HIPAA Changes to Comply With NICS

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by Bigcountry02, Apr 26, 2013.

  1. Bigcountry02

    Bigcountry02 Coffee! If your not shaking, you need another cup Supporter

    7,238
    38
    48
    Watch the video:

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhHING_V-_I&list=UUD15YB4ISHGoUZz0_p0Qqew&index=3"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhHING_V-_I&list=UUD15YB4ISHGoUZz0_p0Qqew&index=3[/ame]

    Obama administration moves to remove barriers to firearm background check reporting

    http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2013pres/04/20130419a.html

    Today, as part of President Obama’s common sense plan to reduce gun violence, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius initiated a rulemaking process to remove unnecessary legal barriers under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule that may prevent states from reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which is the database that houses information on individuals prohibited by law from possessing firearms. This is one of the 23 executive actions the President announced in the wake of the Newtown tragedy to protect our children and our communities from gun violence.

    The NICS was created by the Brady Act and ensures that guns are not sold to those prohibited by law from buying them, including felons, those convicted of domestic violence, and individuals involuntarily committed to a mental institution or found to be a danger or unable to manage their affairs due to a mental health condition.

    While this background check system is the most efficient and effective way to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals, it is only as effective as the information that is available to it. According to a 2012 Government Accountability Office report, 17 states had submitted fewer than 10 records of individuals prohibited for mental health reasons.

    Today, the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) plans to issue an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) to ask for the public’s input on how HIPAA may prevent some states from reporting to the NICS and ways in which these barriers can be addressed without discouraging individuals from seeking mental health services.

    “In order to protect our children and communities, we must ensure that information on potentially dangerous individuals who are prohibited from possessing firearms is available to the background check system,” said Secretary Sebelius. “At the same time, it is important to note that the vast majority of Americans with mental health conditions are not violent and that those with mental illness are in fact more likely to be victims than perpetrators. We do not want to discourage individuals who need help from seeking mental health services, and our actions will be carefully tailored to ensure patient confidentiality as well as public health and safety.”

    “Through the public comment process, we will use the data and information provided by states, health providers, patient advocates and others to determine how best to remove unnecessary barriers to NICS reporting while protecting patient privacy,” said OCR Director Leon Rodriguez.

    The database that houses non-criminal justice information on individuals prohibited from possessing firearms for reasons related to mental health – called the NICS Index – does not contain medical or mental health records. If an individual is prohibited from purchasing a firearm due to specific mental health reasons as set by law, the following information is submitted to the NICS: (1) basic identifying information about the individual such as name, social security number, and date of birth, (2) the name of the state or federal agency that submitted the information, and (3) a notation on which of the ten prohibited categories is applicable to the individual, which allows the individual to appeal and seek to correct incomplete or inaccurate information if needed.

    When federally licensed firearms dealers request a NICS background check for a potential buyer, the only information they get back is that the potential buyer is approved, denied, or additional investigation is needed. The dealer does not receive any information about why an individual is denied and does not ever have access to any records of potential buyers, including health records.
     
  2. orangello

    orangello New Member

    19,156
    0
    0
    Could be a good safety net against the crazies; could be a good tool for subjugating the insolent innocents seeking to remain free.
     

  3. HockaLouis

    HockaLouis New Member

    3,617
    0
    0
    I wrote on this here previously. It seems like the right thing to do on the face of it to have the NICS work as intended, and if not abused, including stopping some crazies.

    It didn't happen sooner (like early January when this Executive Order was actually signed), until after the Senate failed to pass the Universal and then Expanded Background Check, because the White House NEEDS crazies with guns to drive their agenda (like the national gun registration they were planning). But now, after his biggest defeat in office yet, Hussein Obama can say "better late than never" as he single-handedly exposes and battles the evil Congress/NRA conspiracy with the victims of Sandy Hook families in the photo's background. For the kids, ya know...
     
  4. anm2_man

    anm2_man Member

    504
    2
    18
    The big question is who is control of your medical records after the info is sent to NCIS and if there was a mistake, how the hell to you get off of the NCIS system ?
     
  5. opaww

    opaww New Member

    4,868
    0
    0
    Will your medical Dr. be able to decide you need to be on the list just because you told a bad joke in his office one day?
     
  6. orangello

    orangello New Member

    19,156
    0
    0
    What Doctor? I haven't seen a doctor in a couple of years, and I try to never see the same one twice.


    Oh, wait; maybe you mean the doctors we will be herded to by osamacare incentives. Yep, that could suck; I will play mute, drunk mute.
     
  7. FullautoUSA

    FullautoUSA Welcoming Committee/ Resident Pellet Gunner Lifetime Supporter

    2,627
    1
    0
    My biggest concern with this is, what gets one on the list? Does this mean that anyone who takes medication goes on the list? What about people with mental "illnesses" that don't really do anything, like ADHD?
     
