The Technological Feasibility of HIPAA Requirements :: Exploratory Essays Research Papers

Introduction The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, is a law designed â€Å"to improve portability and continuity of health insurance coverage in the group and individual markets, to combat waste, fraud, and abuse in health insurance and health care delivery, to promote the use of medical savings accounts, to improve access to long-term care services and coverage, to simplify the administration of health insurance, and for other purposes.†1 HIPAA mandates that covered entities must employ technological means to ensure the privacy of sensitive information. This white paper intends to study the requirements put forth by HIPAA by examining what is technically necessary for them to be implemented, the technological feasibility of this, and what commercial, off-the-shelf systems are currently available to implement these requirements. HIPAA Overview On July 21, 1996, Bill Clinton signed HIPAA into law. It was passed partly because of the failure of congress to pass comprehensive health insurance legislation earlier in the decade. The general goals of HIPAA are to: * Increase number of employees who have health insurance; * Reduce health care fraud and abuse; * Introduce/implement administrative simplifications in order to augment effectiveness of health care in the US; * Protect the health information of individuals against access without consent or authorization; * Give patients more rights over their private data; * Set better boundaries for the use of medical information; * Hold people accountable for misuse; * Encourage administrative simplification (in the form of digitalization of information) to help reduce costs. HIPAA affects covered entities which are defined as: – Health plans; – Health care clearinghouses; – Health care providers who transmit health information in electronic form for certain standard transactions. Even though HIPAA was singed into law over seven years ago, its effects are mostly being felt now. This is because of its schedule of compliance: * 10/16/2002 - Transactions and code sets * 4/14/2003 – Privacy Rule * 4/14/2003 – Business Associates * 4/20/2005 – Security Rule This delay stems from a provision in the original act stating that if Congress did not specify certain regulations by the end of 1999, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had to do it. Congress did not meet its deadline, so HHS had to write up the regulations and give companies a chance to implement them.

Exclusionary Rule Essay

The Fourth amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. The interpretation and execution of the Fourth amendment in the courtroom however, is decided by the Supreme Court in an attempt to find a fair balance between individual and community interests. The exclusionary rule for example, is a Supreme Court precedent that holds police departments responsible for seizing incriminating information according to constitutional specifications of due process, or the information will not be allowed as evidence in a criminal trial. The question that arises in turn, is whether the exclusionary rule has handcuffed the abilities to effectively protect the community by the police, or if it has actually resulted in a positive police reform which needs to be expanded upon. My opinion is that although the exclusionary rule may significantly slow down the police department’s investigation and arrest process, it is a necessary â€Å"evil† in order to protect the rights of the individuals who in fact should not have their homes searched. I do however, agree that without the restrictions of the exclusionary rule police departments would be able to do their job a lot faster and more effectively, without having to worry about first getting a search warrant or after getting â€Å"slam dunk† evidence, having to see a case thrown out because it was not obtained through due process. My personal concern for allowing the police such a high level of discretion though, is that in the heat of the investigation and desire to catch or lock away a suspect, police may search the homes of people related, associated, or even suspected of having connections to the suspect in order to get information that could result in a guilty verdict, which would pote ntially violate the privacy of people who potentially are not connected to the crime or suspect being investigated. If I was personally appointed by the President of The United States to serve in the Supreme Court for example, I would take a close look at the case of Mapp v. Ohio. In Mapp v Ohio the Cleveland Police Department forcibly entered the home of Dollree Mapp without a warrant in search of a wanted fugitive. The Cleveland Police failed to find a fugitive, but instead found a trunk full of obscene material which under Ohio law was illegal. When the case went to court Mapp was initially convicted, through a series of appeals that eventually made it to the U.S. Supreme Court however, the conviction was overturned. As an appointed Supreme Court Justice, I would have absolutely done the same thing in overturning the decision on Mapps case. The reason for my vote or decision, would be that the police did not only forcibly enter the defendants home without a warrant, but they lied about having a warrant, and arrested her for a crime completely unrelated to what they were looking for if they had a warrant. Even if the Police department had a warrant to search Mapp’s home for a fugitive, my first question would be what size the trunk was. If the trunk was a small one in turn, I would question why the Police opened it if the fugitive could not possibly be hiding inside the trunk. I believe that the actions of the Cleveland Police Department were abusive, deceptive, and overall destructive for the reputation of their police department, their complete disregard for due process if overlooked, could have possibly encouraged other police departments around the country to take similar approaches to investigations without consequence. I am confident in the decision made by the U.S. Supreme Court and would not change it at all if I were appointed as a Supreme Court Justice myself.

The First Presidential Debate in 2000

For the first time face to face the first debate of the 2000 presidential election was held at the campus of the University of Massachusetts. For ninety minutes last night, Democratic candidate Vice President Al Gore and Republican Candidate Governor of Texas George W. Bush battled one another over tax cuts, prescription drugs, Social Security, energy policy, abortion, and education. On issues such as tax cuts, the Vice President proposed a plan, which cut taxes for middle class families, balance budgets every year, and pay down the national debt. He accused the Governor of cutting taxes for only the wealthiest 1% of the population. Gore†s plan was for every $1 given to things like education and health, another $1 would be given for middle class tax cuts, and for every dollar spent there, $2 would be expended to bring down the national debt. Gore felt that it was important to resist squandering the budget surplus. He also felt the prosperity should be used to enrich families and help parents strengthen families, making sure the schools they attended were safe, and preventing exposure to â€Å"cultural pollution.† Governor Bush†s views on tax cuts differed. His proposal was to put one half towards Social Security, one fourth towards important projects and the remaining one fourth to the people who pay the bills. Also accusing Gore of â€Å"Medi Scare,† he said he would make sure all seniors have Medicare and a variety of options to choose from. He also proposed a plan, Immediate Helping Hand, in which seniors could get immediate healthcare if they needed it. Gore opposed his Medicare payment plan saying that it would fail to help seniors for the first four to five years and that Bush†s plan spends â€Å"more money on tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent, than all the spending he proposes for education, health care, prescription drugs and national defense combined.† He also had much to say about the energy crisis. He wants to explore local areas for gas and oil, thus reducing dependency upon foreign sources. Gore agreed that reliance overseas for oil should be reduced but had something else in mind to reduce it. He proposed the idea of new trucks, cars, and machinery that reduces pollution and uses less energy. Bush felt that we should, rather than import one million barrels of oil a day from Saddam Hussein, drill the oil here. He wants to also join Canada and Mexico in exploring the land for oil reserves. Out of all the comments that Bush made about Gore last night, the most prominent one probably was when he kept on asking why Gore†s priorities haven†t been accomplished by now. For example, on prescription drugs, he said, † It seems like they can†t get it done† And on energy policy to prevent future shortages he said,† He should have been tackling it for the past seven years.† Another would be when Gore did the math on Bush†s tax plan and demonstrated why it would not be a good decision, Bush replied that he was doing â€Å"fuzzy math.† and â€Å"phony numbers† They couldn†t even agree on the size of the tax cut. Bush said that he would return $1.3 trillion of the predicted ten-year budget surplus to taxpayers. Gore said it would be $600 billion more than that.