Police Get Medical Records without a Warrant

More unconstrained surveillance:

Lawmakers noted the pharmacies’ policies for releasing medical records in a letter dated Tuesday to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra. The letter—signed by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), and Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.)—said their investigation pulled information from briefings with eight big prescription drug suppliers.

They include the seven largest pharmacy chains in the country: CVS Health, Walgreens Boots Alliance, Cigna, Optum Rx, Walmart Stores, Inc., The Kroger Company, and Rite Aid Corporation. The lawmakers also spoke with Amazon Pharmacy.

All eight of the pharmacies said they do not require law enforcement to have a warrant prior to sharing private and sensitive medical records, which can include the prescription drugs a person used or uses and their medical conditions. Instead, all the pharmacies hand over such information with nothing more than a subpoena, which can be issued by government agencies and does not require review or approval by a judge.

Three pharmacies—­CVS Health, The Kroger Company, and Rite Aid Corporation—­told lawmakers they didn’t even require their pharmacy staff to consult legal professionals before responding to law enforcement requests at pharmacy counters. According to the lawmakers, CVS, Kroger, and Rite Aid said that “their pharmacy staff face extreme pressure to immediately respond to law enforcement demands and, as such, the companies instruct their staff to process those requests in store.”

The rest of the pharmacies—­Amazon, Cigna, Optum Rx, Walmart, and Walgreens Boots Alliance­—at least require that law enforcement requests be reviewed by legal professionals before pharmacists respond. But, only Amazon said it had a policy of notifying customers of law enforcement demands for pharmacy records unless there were legal prohibitions to doing so, such as a gag order.

Tags: , , , ,

Posted on December 18, 2023 at 10:37 AM • 11 Comments

Comments

Allen • December 18, 2023 10:52 AM

If they big companies do that, makes me wonder what the local pharmacies do. The “at pharmacy counter” blows my mind.

Clive Robinson • December 18, 2023 2:20 PM

@ Bruce,

It’s not just a US problem…

Remember “Walgreens Boots Alliance” have been pushing into the UK “National Health Service”(NHS) and have replaced many independent “Hospital Pharmacyies”.

Also the Current UK Political Incumbents see no problem with just giving the entire UK Population to a very deaply suspect organisation Palantir,

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/nov/20/nhs-england-gives-key-role-in-handling-patient-data-to-us-spy-tech-firm-palantir

The boss of whom –Major Trump supporting Geof Tiel who got let in during C19 by Trump Enamoured Ex UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson– is hell bent on the destruction of the NHS to be replaced by a worse than US system…

For those that do not know Palantir’s major speciality is taking any and all US law Enforcment and Inteligence Agency data and “repackaging it”… The aim being to replace human police detectives and inteligence analysts with AI systems.

For obvious reaaons getting a toe into the UK Health Service Records opens up the records of every patient that has ever gone through the NHS which includes many US Citizens and European Citizens, and is seen by some as a way around EU Data protection legislation.

TexasDex • December 18, 2023 2:24 PM

“their pharmacy staff face extreme pressure to immediately respond to law enforcement demands and, as such, the companies instruct their staff to process those requests in store.”

This sounds to me like ‘protecting our employees from overly aggressive cops, rather than protecting our customers from them’.

The Third Party Doctrine was a bad idea even when it was first thought of, now it’s an absurd truck-sized loophole in privacy law.

PaulBart • December 18, 2023 2:58 PM

@TexasDex Well, Third Party Doctrine states voluntary information. Wonder if state-mandates imposed on medical professions requiring patient self-disclosure of personal information is considered voluntary, by the courts, by the corporations, and by law enforcement officials.

@Cliff Orange man bad, comrade. If only the right (or left depending on one’s persuasion) people were in control of an all powerful centralized bureaucracy, all would be well with the world and a new worker’s paradise could be obtained.

ResearcherZero • December 19, 2023 2:28 AM

@HIPAAcratic Oath

It’s a common excuse given for not properly following up and investigating things, even when given permission by the very individuals requesting said investigation of their own personal circumstances. “No we cannot investigate because of medical privacy laws.”

“In that case I’m going to go ahead and give you my full permission to investigate.”

–

Clarity in Crisis.

The body itself, like the body politic, responds slowly to a rise or fall in outside temperature, junk engagement, junk information, and junk food. It becomes hyperthermic, hyperglycemic, dehydrated, lethargic, slow to respond to stimuli, even hyperosmolar (the blood at least). Private details, being private, if can be accessed without a warrant can then be accessed also with authorisation and with permission.

FBI could investigate, with other agencies present to redact personal or classified information if required, and release a report that documents incidents prior to 2016 —which did not occur in Cuba.

As incidents are noted as occurring before 2016, it is not plausible that the incidents were first reported in 2016 and that no knowledge regarding these incidents exists before 2016. Better to be acknowledge these earlier incidents. Of course technical and operational details can be redacted, along with personally identifiable information, as this happens all the time. If need be, the exact names, dates and locations can be redacted as well.

An overview of what took place can presented without compromising operations or procedures.

The circulatory system itself is a little slow itself to respond to very small and rapid fluctuations in skin surface temperature, even when such changes are minute. Slow on the uptake one might say. This is to be expected if no one had all the details at the time.

‘https://revealnews.org/podcast/havana-syndrome-update-2023/

“In addition to providing guidance on primary care management for commonly occurring symptoms such as headache, dizziness, sleep, and cognitive complaints, the PRA tool also provides specialty referral guidelines.”

‘https://health.mil/Reference-Center/Reports/2023/01/13/Anomalous-Health-Incidents-Havana-Syndrome

ResearcherZero • December 19, 2023 2:55 AM

You can extrapolate a number of things. Time and place, line of sight, won’t fit in a single suitcase due to power requirements, output must of traveled in straight lines, and obviously someone has been eavesdropping. They were after more than just the soup recipe.

Andy • December 19, 2023 1:08 PM

@HIPAAcratic OAth: Laws exempt law enforcement… Per the article:

The lawmakers note that the pharmacies aren’t violating regulations under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). The pharmacies pointed to language in HIPAA regulations that allow health care providers, including pharmacists, to provide medical records if required by law, with subpoenas being a sufficient legal process for such a request. However, the lawmakers note that the HHS has discretion in determining the legal standard here—that is, it has the power to strengthen the regulation to require a warrant, which the lawmakers say it should do.

Grima Squeakersen • December 19, 2023 5:00 PM

Divulging this information at the local pharmacy counter, with an announced primary objective of minimizing employee stress, leads me to wonder about the quality of vetting of the subpeonas and id presented. Could someone’s medical data be lifted by an imposter with Photoshop skills who invested an hour in forging such documents? Is the pharma corporate office adequately auditing these local requests and fulfillments, even after the fact? If not, how would it be possible to ascertain that the local druggist or counter clerk is even requesting valid authorization before handing over information?

JT • January 15, 2024 11:33 AM

While I am fortunately not taking any prescription drugs, should I need them, the information in this article will spur me to get them filled at a small local pharmacy. Not that I’m doing anything illegal, but it is sad how quickly corporate America is to hand your data out like candy.

Leave a comment

Login

Allowed HTML <a href="URL"> • <em> <cite> <i> • <strong> <b> • <sub> <sup> • <ul> <ol> <li> • <blockquote> <pre> Markdown Extra syntax via https://michelf.ca/projects/php-markdown/extra/

Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.