Jason Pierre-Paul Medical Records

[kmoose]

Well, this is an interesting discussion: At what point have you completely abandoned any pretext of ethical behavior, and sold your soul to be first on a story?

ESPN reporter tweets player's medical charts, and ethical questions erupt - Jul. 8, 2015

 

[PANDFAN]

i like james harrison tweet towards shefty

 

[Irish#1]

The worker that leaked the info will almost certainly be fired. I don't know the law, but I wouldn't be surprised to see ESPN get in trouble as an accessory or accomplice.

 

[pkt77242]

The worker that leaked the info will almost certainly be fired. I don't know the law, but I wouldn't be surprised to see ESPN get in trouble as an accessory or accomplice.

I don't think so, the law coversion healthea re workers and hospitals/clinics, etc. Now the hospital will most likely get sued.

 

[Irish#1]

I don't think so, the law coversion healthea re workers and hospitals/clinics, etc. Now the hospital will most likely get sued.

I understand the law was written primarily for the medical field, but there always seems to be a statement in these things that might get them in trouble. For instance Sallie Mae who deals in student loans is regulated by HIPAA. What's the tie? Student loans for kids attending medical school.

 

[IrishLion]

Schefter's going to end up in court on behalf of his source I bet... unless the Mothership finds a way to shield him, which I wouldn't doubt.

But what happens if the NFLPA targets him? Or the Giants themselves?

 

[pkt77242]

I understand the law was written primarily for the medical field, but there always seems to be a statement in these things that might get them in trouble. For instance Sallie Mae who deals in student loans is regulated by HIPAA. What's the tie? Student loans for kids attending medical school.

Did ESPN violate HIPAA rules by posting Jason Pierre-Paul's medical records? | NJ.com

This article does a pretty good job of explaining it.

 

[Emcee77]

Well, this is an interesting discussion: At what point have you completely abandoned any pretext of ethical behavior, and sold your soul to be first on a story?

ESPN reporter tweets player's medical charts, and ethical questions erupt - Jul. 8, 2015

To me it depends on how Schefter acquired the records. If, as appears most likely, he got the records from a medical professional who was prohibited by HIPAA from disclosing them, I think what he did is grossly unethical. He's profiting from someone's breach of a legal duty to keep protected health information confidential. It's as if he obtained the records from someone who broke into JPP's house and stole the records out of his filing cabinet. That's just slimy, imo.

If he obtained the records from someone who obtained them legally, then it's a close call. But it's hard to imagine how that might have happened. What, did JPP's garbage man find the records in the trash can on the curb, and call up Adam Schefter to let him know what he'd found? Seems pretty unlikely.

 

[pkt77242]

Schefter's going to end up in court on behalf of his source I bet... unless the Mothership finds a way to shield him, which I wouldn't doubt.

But what happens if the NFLPA targets him? Or the Giants themselves?

Can the courts really force him to give up his source? My guess is that the hospital will find out who accessed the record, and fire them. Hoping to avoid getting sued themselves.

 

[Grahambo]

Not violating the law doesn't excuse the fact that it was a slime ball move. Extremely low.

So fed up with the protected media and their bullshit.

 

[IrishLion]

Can the courts really force him to give up his source? My guess is that the hospital will find out who accessed the record, and fire them. Hoping to avoid getting sued themselves.

My apologies, I meant that his source will end up in court and that he'll get dragged into it if he reached out and convinced or persuaded someone to leak the records.

 

[woolybug25]

What I don't get, is why did Schefter show a pic of the actual record? Simply reporting that his "sources" had informed him of the amputation would have accomplished the same thing. All with far less scrutiny.

But I'm sure that scummy people can be oblivious of their their poor behavior.

It was incredible breach of journalistic ethic.

 

[Irish#1]

Did ESPN violate HIPAA rules by posting Jason Pierre-Paul's medical records? | NJ.com

This article does a pretty good job of explaining it.

Don't want to be argumentative, but that article doesn't really delve deep into the HIPAA laws. I may be wrong, but I won't be surprised if either Schefter or ESPN have to answer to this.

 

[Emcee77]

What I don't get, is why did Schefter show a pic of the actual record? Simply reporting that his "sources" had informed him of the amputation would have accomplished the same thing. All with far less scrutiny.

But I'm sure that scummy people can be oblivious of their their poor behavior.

It was incredible breach of journalistic ethic.

