ILNews

Proposed rule clears up ambiguities on release of mental health patients' names

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

What the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services calls a modification to rules protecting patient privacy has sparked similar outcries from groups that might normally find themselves opposing each other.

The National Alliance on Mental Illness and the Gun Owners of America both have come out against a proposed rule change to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act that would allow health care entities to release the names of some mental health patients to the national firearm background check system.

cook-stacy.jpg Cook

The proposed rule is part of the Obama administration’s efforts to reduce gun violence by keeping firearms from individuals who are barred by law from possessing them. While the HHS acknowledged it cannot point to any quantified data, it does believe the rule change could increase the reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System of individuals with serious mental health conditions who might pose a risk of gun violence.

Moreover, the HHS contends it is not chipping away at privacy but rather clearing up ambiguities surrounding the mental health prohibitor provision.

Despite the fireworks from national groups, Indiana attorneys say the rule change will mean little to health care providers in the state. The rule is very narrow and, at best, would impact a small number of health care entities.

“We’re telling our clients the change will likely not affect them at all because the exception is extremely limited,” said Stacy Cook, partner at Barnes & Thornburg LLP.

Perceived barriers

The proposed rule would give permission to – but not require – health care providers that are involved in adjudications or serve as a repository to disclose federal mental health prohibitor information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

Individuals who are banned from possessing or receiving firearms by the mental health prohibitor are profoundly mentally ill, said attorney Mark Swearingen, of Hall Render Killian Heath & Lyman. Based on his experience, he said the people being involuntarily committed had been found doing things like playing in traffic while naked.
 

swearingen Swearingen

The mental health prohibitor includes people who have been involuntary committed to a mental institution, found not guilty by reason of insanity, or been determined by a lawful authority to be a danger to themselves or others.

Health and Human Services emphasizes that neither the prohibitor nor the proposed rule would apply to those who seek treatment for a mental health problem or who voluntarily admit themselves to a mental health facility.

The rule change is being considered, according to the HHS, to remove any perceived barriers created by HIPAA to making this information available to the background check system.

Although offering a rule change based on a perception is unusual, HHS may have had to take this step as reassurance.

In particular, the penalties that come from violating HIPAA regulations keep many health care providers and vendors conscious of where the restrictions are, said Isaac Willett, partner at Faegre Baker Daniels LLP. Stepping over the line can launch a painful investigation that consumes time and resources and, if wrongdoing is uncovered, leads to a hefty fine.

Still, this rule is not expected to impact hospitals, clinics and other medical facilities in the state because Indiana enacted a law in 2009 which requires state courts to collect the names of individuals who fall under the mental health prohibitor criteria and report that information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for inclusion on the NICS.

Since the state judicial system is typically involved in the events, like involuntary commitment proceedings and trials where the defendant is found guilty but mentally ill, the courts know who qualifies under the mental health prohibitor rule.

Swearingen noted the Indiana General Assembly could, because of the HIPAA proposal, revamp the state law to add an exception allowing health care providers to release mental health prohibitor information. But he does not anticipate the Legislature would spend its time making such a change.

Opposition

willett-isaac.jpg Willett

Should the suggested language become part of HIPAA, Cook doubts that will put patient privacy on a slippery slope where more information is released. The proposed exception, she said, is too narrow to provide any leverage for making other openings to medical records.

When it announced this proposed rulemaking, the Department of Health and Human Services contended the change was necessary to remove the obstacles that keep states from reporting to the NICS. The agency cited a 2012 study by the Government Accountability Office that found 17 states had submitted fewer than 10 records of individuals prohibited from having guns for mental health reasons.

According to the rule, the information given to the NICS would include the person’s name, date of birth and gender, along with a code indicating the individual is subject to the mental health prohibitor provision. Another code would identify the reporting entity.

The HHS is considering allowing the entities to disclose extra information to help NICS users confirm that a prospective gun buyer is barred by federal law from owning or receiving a firearm. This additional data would include such things as an individual’s Social Security number, place of birth, height, weight, eye and hair color, and race.

None of the individual’s clinical or diagnostic information will be released to the NICS, according to the HHS.

In a letter to the HHS, the National Alliance on Mental Illness argued if the regulations are amended, the person’s name should be released without identifying the reason why he or she cannot possess or receive a firearm. The alliance saw no need for NICS database to include the information that the individual is banned by the mental health prohibitor rule.

However, the alliance primarily pushed for the proposed rule to be tossed. It described the rulemaking as creating a “special exception” for releasing mental health records to the national database. Moreover, it cited research disputing the perception that those suffering from mental illness are more inclined to violent behavior.

Many commenters posting their reactions on the federal registry website see the proposed HIPAA amendment as an overreach by the Obama administration. Some assert the rule would curtail gun owners’ rights while others worry the rule is another step to eroding personal privacy protections.

Balance

Willett views the limits on the kind of information that would be released to be a “reasonable countermeasure” to privacy protection concerns. HIPAA does a good job, he said, of keeping medical records confidential. Yet, with the number of random shootings occurring around the country, the public also has an interest in being protected from harm.

“It truly is a balancing act between serving public safety needs and maintaining individual right to privacy,” Willett said.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

  2. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  3. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  4. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  5. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

ADVERTISEMENT