2014 Coursera Partners' Conference
0 comments

Security And Confidentiality Agreement Of Personal Information For Research Purposes

Legal confidentiality obligations. Various federal and regional laws are committed to respecting the confidentiality of personal health data. These laws can be divided into two categories: those that impose confidentiality obligations on records and those that protect health information considered highly sensitive. The first are general health information privacy laws, such as the uniform health care information act (National Conference, 1988) and the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (Cal). Civil Code 5656.37 [1992]), as well as various Medicare and Medicaid laws and regulations. Laws and regulations that provide confidentiality requirements for sensitive personal health information include those relating to alcohol and drug abuse records, as well as laws governing the non-disclosure of records of patients with Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS), antibody test results for human immunodeficiency viruses (HIV), psychiatric and indecency records , as well as information on the results of screening and genetic testing. The development and application of the concept of privacy in U.S. law includes three groups of ideas.5 First, privacy embodies the interests of autonomy; it protects decisions on the exercise of fundamental constitutional freedoms with respect to private behaviour, such as decisions on marriage, procreation, contraception, family relations and child rearing. This is often called decision-making privacy (Tribe, 1978). Second, privacy protects against surveillance or intervention if a person has an “appropriate expectation of privacy.” Protection from illegal searches of one`s home or person and unauthorized eavesdropping are examples.

Third, data protection covers the interests of information; this term is most often expressed as an individual`s interest in controlling the dissemination and use of self-related information (Shils, 1966; Westin, 1967), or to make self-information inaccessible to others. This last form-related privacy is the main topic of this chapter. Revelations. In practice, these steps are impossible. Second, no mechanism such as a notarized affidavit would suffice, since such an instrument is merely a sworn statement and has no special contract status. A description of the purpose of a confidentiality agreement should suffice in the form of a contract. In short, contractual protections are weak, so they should only be used as a complement and not as a substitute for new and appropriate federal laws to protect the confidentiality of sensitive information about HDOs patients. In certain circumstances, the Committee anticipates difficult situations that appear to create a conflict between policies. For example, a person wants a copy of their information in the database, which they could then make available to a lawyer who needs it in a case of misconduct or an employer who needs it to set new orders or to manage cases. As has been said elsewhere, the Committee considers that it is unlikely to “protect” patient information when the person requests the information from an HDO and then transmits it as he or she sees fit.

Comments are closed.