Right, I was wondering the same thing. There was no reason he had to take the extra step of showing the document to the whole world.

 

[Emcee77]

Don't want to be argumentative, but that article doesn't really delve deep into the HIPAA laws. I may be wrong, but I won't be surprised if either Schefter or ESPN have to answer to this.

ESPN did not violate HIPAA by publishing the document. If it was a medical professional who gave the document to Schefter, that person violated HIPAA.

Like I said above, it's as if Schefter obtained the information from someone who broke into JPP's house and stole it; it's NOT as if Schefter himself broke into JPP's house (to the extent there is any distinction to be made there).

 

[kmoose]

ESPN did not violate HIPAA by publishing the document. If it was a medical professional who gave the document to Schefter, that person violated HIPAA.

Like I said above, it's as if Schefter obtained the information from someone who broke into JPP's house and stole it; it's NOT as if Schefter himself broke into JPP's house (to the extent there is any distinction to be made there).

But Schefter WOULD be guilty of receiving stolen property.

 

[pkt77242]

Don't want to be argumentative, but that article doesn't really delve deep into the HIPAA laws. I may be wrong, but I won't be surprised if either Schefter or ESPN have to answer to this.

I understand, but it doesn't have to delve deep into HIPAA because HIPAA doesn't cover journalists. It just has a lawyer saying that it doesn't apply to ESPN and Douchebag Schefter.

 

[Crazy Balki]

I don't think so, the law coversion healthea re workers and hospitals/clinics, etc. Now the hospital will most likely get sued.

Why does it seem like every problem ends with the hospital getting sued?

 

[no.1IrishFan]

Why does it seem like every problem ends with the hospital getting sued?

You have no idea. As an RN, half of my job is completely useless protocols that provide little, if any, actual medical benefit to my patients in an attempt to avoid lawsuits.

 

[GoIrish41]

But Schefter WOULD be guilty of receiving stolen property.

If the reporters who released records taken by Snowden were not charged, they will not even give Shefter a thought. Scummy move, but he will not be found guilty of anything.

 

[IrishInFl]

The worker that leaked the info will almost certainly be fired. I don't know the law, but I wouldn't be surprised to see ESPN get in trouble as an accessory or accomplice.

I audit pharmacies. Disclosing patients information without their consent breaks HIPPA laws. It's, like, REALLY illegal.

 

[phgreek]

...some things that don't make sense to me...

Lets assume the ESPN reporter coerced the images from a medical professional. Isn't the act of acquiring those records with some sort of enticement / coercion illegal...ie forethought to induce someone to break the law? Since the story could have been covered w/o pics, how is ESPN out of the water from a legal perspective?

BTW...if I'm an NFL player, I give the ESPN reporter the "Beast Mode" treatment...as a player you simply can't allow this kind of crap to go on w/o repercussions.

 

[kmoose]

...some things that don't make sense to me...

Lets assume the ESPN reporter coerced the images from a medical professional. Isn't the act of acquiring those records with some sort of enticement / coercion illegal...ie forethought to induce someone to break the law? Since the story could have been covered w/o pics, how is ESPN out of the water from a legal perspective?

BTW...if I'm an NFL player, I give the ESPN reporter the "Beast Mode" treatment...as a player you simply can't allow this kind of crap to go on w/o repercussions.

But that's assuming that half of them are smart enough to even think of that, in the first place...

 

[ndcoltsfan2010]

Not violating the law doesn't excuse the fact that it was a slime ball move. Extremely low.

So fed up with the protected media and their bullshit.

AMEN!!!

 

[NDinL.A.]

I like Shefter and enjoy his inside scoops.

But if this is as it appears to be, what a stupid, idiotic, slimy, unethical thing to do. Sad to see...

 

[irishff1014]

I audit pharmacies. Disclosing patients information without their consent breaks HIPPA laws. It's, like, REALLY illegal.

Correct and you could give a little detail and still get in a ton of trouble and cause a headache for yourself.

 

[no.1IrishFan]

What I don't understand is what was in it for the healthcare worker?

A blatent HIPPA violation like that will not only mean their job, but probably their career. Every single thing I do on a hospital computer is monitored and recorded. Every single patient file and page.
The hospital will easily find who did this, and after they fire them, will certainly report them to the board of nursing who will then pull their license indefinitely.
Career in healthcare OVER.