Using prescription drug database to deny 2a rights: is this possible?


PDA






Highland Ranger
January 7, 2013, 09:14 AM
Or tin foil hat territory?

http://www.naturalnews.com/038573_prescription_drugs_surveillance_constitutional_rights.html

If you enjoyed reading about "Using prescription drug database to deny 2a rights: is this possible?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
CharlieDeltaJuliet
January 7, 2013, 09:23 AM
I would not put anything past the government.

Bubbles
January 7, 2013, 09:27 AM
In the wake of the Heller and McDonald decisions one of the few ways remaining to expand gun control is to broaded the definition of "prohibited person". I predicted two ways that would happen: 1) misdemeanor convictions and 2) diagnoses of certain mental illnesses.

I actually thought #1 would occur first as there is a lot of pressure from the medical community against #2; the concern is that people who truly do need help would not seek it out if they were worried that their gun rights would be stripped away as a result.

MErl
January 7, 2013, 09:34 AM
yeah that doesn't make alot of sense. Why penalize those that actually seek and are getting treatment.

The is no requirement to actually make sense of course but that proposal would do more harm than good. It would actively drive people away from treatment.

Highland Ranger
January 7, 2013, 09:58 AM
My only thought would be it might short circuit larger more sweeping changes - since this would "fix" the sandy hook problem, they couldn't then go for an outright ban of all semi autos or the like.

Guess it depends on how well they remember 1994 and 2000 elections.

JFtheGR8
January 7, 2013, 09:58 AM
I believe that would violate the Dr/patient confidentiality agreement since prescription drugs have to be ordered by a Dr for a patient. Your healthcare information is protected by the health information portability act.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

mgmorden
January 7, 2013, 10:13 AM
Your healthcare information is protected by the health information portability act.

Any action here would require new legislation anyways, and new legislation can modify previous legislation or just repeal it. Actual constitutional amendments thankfully aren't as easily worked around, but outside of that existing laws are NEVER protection against new laws.

Drail
January 7, 2013, 10:19 AM
Oh sure, you might be a dangerous person because you are taking drugs prescribed by a Govt. licensed physician, dispensed by a Govt. licensed pharmacist and manufactured by a Govt. licensed and inspected pharmaceutical company and all under the watchful eye of the Drug Enforcement Agency......But none of them are responsible. Oh no. YOU are the problem.:banghead: See how all of this works to protect you? Over prescribing of drugs that can have an completely unknown effect on millions of people for simple monetary profit is one of the biggest problems we have in this country. That and "Ask your doctor about...." direct marketing to consumers who have no idea what they are doing. Now shut up and watch this video of a pretty butterfly flying into your bedroom. It's all about money. Who cares how many people we screw up or how many people they injure? We're getting rich!!!!

12Bravo20
January 7, 2013, 12:44 PM
I could see that back firing IE. law suits since a lot of anti depressant drugs are also used/prescribed for chronic pain such as arthritis and fibromyalgia.

JFtheGR8
January 7, 2013, 12:57 PM
Quote:

Your healthcare information is protected by the health information portability act.

Any action here would require new legislation anyways, and new legislation can modify previous legislation or just repeal it. Actual constitutional amendments thankfully aren't as easily worked around, but outside of that existing laws are NEVER protection against new laws.

Just tell ALL of America their healthcare information will no longer be safe and see what the reaction will be. Yeah, I'm pretty sure your visits to the Dr and your prescribed treatment will remain confidential. You're entering a whole new territory with that one.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

armoredman
January 7, 2013, 01:04 PM
I'm sorry, but I thought fed.gov already got their hooks into our private medical information with Obamacare and the old Patriot Act?
As for gun owners refusing treatment due to possible loss of rights, well, look at it from an anti's point of view. This means that more "gun violence" will occur, which will prove gun owners aren't getting the treatment they need, which may lead to a diagnosis of gun ownership as a mental aberration, (there was a study once that labeled coffee drinkers as suffering from a mental disorder), or simply the crocodile teared plea, "we KNOW they need help, and the only way to make them get it is to take those nasty guns away! It's for the children AND the parents!"

