Transcript Medical and Workplace Privacy Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Institute for Software Research International Carnegie Mellon University 17-801 PRIVACY POLICY, LAW & TECHNOLOGY FALL 2005 COPYRIGHT ©

Medical and Workplace
Privacy
Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D.
Institute for Software Research International
Carnegie Mellon University
17-801 PRIVACY POLICY, LAW & TECHNOLOGY
FALL 2005
COPYRIGHT © 2005 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Outline
• Medical privacy stakeholders:
– patient
– heath care provider
– insurer
– federal government
– (sometimes) employer
– What is the basis for privacy?
• Workplace privacy stakeholders:
– employee
– employer
– basis for privacy?
17-801 PRIVACY POLICY, LAW & TECHNOLOGY
FALL 2005
COPYRIGHT © 2005 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
U.S. Privacy Law
• Privacy law is a patchwork of state and federal statutes
and judicial decisions
• The Federal government has limited powers to protect
privacy
– “Interstate commerce” (Federal Trade Commission)
• There are three Federally protected categories of
personal data:
– financial (Gramm-Leech-Bliley)
– educational (FERPA)
– medical (HIPAA)
• Plus some narrow protections, e.g. video rental data
17-801 PRIVACY POLICY, LAW & TECHNOLOGY
FALL 2005
COPYRIGHT © 2005 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Cliff Notes Version of HIPAA
• Covered Entities (healthcare providers, health plans,
insurance companies, healthcare clearinghouses)
• May Not Use or Disclose Protected Health
Information (PHI)
• Except with the Written Consent or Authorization of
the Employee
• Or Unless Required or Permitted by Law
• or to the Minimum Extent Necessary or Allowed to
Accomplish the Purpose of Treatment
SOURCE: LITTLER, MENDELSON
17-801 PRIVACY POLICY, LAW & TECHNOLOGY
FALL 2005
COPYRIGHT © 2005 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Protected Health Information (PHI)
• Information created or received by a health plan or
healthcare provider; and
• Relates to the condition or care of an individual; or
• Relates to the payment for care; and
• Permits identification of the individual (or creates a
reasonable basis upon which to identify the
individual)
45 CFR §164.501
SOURCE: LITTLER, MENDELSON
17-801 PRIVACY POLICY, LAW & TECHNOLOGY
FALL 2005
COPYRIGHT © 2005 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
HIPAA: Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996
•
A covered entity may not use or disclose protected
health information, except as permitted or required …
–
–
–
–
pursuant to … a consent … to carry out treatment, payment,
or health care operations
pursuant to … an authorization
pursuant to … an agreement (opt-in)
[other provisions]
45 CFR §164.502
•
Health information that meets … specifications for deidentification … is considered not to be individually
identifiable health information
45 CFR §164.502(d)
Compliance deadline was April 14, 2003
17-801 PRIVACY POLICY, LAW & TECHNOLOGY
FALL 2005
REGULATIONS
COPYRIGHT © 2005 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
De-Identification
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A covered entity may determine that health information is not individually
identifiable only if: … the following identifiers of the individual or of relatives,
employers, or household members of the individual are removed:
Names;
All geographic subdivisions smaller than a State, including street address, city,
county, precinct, zip code, …, except for the initial three digits of a zip code if …
All elements of dates (except year) for dates directly related to an individual,
including birth date, admission date, discharge date, date of death; and all ages
over 89…
Telephone numbers; Fax numbers; email addresses; URLs; IP addresses
Social security numbers; Medical record numbers; Health plan beneficiary
numbers; Account numbers;
Certificate/license numbers; vehicle identifiers, serial numbers, plate numbers;
Device identifiers and serial numbers;
Biometric identifiers, including finger and voice prints;
Full face photographic images and any comparable images; and
Any other unique identifying number, characteristic, or code; and
The covered entity does not have actual knowledge that the information could be
used alone or in combination with other information to identify an individual who
is a subject of the information.
45 CFR §164.514
Wrongful Disclosure Under HIPAA
•
•
•
•
•
A person who knowingly … uses or causes to be used a unique
health identifier;
obtains individually identifiable health information relating to an
individual; or discloses individually identifiable health information
to another person,
shall be fined not more than $50,000, imprisoned not more than
1 year, or both;
if the offense is committed under false pretenses, be fined not
more than $100,000, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;
and
if the offense is committed with intent to sell, or use information
for commercial advantage, or malicious harm, be fined not more
than $250,000, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both
42 U.S.C. §1320d-6
BUT: no private lawsuit
17-801 PRIVACY POLICY, LAW & TECHNOLOGY
FALL 2005
COPYRIGHT © 2005 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Genetic Privacy
• Federal Executive Order 13145 (Clinton)
– “Nondiscrimination in Federal Employment on the Basis of
Protected Genetic Information”
• State
– Cal Gov Code § 12940 (Unlawful employment practices)
• It shall be an unlawful employment practice … for an
employer ... to subject, directly or indirectly, any
employee, applicant, or other person to a test for the
presence of a genetic characteristic.
– Cal Gov Code § 10148 (Test for genetic characteristic)
• No insurer shall require a test for the presence of a
genetic characteristic for the purpose of determining
insurability other than for those policies that are
contingent on review or testing for other diseases or
medical conditions
SOURCE: KARL MANHEIM, LAWRENCE SLOCUM
17-801 PRIVACY POLICY, LAW & TECHNOLOGY
FALL 2005
COPYRIGHT © 2005 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Employee Polygraph Protection Act
• Make it illegal for an employer in interstate
commerce to require an employee or prospective
employee to take a lie detector test
• to use the results of a lie detector test
• to use the refusal to take a test to discharge the
employee
• Exceptions:
– governments
– employer investigations of theft where the employer has
reasonable suspicions the employee was involved
– security personnel
29 U.S.C. §2002
17-801 PRIVACY POLICY, LAW & TECHNOLOGY
FALL 2005
COPYRIGHT © 2005 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
O’Connor vs. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709
(1987)
• Search warrants not needed by employers
– Why? What about the Fourth Amendment?
