The syllabus stated, "Post a 200- to 300-word response to the following: After reading this week's Reserve Readings, make a list of at least three pros and three cons of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), including a brief explanation about each. Given the pros and cons you listed and the HIPAA information you read, is HIPAA generally a good thing? What might you change in order to improve HIPAA and eliminate some of the negative aspects?"
What is wrong with the following
essay? My facilitator took points off for not listing three pros and because she did not understand the last sentence in the thesis paragraph; she asked whether it was a pro or a con. I am baffled. The last sentence in the thesis was a segue to the body as well as the point to my argument. Furthermore, I listed three pros in the thesis...I highlighted them here. Please let me know what you think!
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) is a well-intentioned plan to mitigate the dilemma of continuation of coverage and the barriers imposed by many insurance agencies to pre-existing conditions in the event of an individual's change in employment status or group insurance coverage. HIPAA also attempts to eliminate privacy breaches especially associated with the current information technology age. As much as the general theory of HIPAA looks good on vast piles of paper, it does not go far enough in the details to be a viable and effective tool for risk management purposes, and the lack of enforcement is testimony to its short-comings.
It is difficult to support the advantages of the pros listed above that are the spirit of HIPAA when considering real-world factors. For instance, the continuation of coverage only applies to those who have a seamless change in employer-sponsored health insurance, but the existence of pre-existing conditions such as diabetes mellitus or hypertension can be excluded for up to 18 months by an insurance company if a patient has gone more than 63 days without health insurance. So, if someone were to begin a new job where the norm is often a 90 day waiting period for insurance benefits, the employee will have been without insurance past the 63 day rule and thereby subject to pre-existing condition clauses. Another consideration is periods of unemployment that frequently last longer than 63 days especially in our present job market. The rules governing pre-existing conditions do not apply in many circumstances so do not offer any real-world protection to the majority of individuals nor do they assist in continuation of coverage for any but the healthiest and most economically secure individuals.
Privacy issues have been a concern for health care providers and other concerned entities (insurance agencies, pharmacy providers, billing services, etcetera) for decades. The practical applications of HIPAA have helped to bolster a re-visiting of how we assure patient confidentiality and address the laxity in protecting sensitive patient data in an information age, but the whole program is cumbersome and no detailed plan was provided in how a company or provider should go about compliance. This lack of support from the federal government in implementing HIPAA at the provider level left most scrambling to figure out how to achieve compliance and spending millions of dollars on a myriad of software programs and consultants. The result is a system run amok and a general burn-out effect. Now, compliance is at an all time low, and HIPAA rules are rarely enforced anyway.
All concerned entities should maintain a common sense approach to protecting patient privacy. Possible mandates associated with across-the-board implementation of Electronic Medical Records will be costly, and other changes that will come from the universal health care package now being argued in the Senate must be considered. HIPPA, though well-intentioned, must take a back seat as our country battles to make our health care system more efficient.
What is wrong with the following
essay? My facilitator took points off for not listing three pros and because she did not understand the last sentence in the thesis paragraph; she asked whether it was a pro or a con. I am baffled. The last sentence in the thesis was a segue to the body as well as the point to my argument. Furthermore, I listed three pros in the thesis...I highlighted them here. Please let me know what you think!
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) is a well-intentioned plan to mitigate the dilemma of continuation of coverage and the barriers imposed by many insurance agencies to pre-existing conditions in the event of an individual's change in employment status or group insurance coverage. HIPAA also attempts to eliminate privacy breaches especially associated with the current information technology age. As much as the general theory of HIPAA looks good on vast piles of paper, it does not go far enough in the details to be a viable and effective tool for risk management purposes, and the lack of enforcement is testimony to its short-comings.
It is difficult to support the advantages of the pros listed above that are the spirit of HIPAA when considering real-world factors. For instance, the continuation of coverage only applies to those who have a seamless change in employer-sponsored health insurance, but the existence of pre-existing conditions such as diabetes mellitus or hypertension can be excluded for up to 18 months by an insurance company if a patient has gone more than 63 days without health insurance. So, if someone were to begin a new job where the norm is often a 90 day waiting period for insurance benefits, the employee will have been without insurance past the 63 day rule and thereby subject to pre-existing condition clauses. Another consideration is periods of unemployment that frequently last longer than 63 days especially in our present job market. The rules governing pre-existing conditions do not apply in many circumstances so do not offer any real-world protection to the majority of individuals nor do they assist in continuation of coverage for any but the healthiest and most economically secure individuals.
Privacy issues have been a concern for health care providers and other concerned entities (insurance agencies, pharmacy providers, billing services, etcetera) for decades. The practical applications of HIPAA have helped to bolster a re-visiting of how we assure patient confidentiality and address the laxity in protecting sensitive patient data in an information age, but the whole program is cumbersome and no detailed plan was provided in how a company or provider should go about compliance. This lack of support from the federal government in implementing HIPAA at the provider level left most scrambling to figure out how to achieve compliance and spending millions of dollars on a myriad of software programs and consultants. The result is a system run amok and a general burn-out effect. Now, compliance is at an all time low, and HIPAA rules are rarely enforced anyway.
All concerned entities should maintain a common sense approach to protecting patient privacy. Possible mandates associated with across-the-board implementation of Electronic Medical Records will be costly, and other changes that will come from the universal health care package now being argued in the Senate must be considered. HIPPA, though well-intentioned, must take a back seat as our country battles to make our health care system more efficient.