Frank Ettin
January 7, 2013, 01:12 PM
What a bunch of garbage.

First, notice the source of the "article." It's a website that promotes "natural", unregulated remedies (i. e., drugs). The message is clear: don't use prescription drugs, use natural, unregulated drugs. In other words, the "article" is self-serving claptrap.

Second, note that in the article the author admits in the first paragraph:...the actual text of the bill is not yet available to the public,...Nonetheless, he goes on to describe what the law could do and how it could work. That simply can not be properly done without the actual text of the law. The article is just a bunch of speculation to promote the author's agenda.

Third, while there are programs in place in connection with the payment by third parties of medical expenses to monitor prescription usage, that data is used to protect patients against adverse drug interactions and identify possible drug abuse -- both useful functions. HIPAA confidentiality rules would prevent the use of that data for the nefarious purposes described in the article. It's true that the privacy rules could be changed, but does anyone have any evidence that a change in those privacy rule has actually been proposed?

Davek1977
January 7, 2013, 01:20 PM
Natural News often crossposts with Alex Jones' site infowars. If that doesn't tell you something about its credibility, I suggest you research Alex Jones a bit. His name should cause suspicion anytime its attached to "news" of ANY kind. IMO, he's a whacko who sees conspiracy in the most mundane of things, and only serves to fuel the paranoid delusional

Zoogster
January 7, 2013, 04:55 PM
since this would "fix" the sandy hook problem

That involved someone that took firearms belonging to his mother, a mother that recieved hundreds of thousands of dollars in alimony every year and had all the time and money in the world to qualify and obtain whatever firearm she wanted.
Almost any law dealing with him would not have prevented his mother from owning firearms.
Based on the alimony payments, totaling around a quarter million a year, I think this is a woman that could make her own sechedule, jump through any hoops needed, and could spend both more time and money than your average citizen to obtain something she wanted.
Any restriction capable of restricting her would restrict most of the population.



As for the OP:


It is a very real possibility that mental health records will be used to expand prohibited persons and what qualifies to prohibit someone could retroactively be changed, turning some that are not prohibited into prohibited persons.
Legally that precedent is already allowed under a misdemeanor domestic violence prohibition case reviewed by the Supreme Court. When the government declared that removing firearm rights retroactively from people that had been convicted years prior to the law, declaring it was not a punishment being retroactively applied.
Further the court has even said that in those places that don't offer a jury trial for misdemeanors because they are not considered serious enough, that loss of firearm rights as a consequence is still valid.
So someone is not even entitled to a jury trial for permanent loss of firearm rights, and loss of those firearm rights not considered serious enough to require one.
Extending these precedents it is easy to see how they could be applied to mental health prohibitions.
(Although Heller and McDonald could be used to argue that these precedents no longer apply as firearm rights are more firmly established and should take more to remove, but the result of such an argument is hard to predict.)

In fact it has been being done for some years. It is my understanding that most states did not have computerized databases that they were willing and able to send to the federal government to start getting them processed.
However some states did.
If I recall this was pushed as a result of the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre.
These are previously confidential medical records that were protected under patient physician privacy laws.
Only the records of some states were used to add many people to the prohibited category as a result, but many states were just starting to modernize thier medical records and get them in easily accessed computerized databases, and so they were expected to be added eventually but were not ready yet.


You could look up certain medication types almost exclusively used to treat serious mental illness and infer that those using them are likely being treated for certain serious things.
Unlike the article I don't think anti-depressants would be such a drug, at least anytime in the near future.
However there is certain other drugs primarily used to treat serious disorders that could be used to infer someone is a prohibited person, or locate such people from a state that has not sent mental health records to the federal government.

JohnBT
January 7, 2013, 05:43 PM
Prescribing drugs off label is commonly done and is legal. So that means knowing only the name of the drug isn't enough to determine what diagnosis was made prior to writing the prescription.