  8. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    2
    0
    should people with mental health issues be denied the possession of firearms? yes they should. they could be a danger to themselves or others.

    should your private Dr. have to report to some agency about your mental health? hell no! should a person be placed on some list just because of the medication they are taking? hell no!

    but what i do see, is that if they start trying to invade the privacy of the patient, then it could drive people away from seeking the help they need.

    if a person is committed for mental illness based on their actions by a judge involuntarily, then those records could be provided to the NCIS.

    mental health issues are tricky subject and yes they need a clear defintion as to who can or can't possess a firearm. but it should not be any government agency or any political entity making those decisions for us. it needs to be people who have complete objectivity in the matter.
     
  9. 7point62

    7point62 Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    2,188
    0
    0
    This is going to do nothing but generate lawsuits. I'm against any additional gun control on principle. The existing laws are enough provided they are enforced.
     
  10. MisterMcCool

    MisterMcCool Well-Known Member Supporter

    12,828
    150
    63
    If talking to a doctor about depression could get us branded as crazy on some government list, would any of us ask a doctor for help when we need it? Sometimes drugs can help people get over depression after a divorce, death, postpartum, etc.
     
  11. MisterMcCool

    MisterMcCool Well-Known Member Supporter

    12,828
    150
    63
    And as long as we are deciding whom should be left unarmed and defenseless, how about the handicapped or poor or elderly or immigrants or women or???
     
  12. opaww

    opaww New Member

    4,868
    0
    0
    They will be able to say if you own or want to own a gun you have a mental problem, they been trying this for a few years.
     
  13. mdauben

    mdauben New Member

    441
    0
    0
    Actually, this is an unconscionable invasion of doctor/patient confidentiality guaranteed to both deny people who pose no actual threat their constitutional rights but also to drive people in real need of psychiatric help into not seeking it for fear of their doctors narcing them out.

    We have a legal process for declaring people a danger to themselves and society. If people are determined BY A COURT to be mentally unfit, with ample chance to argue their competence, THEN they should be listed as "Prohibited Persons" not on the word of one healthcare provider who may have his own biases in the matter.
     
  14. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    2
    0
    not in the least. my definition of mental health issues that would disallow possession would be those that have tendencies towards violent episodes, or are classified as a danger to themselves or others.

    my main issue is that i don't feel any government agency is what needs to be deciding on this issue. nor requiring a doctor to report his patient to some agency when he comes to his family doctor, because he hs depression over such things a job loss, the loos of a loved one, or is having a hard time coping with a divorce or other drastic change in their life.

    i surely don't have all the answers on this subject, and surely am not near qualified to even have most of the answers, but i know that i don't feel the government needs to have involvement in this issue by any means.
     
  15. MisterMcCool

    MisterMcCool Well-Known Member Supporter

    12,828
    150
    63
  16. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    2
    0
    Mdaben is saying what i was trying to convey. there are legal proceedings for this. in this scenario, they are also represented by an attorney, so that their legal rights are observed. they interview witness' who usually are doctors and mental health doctors. then a judge makes a determination in the case.
     
  17. MisterMcCool

    MisterMcCool Well-Known Member Supporter

    12,828
    150
    63
    Says the man whose signature is "crazy as an outhouse rat." ;)
     
  18. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    2
    0
    i am in good company here though!:D
     
  19. WebleyFosbery38

    WebleyFosbery38 New Member

    7,510
    0
    0
    “In order to protect our children and communities, we must ensure that information on potentially dangerous individuals who are prohibited from possessing firearms is available to the background check system,”

    Wow, Potentially dangerous Individuals must be really stupid as well as being unstable. Cant buy a legal gun so I guess were safe from them huh? They wouldnt think about using anything but a legal gun to kill people would they?

    I sure hope I never suspect I have a mental Illness cause I can tell you I would not seek counseling knowing full well that my privacy is no longer mine and someone might decide I could be dangerous if I wasnt their idea of the good citizen.

    Funny how were discussing why Terrorists should be awarded Constitutional Rights at the same time were losing ours, how ironic is that?
     
  20. Millwright

    Millwright Member

    149
    0
    16
    Hippa

    I'm not against the intent of this concept. I do however, feel adamant, any such restriction of an "inalienable right", (temporary or permanent) ought to be conducted in a court, not at the dubious "discretion", of a local prosecutor or LEO.

    The history of "mass shootings", all exhibit very similar characteristics; i.e. the "perp" exhibited a history of anti-social behaviors that were noted by people in direct contact. For various reasons the "system" ( mostly established by hoplophobic progressives ) failed to provide both LE and firearms sellers - via the NICS - with adequate information that could have prevented acquisition of arms via legitimate sources. IOW, the "nanny government" mentality - as espoused by Sen. Feinstein, et al - failed !

    But now, (true to progressive formula ) their failure has morphed - in the "spin machine" - into ours. >MW