Your Personal Medical records – Ownership?

[Eric DeSilva]

I would hazard a guess that HIPAA wouldn't permit you to simply hire someone at minimum wage to do this.

[Eric DeSilva]

You haven't read the 4th amendment recently, have you? It doesn't say specifically that being secure in one's person and effects is only a right to security against the government. If a doctor is holding records about my treatment, condition and/or well-being then I can't very well oversee their security now, can I?

I haven't read the 4th Amendment recently, but thankfully the Bill of Rights doesn't change much. If you don't believe me, try: (i) http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal...t-applies.html (note second paragraph stating "[t]he Fourth Amendment only protects against searches and seizures conducted by the government or pursuant to a governmental direction"); (ii) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_...s_Constitution (under "Applicability" it states "[t]he amendment applies to governmental searches and seizures, but not those done by private citizens or organizations who are not acting on behalf of a government").

There are also very, very strict rules under HIPAA regarding disclosure of health records. Having a copy doesn't protect you from unauthorized disclosure in any event. At the end of the day, ownership is silly to argue. It is well established that patients do not own their medical records, but that they are entitled to copies of such records (with some exceptions) with reasonable charges. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1560890/

[Jason Roehl]

Having a copy doesn't protect you from unauthorized disclosure in any event. At the end of the day, ownership is silly to argue. It is well established that patients do not own their medical records,

Having the ONLY copy does help protect against unauthorized disclosure. And again, "well established" does not mean good, right or proper. Just because there are strict laws (in HIPAA) about something doesn't mean they are strictly followed or enforced.

[Myk Rian]

Looks like I don't need a copy. I saw my Doctor last week, and my file was 4" thick. Damned if I'll pay to get that copied.

[Eric DeSilva]

Jason, you seem to have a strong sense of right and wrong about this--but that doesn't mean that everyone would agree with you. Certainly the courts disagree in the sense that they consider it settled that medical records belong to the physician that created them.

I'm not sure when this became about having the "only" copy, although I'd agree with you that if you actually did own the records, you could assert a right to retain the only copy. Perhaps that is why you don't own them--the physician has a number of reasons to keep copies, including liability protection, billing and assisting in future diagnoses, so I see very little chance that they would agree to destroy their records and leave you with the only copy--that may not even be legal. Most of the physicians that I know--and the institutions they work for--take HIPAA pretty seriously, even to the point of impairing the sharing of records that could actually advance medical science. If you don't believe your physician is complying with HIPAA, find another doctor.

[Dave Sheldrake]

Is there anything over there that isn't charged for at silly rates??

Here I can have a full original copy of all my medical records including notes for the cost of a letter and £1 to my doctor, the files are also held centrally on the NHS computers so any treatments are shared between hospitals and any doctor who needs to see them. If I got to a hospital in Scotland even though I am registered in Wales they can simply click a button on the PC and have access to all my files.

cheers

Dave

[David Weaver]

Is there anything over there that isn't charged for at silly rates??

Gasoline and blue jeans, I guess.

[Mike Cutler]

It's pretty normal, though it goes state by state. I think it's also pretty common that if another doctor requests the records to provide you care, they do NOT charge.

So have her new doctor make the request, and that's that.

But I don't know this for a fact...I'm going off of vague memory.

John

In Connecticut, at least in my experience, the records are your and you can request them anytime.
Three months ago all of my wives records, including imaging, were sent from Backus in Norwich to Smilow at Yale St. Raphael's in New Haven. We also were given a copy of all records. the only records that there was fee for was the imaging because they are converted from their program file format to one that can be read on a standard PC.
At Yale your records and testing results are uploaded to a computer and then are available to you online, with the exception of images because of their file format.

As for Bruce's original question; No it doesn't seem right. In Connecticut, at least, those records are his wife's, but more importantly they have to be conveyed to another physician's office. They just don't go into a box in the cellar. I would be asking to have the records transferred to another physicians office of my choice, before they are transferred to the physician(s) that are taking over her retiring physician's practice.

[Roger Feeley]

I believe that the Dr. doesn't just turn over the records they have. They must keep your records on file for some period of time. I think when my dad retired from Dentistry, he told me that he had to maintain records for 10 years. That meant when he sold his practice, part of the deal was that all the records had to be copied so he could put them in his basement and ignore them.

I would bet that this Dr is charging a fee to make copies of your records.

[Frank Drew]

You haven't read the 4th amendment recently, have you? It doesn't say specifically that being secure in one's person and effects is only a right to security against the government. If a doctor is holding records about my treatment, condition and/or well-being then I can't very well oversee their security now, can I?

I'm sympathetic to the idea that we should own our personal medical records, but that's a novel reading of the 4th amendment, Jason; I'm aware of no successful 4th amendment claims in disputes between private individuals. AFAIK, it has, since its adoption in 1792, involved searches and seizures by government authorities. "Fourth Amendment case law deals with three central questions: what government activities constitute "search" and "seizure"; what constitutes probable cause for these actions; and how violations of Fourth Amendment rights should be addressed."

But please provide contrary citations if you find any.

[Joe Mioux]

I haven't read everyone's comments, but how hard is it for the Dr's staff to just go over to the filing cabinet and hand over the records? If the records go unclaimed I bet they wind up in a land fill. No?

[Mike Henderson]

I haven't read everyone's comments, but how hard is it for the Dr's staff to just go over to the filing cabinet and hand over the records? If the records go unclaimed I bet they wind up in a land fill. No?

You can be sure they don't go into the landfill unless they're shredded.

Mike