Even when prescribed on label you might not know what for. For instance Haldol is used to treat psychosis. It is also used to treat tremors, tics and other problems. My mother takes it daily at the nursing home to keep her shaking from vibrating her out of her wheelchair. She's 88 and has had severe dementia since 2005 or 2006 and just sits there.

John

Rob G
January 8, 2013, 12:14 AM
While it's possible that such a thing might be pushed for bear in mind that any attempt to create a database of prohibited persons based on either medication used or diagnosis assigned would be a violation of HIPAA. So the first thing they'd have to do would be to remove the protections currently in force to keep personal medical records confidential. If they tried to do that it wouldn't just be gun owners that would be angry, it would be every single US citizen.

I'm not sure that the politicians can afford to have 100% of the voting population mad at them.

Recon Ron
January 8, 2013, 12:20 AM
The day HIPPA is repealed is the day liberals will join our cause.


I say don't worry.

swathdiver
January 8, 2013, 01:16 AM
Or tin foil hat territory?

http://www.naturalnews.com/038573_prescription_drugs_surveillance_constitutional_rights.html
Try getting/renewing a CDL while taking insulin for diabetes...

Frank Ettin
January 8, 2013, 06:23 AM
Try getting/renewing a CDL while taking insulin for diabetes... Hardly a new thing and based on good medicine. A number of illnesses can present special risk factors for a number of activities -- such as insulin dependent diabetes or seizure disorders in the case of driving. In such cases, a physician's evaluation may be required.

bikerdoc
January 8, 2013, 06:46 AM
Virginia actually has a state drug registry that gathers info from the pharmacies not the MD.
Not sure of the mechanics but it tracks all scheduled drugs by person/drug and a photo ID is needed to pick up.
Enforcement is delegated to the VSP.

JohnBT
January 8, 2013, 08:15 AM
www.dhp.virginia.gov/dhp_programs/pmp/pmp_desc.asp

Other states do it too, and some info is shared from I've been told.

The purpose of the database is to allow prescribers and dispensers to see if a patient has been doctor shopping for, say, multiple pain med prescriptions.

"Pharmacies, non-resident pharmacies, permitted physicians, and physicians holding a permit to sell controlled substances are required to report all dispensing of any Schedule II, III, and IV controlled substances to the PMP."


A little known fact. A patient at least 18 may request a copy of their report.

johnandersonoutdoors
January 8, 2013, 09:23 AM
Recon Ron and others,

I hear what everyone is saying, but consider this. The left might be more than happy to make medical records available if Congress convinces them that it will be used to successfully reduce the number of gun owners in this country. I am sure I know at least a few who would probably like this idea if they heard it.

AirForceShooter
January 8, 2013, 10:18 AM
On insulin.
Never had a problem here renewing CCW.
CDL is another whole issue

AFS

Bubbles
January 8, 2013, 10:19 AM
The patient's exact diagnosis or the particular drug(s) prescribed would not have to be reported to NICS, only that the person was prohbited. At that point it would be up to the purchaser to appeal it.

Rob G
January 8, 2013, 02:35 PM
The patient's exact diagnosis or the particular drug(s) prescribed would not have to be reported to NICS, only that the person was prohbited.

It wouldn't fly. If you wrote it that way then you'd literally be giving health care professionals the ability to restrict a person's constitutional rights without any proof that there was a problem.

The left might be more than happy to make medical records available if Congress convinces them that it will be used to successfully reduce the number of gun owners in this country. I am sure I know at least a few who would probably like this idea if they heard it.

You probably do know a few. However most people would rather it not be public knowledge that they're clinically depressed, have attempted suicide, are anorexic, have a problem with some form of addiction...etc.. Aside from which the medical community strongly prefers that this information remain private and will fight to keep it so. Patients won't talk to us if they know we can report them to the government.

