NP discusses MJ on national TV ????

SweetOldWorld, BSN, RN · Jul 3, 2009

I'm not sure if what this NP did was a HIPAA violation, but I am glad to see light being shed on these "boutique doctors" who will give prescriptions for anything and everything their rich clients desire. To me, that's far worse than violating HIPAA, and I want to start seeing some doctors being held accountable for giving out narcotics and other dangerous drugs like they are candy.

Lenee925 · Jul 3, 2009

i think she just wants to jump on the MJ bandwagon and get famous. i really do ..

I don't really think so. I gathered that she risking speaking out because she didn't want him being portrayed as a junkie looking to score but a man who needed rest for a 50-concert tour. Also considering all the plastic surgery MJ's had he could have developed a desire to 'fade into the black' of anesthesia.

From the article: "He wasn't looking to get high or feel good and sedated from drugs," she said. "This was a person who was not on drugs. This was a person who was seeking help, desperately, to get some sleep, to get some rest."

Pierrette · Jul 3, 2009

if i am reading it correctly, if the nurse does not conduct any of her business via electronic form, then she is not obligated by hipaa regs??
anyone else reading it as i do?
leslie

you are close to reading it correctly. if the nurse does not transmit protected health information electronically, then she is not covered by hipaa privacy regulations.

i don't getr it.
if this is true then privacy is not the purpose of hipaa.
privacy is only 1/5 of hipaa.
so if i care for a patient in the home and was hired by word of mouth i can tell a tabloid about the patient?
if the patient writes you a check for your services and there is no electronic transmission of patient information, then yeah. but you may be in violation of state and local laws.
of course it is morally and ethically wrong but is it illegal?

the original question was concerning hipaa. hipaa does not forbid a directly-paid nurse, not using electronic transmission of protected health information, from blabbing. but likely state and local laws do.

folks tend to think of hipaa as the end-all of privacy regulations. in fact, hipaa just sets a minimum standard that is not unreasonable at all, in that it more or less says, "you got to do at least this much (concerning privacy)". state and local laws are likely more stringent than is hipaa.

nerdtonurse?, BSN, RN · Jul 3, 2009

Re: access to diprovan

I asked one of the docs on the floor last night (he was venting about MJ and the diprovan) just how easy/hard it would be to get your hands on diprovan He said that while he could get a lot of different drugs with no problem at all, it pretty much had to be an anesthesiologist or nurse anesth. to get their hands on diprovan thru regular channels. (Not talking about someone swiping a vial or diverting). And that now that the DEA's involved, someone is going down hard.

He also said that folks like MJ can corrupt even a well meaining doc/nurse -- I mean, suppose you have a pt that opens a suitcase full of cash, and says, "Give me diprovan, and here's a 100 thou, cash, tax free, to monitor me for one night." You're going to find someone who will do it, someone with unpaid child support/alimony, or who's investments belly up'd and they've got kids in Ivy league schools who are needing the next tuition check...Not saying it's right, just saying I could see it happening very easily.

DolceVita, ADN, BSN, RN · Jul 3, 2009

There are specific regulations that determine who is covered by HIPAA.
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/hipaageninfo/downloads/coveredentitycharts.pdf

Indeed but long before HIPAA there were in fact privacy laws.

augiebear · Jul 4, 2009

as everyone is probably aware, michael jackson passed away last week and there have been rumors of possible misuse of drugs, particularly a sedative used in surgery called diprivan. a nurse of mr. jackson was on cnn talking about a conversation she had with him and that he wanted the drug to sleep. is this even legal? i would think this is directly violating hipaa regardless of whether or not the patient is dead or if she is still an employee. i think that charges should be filed against this woman if in fact, she is violating privacy and confidentiality laws. what do you guys think about this?

here is a excerpt from fox news:

the powerful sedative propofol-also known as diprivan-was among several narcotics found in michael jackson's rented suburban los angeles mansion, a law enforcement source tells foxnews.com.

given intravenously, propofol is used as part of inducing general anesthesia in the operating room, and for heavy sedation of patients who are intubated in the intensive care unit.

cherilyn lee, a nurse who worked for jackson, claims the pop star begged her for the drug, and that just four days before his death, a member of jackson's staff called and said "'michael needs to see you right away." she says she heard michael in the background saying, "one side of my body is hot, it's hot, and one side of my body is cold. it's very cold."

lee's description of jackson's condition mirrors a 2007 fda alert to healthcare professionals detailing "several clusters of patients who have experienced chills, fever, and body aches shortly after receiving propofol for sedation or general anesthesia."

lee insisted she did not provide jackson with the drug. "he wasn't looking to get high or feel good and sedated from drugs," she said. "this was a person who was not on drugs. this was a person who was seeking help, desperately, to get some sleep, to get some rest."

