with their jargon and their "cool" talk.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 1, 2013 1:45 AM
Crid-
Yours is the last opinion I would ask on Canadian politics....
That's like asking the grand wizard of the clan for his take on bi-racial marriage.
wtf at December 2, 2013 1:14 PM
Leave a comment