Crisis of conscience: reconciling religious health care providers' beliefs and patients' rights

In this note, Katherine A. White explores the conflict between religious health care providers who provide care in accordance with their religious beliefs and the patients who want access to medical care that these religious providers find objectionable. Specifically, she examines Roman Catholic health care institutions and HMOs that follow the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services and considers other religious providers with similar beliefs. In accordance with the Directives, these institutions maintain policies that restrict access to "sensitive" services like abortion, family planning, HIV counseling, infertility treatment, and termination of life-support. White explains how most state laws protecting providers' right to refuse treatments in conflict with religious principles do not cover this wide range of services. Furthermore, many state and federal laws and some court decisions guarantee patients the right to receive this care. The constitutional complication inherent in this provider-patient conflict emerges in White's analysis of the interaction of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment and patients' right to privacy. White concludes her note by exploring the success of both provider-initiated and legislatively mandated compromise strategies. She first describes the strategies adopted by four different religious HMOs which vary in how they increase or restrict access to sensitive services. She then turns her focus to state and federal "bypass" legislation, ultimately concluding that increased state supervision might help these laws become more viable solutions to provider-patient conflicts.     

Altered states: state health privacy laws and the impact of the Federal Health Privacy Rule

Although the Federal Health Privacy Rule has evened out some of the inconsistencies between states' health privacy laws, gaps in protection still remain. Furthermore, the Federal Rule contains some lax standards for the disclosure of health information. State laws can play a vital role in filling these gaps and strengthening the protections afforded health information. By enacting legislation that has higher privacy-protective standards than the Federal Health Privacy Rule, states can play three important roles. First, because they can directly regulate entities that are beyond HHS's mandate, states can afford their citizens a broader degree of privacy protection than the Federal Health Privacy Rule. Second, by having state health privacy laws, states can enforce privacy protections at the local level. Finally, action by the states can positively influence health privacy policies at the federal level by raising the standard as to what constitutes sufficient privacy protection. High privacy protections imposed by states may serve as the standard for comprehensive federal legislation, if and when Congress reconsiders the issue. So far, states' reactions to the Federal Privacy Rule have been mixed. Only time will tell whether states will assume the mantle of leadership on health privacy or relinquish their role as the primary protectors of health information.     

Harry and Louise and health care reform: romancing public opinion

The question whether the "Harry and Louise" campaign ads, sponsored by the Health Insurance Association of America (HIAA) during the 1993-1994 health care reform debate, influenced public opinion has particular relevance today since interest groups are increasingly choosing commercial-style mass media campaigns to sway public opinion about health policy issues. Our study revisits the issue of the Harry and Louise campaign's influence on public opinion, comparing the ad campaign's messages to changes in opinion about health care reform over a twenty-six-month period in Oklahoma. Looking at the overall trends just prior to the introduction of the Harry and Louise campaign, public opinion was going in the "wrong" direction, from the HIAA perspective. Moreover, public opinion continued in the wrong direction until the mid-point of the campaign. However, in either the turning point of the campaign in terms of message content and tone or in the lag period following it, public opinion reversed on each health reform issue and returned to pre-campaign levels. It appears from these findings that the campaign captured public opinion when support for issues that were unfavorable to HIAA members was increasing and turned public opinion back to pre-campaign levels. The campaign may result in many more such marriages of political interest groups and commercial advertisers for the purpose of demobilizing public support for health policy initiatives that are unfavorable to special interests.     

个人健康医疗信息和隐私权保护

Personal health care and medical treatment information are both personal information which can be used as a sign to identify each individual. Such information shall be under the control of the owner. The comprehensiveness of personal health care and medical treatment information makes it more valuable than the simplex personal information. The controlling right of personal health care and medical treatment information is irretrievable once deprived. The rights of controlling, managing and using regarding personal health care and medical treatment information can be separated appropriately. The right of privacy is an independent personality right. For the protection of public interests, the right of personal privacy shall be appropriately limited. Meanwhile, the government shall be responsible for the protection of personal health care and medical treatment information. Tang Xiaotian is a professor and supervisor in charge of the development and planning division of Shanghai University of Political Science and Law, and deputy General Secretary-in-chief of the Society of Law of Shanghai, whose main studies is focused on victim science, criminal law and criminology. Till now, he has 8 monographs and over 90 articles published in academic journals.     

Illusions of necessity: evading responsibility for choice in health care

Discretionary power is commonly defended by denial of its existence, the allegation of inevitability. Objective external conditions and forces are claimed to dictate policy decisions with tangible distributional effects. In health policy, such forces include the aging of the population, the extension of technology, and the demands of ethical standards. Taken together, these forces create relentless upward pressure on costs, to levels which society "cannot afford," necessitating sacrifice of the interests of the "less eligible." Yet quantitative analysis of these forces does not sustain the argument; in each case the source of cost escalation is not external pressure but the way in which the health care system itself reacts. Less costly and equally effective options are demonstrably available, but would threaten provider interests and broader ideologies. A spurious cloak of inevitability serves to promote and justify political choices.