Tcruse
January 8, 2013, 02:56 PM
One of the requirements for EMR applications to be certified is to be able to give a close to real time feed of every physician encounter, including procedures and icd9/10 codes. So, even though not implemented, the ability to provide the government feed is already in place.

Fryerpower
January 8, 2013, 03:04 PM
Private? Go do some research on what the FAA is allowed to do with pilot's medical records. Yes, I know it is because it is related to the pilot applying for a medical check to verify that he/she is fit to fly, but they can go anywhere and look at anything and heaven help you if you did not tell them about it first!

Pilot's licenses are issued for life. Medicals have to be renewed periodically. I wonder when a medical "check up" is going to be required to keep my CCW/HCP...

Jim

swathdiver
January 8, 2013, 03:08 PM
Hardly a new thing and based on good medicine. A number of illnesses can present special risk factors for a number of activities -- such as insulin dependent diabetes or seizure disorders in the case of driving. In such cases, a physician's evaluation may be required.

Some folks have no problem with big government intervention. They forget that if you give them an inch, they take a mile.

Frank Ettin
January 8, 2013, 03:27 PM
Hardly a new thing and based on good medicine. A number of illnesses can present special risk factors for a number of activities -- such as insulin dependent diabetes or seizure disorders in the case of driving. In such cases, a physician's evaluation may be required.

Some folks have no problem with big government intervention. They forget that if you give them an inch, they take a mile.Nonetheless, this has been around for a very long time and is most likely not going away. If it's not acceptable to you, you can pursue avenues available under our system to change things.

And in any case, this is not an appropriate subject for discussion in this thread or on this board.

Rob G
January 8, 2013, 03:55 PM
Private? Go do some research on what the FAA is allowed to do with pilot's medical records. Yes, I know it is because it is related to the pilot applying for a medical check to verify that he/she is fit to fly, but they can go anywhere and look at anything and heaven help you if you did not tell them about it first!


Yes they can, but this is a condition of having a pilot's license and somewhere in the mounds of paperwork you sign is a form specifically granting them that permission. It's very similiar to when I held a CDL and I had to agree to turn over certain medical information so that I could verify I was fit to drive. It was a requirement of the license and I agreed to it.

Having your private medical records turned over to the government without your knowledge or consent is a whole different scenario

brnmw
January 8, 2013, 04:08 PM
Funny thing about all this... In these times we are all living in, poor times has made life much harder on many people. I myself once had a great life, job, positive attitude, etc... etc... well up until 2010 things have not been that wonderful. I have had to look at myself in the mirror and sometimes do not like what I see at times, I have wondered if maybe I may need meds to make me happier.... would it? (Don't know... but I doubt that it would, why? Because people's problems including mine can be very real and tangible.) I refuse to take prescribed pills, because I know what is wrong in my life and don't need to resort to such things. I am not crazy, suicidal, or angry in any way... just not really happy with the way things are right now, but they will get better. The real scary aspect unfortunately is that there are people that really do need medical help and won't get it... many of them do not even know they are sick, until it's too late. So for those of us who maybe need help on a temporary level and have actually gone to an MD and now are on some type of medication this could very well hurt them in the future. I hate to say it but people with more debilitating permanent mental issues.... the responsible thing would be to not ever even consider having a gun in your possession. The best part of this country should be "Innocent till proven guilty" ... not "guilty till proven innocent." With the aspect of "What med's are you on?" > "Ownership denied!" makes thing a little more sticky if you ask me, but if the treatment is powerful enough and well documented... than I can't argue with someone not being able to own a gun.

Frank Ettin
January 8, 2013, 07:23 PM
...The best part of this country should be "Innocent till proven guilty" ... not "guilty till proven innocent."... It never has been. The "innocent until proven guilty" business is not well understood and really has a very limited application.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a rather imprecise reference to the technical, legal rule describing the prosecution's burden of proof in a trial on a criminal charge. In a trail on a criminal charge, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime. The defendant in a trial on a criminal charge is presumed to be innocent, but that presumption is rebuttable if the prosecution, in the opinion of the jury, meets its burden of proof. If the prosecution fails to meet its burden of proof, the defendant is entitled to a verdict of "not guilty." And from all of that we get the nice sound bite, "innocent until proven guilty."