• Executive director O’Connor of a state hospital
suspected Dr. Ortega of management improprieties
• Searched his office, found incriminating evidence
• Was his expectation of privacy violated?
• Reality of workplace may vitiate some expectations
Standard of “reasonableness” is sufficient for workrelated intrusions by public employers
• 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court
17-801 PRIVACY POLICY, LAW & TECHNOLOGY
FALL 2005
COPYRIGHT © 2005 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Fourth Amendment
• “The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no
Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons
or things to be seized.”
Adopted December 15, 1791
17-801 PRIVACY POLICY, LAW & TECHNOLOGY
FALL 2005
COPYRIGHT © 2005 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Skinner vs. Railway Labor Executives
Assoc., 489 U.S. 602 (1989)
• Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) implemented
regulations requiring mandatory blood and urine tests
of employees involved in certain train accidents
• Expectations of privacy by employees engaged in an
industry regulated to ensure safety are diminished
• Testing procedures pose only limited threats
• Rights of the individual are superseded by the rights
of the organization to conduct business.
• Government's interest in assuring safety on the
nation's railroads constitutes a “special need”
SOURCE: CAYLEN TICHENOR
17-801 PRIVACY POLICY, LAW & TECHNOLOGY
FALL 2005
COPYRIGHT © 2005 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
U.S. vs. Simons, 206 F.3d 392 (4th Cir. 2000)
• Simons was a subcontractor to the CIA.
• Agency policy stated:
– employees could use Internet for official government
business only
– Accessing unlawful material prohibited
– Agency would conduct electronic audits to ensure
compliance
• Firewall detected queries containing “sex” from
Simon’s computer
• Simons’ office and computer were searched; child
porno found; Simons tried and convicted
• Employee cannot maintain expectation of privacy
when there is a monitoring policy in place.
17-801 PRIVACY POLICY, LAW & TECHNOLOGY
FALL 2005
COPYRIGHT © 2005 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Computer Surveillance
• In general, surveillance by the employer is legal if
– the computer being monitored belongs to the employer; or
– the computer is connected to the employer’s network; and
– even if communications are encrypted
• McLaren v. Microsoft Corp.,
No. 05-97-00824 (Tex. Ct. App. May 28, 1999).
– Employee used private password to encrypt email messages
stored on office computer.
– Company decrypted and viewed files.
– Email account and workstation were provided for business
use, so Microsoft could legitimately access data stored there.
17-801 PRIVACY POLICY, LAW & TECHNOLOGY
FALL 2005
COPYRIGHT © 2005 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Computer Surveillance
• Even spyware installed by the employer is legal
• Notice of Electronic Monitoring Act (CT)
– Versions introduced in other states and Congress
17-801 PRIVACY POLICY, LAW & TECHNOLOGY
FALL 2005
COPYRIGHT © 2005 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Office Snooping?
• Doe v. SEPTA, 72 F.3d 1133 (3d Cir. 1995)
• Doe (not identified in the case) was awarded
$125,000 when his co-employees learned from his
prescription records he has being treated for AIDS
• Appeals court reversed
• The information was learned in a routine audit of the
company’s health plan for fraud, drug abuse, and
excessive costs
• No prohibition against employers making use of
medical records in employment decisions
• All co-employees had a “need to know”
17-801 PRIVACY POLICY, LAW & TECHNOLOGY
FALL 2005
COPYRIGHT © 2005 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
CMU Policy on the Privacy of Faculty Offices
• The employer may give up its rights by contract
• “No one may enter a faculty member's office, or search a faculty
member's files, or examine or remove work products or
documentary material (e.g., research data, notes on interviews,
drafts of publications or lectures, notes used in the preparation
of publications or lectures, audio and visual tapes, films,
outtakes, mental impressions, opinion and other material
intended for dissemination of information to students, colleagues
or the general public) without permission, even if the faculty
member is absent.”
• “Exceptions: employee terminated, building maintenance, space
planning, emergencies, retrieval of joint work or routine
documents where the faculty member is not readily available to
grant permission.”
• “Under any conditions of entry the occupant of the office shall
immediately afterwards be furnished a list of, and/or copies of,
the property or things copied or taken, if any.”
Phone Calls and Email
• Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1968 prohibits
monitoring of employee phone calls unless
– it occurs in the regular course of business; or
– the employee consents to the monitoring
• 1986 Electronic Communications and Privacy Act
– Allows employers the same access to employee
emails on the job
– If employees are informed that their emails can
and will be monitored there is no reasonable
expectation of privacy
17-801 PRIVACY POLICY, LAW & TECHNOLOGY
FALL 2005
COPYRIGHT © 2005 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Tiberino v. Spokane County
13 P.3d 1104 (2000)
• Gina Tiberino worked for Spokane County, WA
• She misused her office computer for personal email
and was fired
• She threatened to sue; Spokane printed out her email
(551 messages; 467 were personal)
• The media requested copies
• Tiberino sued to prevent disclosure
• Held, the emails were “public records” but the
contents were exempt from disclosure. The fact of
the emails, not their contents, were of public interest
17-801 PRIVACY POLICY, LAW & TECHNOLOGY
FALL 2005
COPYRIGHT © 2005 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Q&A
17-801 PRIVACY POLICY, LAW & TECHNOLOGY
FALL 2005
COPYRIGHT © 2005 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS