Editorial: Patient privacy takes top priority

So it's encouraging to see the Clinton administration take a cautious approach in deciding how to implement a 1996 law calling for the creation of a national database to track individual medical histories. Under the law all Americans would be given a computer code, referred to as a "unique health identifier," to track them if they change doctors or health plans.

The provision for this tracking falls under 1996 legislation that lets workers take their health insurance with them if they leave to take a job with another company. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the agency given the authority to write regulations implementing the new patient identifier system, held its first hearing Monday to gather public comment.

Assigning people identification numbers is nothing new. For decades people have used Social Security numbers, which often are required by state agencies or businesses. And in today's increasingly automated age, personal identification numbers are needed often to access bank accounts, among other uses.

But if patients fear that their medical records could end up in the wrong hands and be misused, then it is very likely that many will not be as open with their doctors about their medical history. If that happens, then the patient suffers because doctors need to know everything about a patient to make an accurate diagnosis and provide the proper treatment.

A Health and Human Services official said if it finds the law can't be implemented through regulations, then an option available is to report back to Congress that a regulatory approach isn't the answer. As the agency moves forward it should keep privacy issues paramount in its attempt to comply with the law.

archive