But that concept doesn't apply universally to other sorts of things. It has generally always been the case that, if something requires certain qualifications, it's your responsibility to show that you have those qualifications. If you want a license to lawfully drive a car on the public roads, you will need to take one of more tests and show that you satisfy whatever qualifications there are for getting (and keeping) that license. If you want a license to be a doctor, a lawyer, an accountant or engage in a number of professions or trades, you will need to demonstrate that you satisfy the requirements.

Showing that you meet required qualifications to do or have something has nothing to do with "innocent until proven guilty."

mgkdrgn
January 8, 2013, 08:19 PM
I believe that would violate the Dr/patient confidentiality agreement since prescription drugs have to be ordered by a Dr for a patient. Your healthcare information is protected by the health information portability act.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android
Unless you sign the form that they shove under your nose in every doctors office that says you will allow government agencies to share your health information.

If you just sign everything they shove at you w/o reading it ... you already have.

Frank Ettin
January 8, 2013, 08:37 PM
Unless you sign the form that they shove under your nose in every doctors office that says you will allow government agencies to share your health information.

If you just sign everything they shove at you w/o reading it ... you already have.And exactly what form would that be? How about providing us a copy of one such form.

Every form of that sort I've seen is very specific and limited about to whom the information may be disclosed and for what purposes.

zorro45
January 8, 2013, 10:06 PM
This is not tin foil hat stuff. There are at least two types of databases. One as mentioned is state- based usually by the State Dept. Public Health or State DEA to look for doctor shopping for getting multiple Schedule 2 and Schedule 3 Rxs. It is really informational, but if a doctor gets these reports and then queries the patient (and the patient lies) they are probably not getting any more Rxs for those drugs, or the prescribers will decide who will be the single prescriber so the additional doctors do not get "scammed" into providing excessive amounts of these potentially dangerous drugs.
The second database is a nationwide prescription drug database. All that is needed to access this for a particular patient is checking off a box which states that the patient has given the prescriber permission to access this. This is about 85% correct at the present time. This is used AT PRESENT for checking the patients' stated drug list against their actual prescriptions, to make sure nothing has been forgotten, checking dosages, etc. It is accessible through most of the new Electronic Medical Records which your doctors have been "incentivized" to put in place.There are also databases kept by insurers for their billing function. If you present an Rx and expect your insurance to cover it, it will probably end up in at least two of these unless it is Schedule 2 (Morphine, Percocet, etc.) or Schedule 3 (Valium, Vicodin, etc.)Then you'll be in all three.
Does this make anyone feel better? It shouldn't.

Frank Ettin
January 8, 2013, 11:52 PM
Yes, there are data bases and yes information will need to be disclosed (especially if you are expecting someone besides you to pay for your prescription drugs). But HIPAA still limits disclosure and use of that information. HIPAA would need to be changed to change the restrictions on use and disclosure.

Since the HIPAA confidentiality rules are regulations, proposed changes would have to be first published and public comment invited. Have any such changes to HIPAA been proposed?

mljdeckard
January 9, 2013, 01:14 AM
All it would be is a a way to marginalize and stigmatize mental illness, and give people who need treatment a reason not to seek it.

sonick808
January 9, 2013, 07:04 PM
saw my GP today for old man checkup. He said he would tell anyone seeking records for such a purpose to get bent. Also said that a huge number, if not a majority of physicians are at odds with the grabber tendencies of the AMA. Nice to hear.

Rob G
January 9, 2013, 07:10 PM
@Sonick808 - That is the general attitude of the entire medical community. None of them (or at least very few) would support the repeal of HIPAA or the type of privacy invasion needed to enforce this type of ban.

bushmaster1313
January 9, 2013, 10:28 PM
CDL: Commercial Driver's License?