for full article go to: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529967,00.html

avidhunter3 · Jul 4, 2009

I completely think that "IF" what this nurse states is true, she should be charged. I cannot imagine getting on national television and completely violating Hipaa like that! BUT I kinda think its her "fifteen minutes of fame" kinda thing. I mean she was his nurse 4 years ago, and hadnt seen him since then. Then suddenly a day before he dies shes talking to him again? It could be true, but I just think theres more to it than shes claiming, although I DO think he probably died from a drug OD. :cry:

joyouter · Jul 4, 2009

Apart from ´lack of ethics* to preserve patient confidentiality, the real question remains *Was an MD notified or consulted when these symptoms were reported by the patient or his assistant?*

It is known that superstars are often complex cases, based upon media intrusion and the need to preserve notoriety, whether by the star or the press ( profit motivated) BUT What action did the nurse specialist actually take?*

epiphany · Jul 4, 2009

I do think it's immoral and disrespectful to talk about a person who is dead, especially for the purpose of being on TV - I won't be surprised if she was paid.

Having said that, that's not what Hipaa law is intended to protect. We need to be more educated on the intention of the Hipaa law, as well as it the ramifications of breaking it. Besides which, it is protection against a civil crime, ie, the person who has been hurt would be the person to sue you. That would preclude a dead person.

Not singling you out, as I would agree that it's really unprofessional and gives us such bad name for her to be mouthing off. Just saying we have to know what we are talking about or we'll loose our authority.

Ginger's Mom, MSN, RN · Jul 4, 2009

She was also on CNN, she has is NP, and works in Nutrition Counseling. I agree she is really over the edge.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090701/ap_on_en_mu/us_michael_jackson_drugs

Ron Houston · Jul 4, 2009

I think as a nurse she should have reported the misuse of the drug to the proper authorities. Her credibility is lost when she goes on national tv after the fact. If she knew that Mr. Jackson was doing what she claims she as a nurse had an obligation to report it. If she had done this it may have saved his life.

avidhunter3 · Jul 4, 2009

i do think it's immoral and disrespectful to talk about a person who is dead, especially for the purpose of being on tv - i won't be surprised if she was paid.
having said that, that's not what hipaa law is intended to protect. we need to be more educated on the intention of the hipaa law, as well as it the ramifications of breaking it. besides which, it is protection against a civil crime, ie, the person who has been hurt would be the person to sue you. that would preclude a dead person.
not singling you out, as i would agree that it's really unprofessional and gives us such bad name for her to be mouthing off. just saying we have to know what we are talking about or we'll loose our authority.

from what i have read, and understood from my hospital orientation, it is violating hipaa to give his specific medical information out to the general public. here is an excerpt concerning hipaa:

the bottom line, however, is that hippa was intended to protect patients, and to do so in four main ways: to ensure health insurance portability (hence the name, the "health insurance portability and accountability act"), to address fraud and abuse in healthcare, to ensure privacy and security of individuals' health and medical information

, and to standardize the handling of that information and to enforce those standards.

medical consumers should know their basic rights under hipaa. they include that one's medical information cannot, without permission, be shared with one's employer or be used for advertising or marketing. also, private notes about one's mental health counseling sessions cannot be shared with out permission.

on the other hand, hipaa expressly allows that one's medical information can be used and shared for the following:

to facilitate and coordinate treatment and care.

to pay doctors and hospitals for your health care.

to provide information to your family, relatives, or friends who are involved with either your health care, or your health care bills (unless you object).

to make sure that doctors give good care.

to make sure that nursing home are clean and safe.

to protect the public health; and

to make required reports to the police, such as reporting a wound from a weapon.

while this may seem like a long list of people to whom, and circumstances under which, your private medical information may be disclosed, remember that it is the exception and not the rule. nearly all other scenarios require your health care professionals to keep your medical information private, and if they don't, they may have violated the hipaa law.

taken from http://www.dearesq.com/hipaa-law-not-hippa-law-or-hippo-law-intended-to-protect-patients/

here is another:

protected health information. the privacy rule protects all "individually identifiable health information" held or transmitted by a covered entity or its business associate, in any form or media, whether electronic, paper, or oral. the privacy rule calls this information "protected health information (phi)."12

"individually identifiable health information" is information, including demographic data, that relates to:

the individual's past, present or future physical or mental health or condition,
the provision of health care to the individual, or
the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to the individual,

and that identifies the individual or for which there is a reasonable basis to believe it can be used to identify the individual.13 individually identifiable health information includes many common identifiers (e.g., name, address, birth date, social security number).

the privacy rule excludes from protected health information employment records that a covered entity maintains in its capacity as an employer and education and certain other records subject to, or defined in, the family educational rights and privacy act, 20 u.s.c. 1232g.

taken from http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/summary/index.html

she is disclosing information that was obtained from him while she was his active nurse (4 years ago). specific information relating to him and stating that information to the general public, who has no right to know, unless the information is made public through a court of law.