If insulin dependent diabetics are prone to fainting (I do not know if this is true or false), it makes sense to require a doctor's note before renewing a license to drive a big truck.

Can a commercial pilot be insulin dependent?

Rob G
January 9, 2013, 11:43 PM
If insulin dependent diabetics are prone to fainting (I do not know if this is true or false), it makes sense to require a doctor's note before renewing a license to drive a big truck.

It's OT for this thread but I'll answer it. The answer is, it's quite possible. For a lot of diabetics the first sign that their glucose level is too high or too low is when it start effecting their behavior. High sugar tends to cause people to act drunk. Low sugar tends to make them pass out.

michaelbsc
January 10, 2013, 02:08 AM
It's OT for this thread but I'll answer it. The answer is, it's quite possible. For a lot of diabetics the first sign that their glucose level is too high or too low is when it start effecting their behavior. High sugar tends to cause people to act drunk. Low sugar tends to make them pass out.

And just one more OT, if you know someone is diabetic, and they're acting weird, feed them. Feed them now! Preferably something high in sugar. Candy, soda pop, lots of sugar.

If their sugar is too low, you might help a lot. And if their sugar is too high you won't do any harm.

CLP
January 10, 2013, 09:28 AM
These databases only keep tabs on scheduled drugs (opiates, sedatives, amphetamines, marinol, and other drugs of abuse). They don't collect info on mood stabilizers or antipsychotics which might be indicative of someone who's being treated for a severe mental illness. Not that it matters since the incidence of violence in the SMI population isn't significantly different than the general population (suicide is an exception, the rates are obviously higher). The group that is of concern are those with certain personality disorders that lack empathy or the ability to feel remorse (i.e. sociopaths); a group for which mood stabilizers and antipsychotics aren't really indicated or effective.

NaturalDefensiveRights
January 10, 2013, 10:01 AM
Natural News often crossposts with Alex Jones' site infowars. If that doesn't tell you something about its credibility, I suggest you research Alex Jones a bit. His name should cause suspicion anytime its attached to "news" of ANY kind. IMO, he's a whacko who sees conspiracy in the most mundane of things, and only serves to fuel the paranoid delusional

It doesn't tell me anything about its credibility since I've never come across anything that wasn't credible from infowars, except minor inaccuracies. All you can find when "researching" Alex Jones is a lot of personal attacks that don't amount to jack or squat. There's never anything of substance; just a cult of mindless hecklers that just repeat the mantra that AJ is this, or AJ is that. Reminds me of grade school.

Hollowdweller
January 10, 2013, 10:31 AM
Originally Posted by Rob G It's OT for this thread but I'll answer it. The answer is, it's quite possible. For a lot of diabetics the first sign that their glucose level is too high or too low is when it start effecting their behavior. High sugar tends to cause people to act drunk. Low sugar tends to make them pass out.

I have a buddy who is diabetic and he had some really bizarre behavior that did not involve guns but that was somewhat dangerous to himself and others.

His wife was unsure of it's origin and she had him involuntarily committed. According to him he says they discovered his blood sugar was dropping precipitously, and that was what caused it.

The NJ police were at his door not long after he went to the hospital rounding up his guns. Probably a good idea considering but yeah it can cause some wild behavior.

swathdiver
January 10, 2013, 12:16 PM
The NJ police were at his door not long after he went to the hospital rounding up his guns. Probably a good idea considering but yeah it can cause some wild behavior.

How did the police know? Were they notified by his wife who surrendered them voluntarily or by some other way. This is where it starts, here's the precidents they'll use in court. Remember after Katrina, the cops were going to law abiding citizens homes and taking their guns away in blatant violation of the constitution?

michaelbsc
January 10, 2013, 01:21 PM
And did the NJ police willingly give them back once the medical issue was resolved?

If you enjoyed reading about "Using prescription drug database to deny 2a rights: is this possible?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!