What Kind of Legal Staff Do They Have Up There?
by jhwygirl
Capital reporter Mike Dennison is up with a story tonight on the Missoulian State Bureau’s request for a list of all legislators who have signed up for medical benefits – you know, those benefits paid for by state government?
For three weeks now he’s been waiting for a reply from Senate leadership (GOP) and Dennison is reporting that ” the Legislature has denied a request from the Missoulian State Bureau for the names, citing advice from its chief attorney that privacy rights overrule the public’s right to know the names of lawmakers signing up for the benefits.”
Them’s pretty strong words.
He goes on to write: “Jessica Sena, spokeswoman for Senate Republicans, said leadership had considered releasing the information, in response to the Missoulian State Bureau request, but that legal staff had advised that the disclosure would violate federal rules on privacy of medical information.”
I’m guessing that the legal staff he refers to there is not party-associated Republican legal staff.
And interwove in all there is a bill proposed by Sens. Anders Blewett of Great Falls and Kendall Van Dyk of Billings that would disclose which legislators who have signed up for medical benefits from the state.
128 of 150 legislators are signed up for medical benefits. 40 of which are using them to supplement their own benefits.
I’m far more interested in a legal opinion that is claiming some sort of medical confidentiality over the release of state expenditures? Where does the line stop there towards the right of the citizens to know?
Republicans in Helena want fuller micro-accounting transparency on the budget, yet they don’t want the citizens to know what they’re paying for?
No one’s asking for doctor bills or dental xrays.
Boy. Now, if I were Democratic leadership, I’d be releasing a list tomorrow morning of all the Democratic representatives that are taking health benefits. I’d include a huge thank you to the citizens of the state.
And in the meantime, maybe a citizen should appeal on the Attorney General on the whether there is some sort of privacy right involved here. While attorneys for all other agencies (and even county attorneys) work for the AG, the legislative side is an independent branch of government.
I’d sure like to know what Bullock has to say.
-
1
Pingback on Jan 26th, 2011 at 12:01 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jamee Greer, jhwygirl. jhwygirl said: What Kind of Legal Staff Do They Have Up There?: http://wp.me/puC4-43t [...]
Leave a Reply
-
Recent Comments
petetalbot on Is UM Discriminating Against F… Who Can Can Engstrom… on Is UM Discriminating Against F… Steve W on Is UM Discriminating Against F… Ryan Morton on Is UM Discriminating Against F… Ryan Morton on Is UM Discriminating Against F… Ingemar Johansson on Is UM Discriminating Against F… Rob Kailey on Is UM Discriminating Against F…
January 25, 2011 at 11:29 pm
Look here: http://health.state.tn.us/HIPAA/index.htm
January 25, 2011 at 11:45 pm
Well then. The state is in violation and so is every other employer since they have to hand over the names and birthdates and social security numbers and everything else that they do to the providers (like “Blue Cross”?) to get their employees their health insurance.
That’s a pretty strict reading, Craig. Cool
I guess the only solution is single-payer government health care then.
Sweet.
January 25, 2011 at 11:53 pm
Wimp out much?
January 25, 2011 at 11:53 pm
Just the facts ma’am. I offer no judgement. My guess is that the release between Health Plan and Provider comes about through patient consent to have insurance pay for the treatment. Now, release of Health Plan PHI to news media may be another matter requiring individual subscriber/patient consent. Perhaps the media can go to each legislator and ask “pretty please.”
January 25, 2011 at 11:59 pm
I call bullshit on the legal opinion.
Like I said – no one is even asking if they actually putting the darn benefits to use…
The state pays X dollars to XYZ company for health coverage. Not for a prostrate screening and breast exam. As far as the information goes from the state’s end, it is merely an expenditure that they have to account for. X dollars for X number of people. Period.
What’s you’re opinion Craig?
January 26, 2011 at 12:03 am
My opinion is that HIPAA is a pain in the ass when dealing with an insurer on such privacy blocks with other family members for whom I pay the bills.
January 26, 2011 at 12:30 am
so you have no opinion on the post? The subject under the headline?
January 26, 2011 at 9:06 am
My opinion on what I think you are asking now is that there is no exception to HIPAA privacy rights for the media because the subscriber is an elected public official. Again, perhaps the media can go to each legislator and ask “pretty please” to answer the media’s questons.
January 26, 2011 at 7:37 pm
You know Craig? I hope Dennison or (or anyone) puts out a “pretty please” request – since you suggested it – to a handful of representatives.
I could suggest a few I’m curious about: Rep. Krayton Kerns, Rep. Wendy Warburton…Sen. Joe Balyeat.
Just to name a few.
January 25, 2011 at 11:59 pm
Not very Randian of them Repubs to suckle off Uncle Sugar while pullin’ the plug on granny, the infirm, and disabled! I’m sorry, but there really is no finer definition of hypocrite than the current ReePubs in Helena.
January 26, 2011 at 6:27 pm
I read “Larry with mental danger” in Pogue Mahone.
January 26, 2011 at 12:35 am
looks like this rather glaring story is growing some legs after all.
January 26, 2011 at 12:50 am
according to the link provided by cosmicgarden my wife and i would be paying 21.24 per month to fully cover the two of us with no deductible or co-payments in b.c. canada.
i figure my employer wastes at least 700.00 per month for a crappy policy that denies everything first just to see if you have what it takes to fight them hard enough to get them to pay 80% (after a 1500.00 decuctible)
i figure my wife (who has to pay partially for both of us about 150.00 per month) on top of another 850.00 that her employer pays per month for a slighly better health insurance policy that has a 2500.00 deductible and pays 80%.
just figuring the difference here ………
two person household ………. about 150.00 per month to cover us with no arguments and no deductible
V.S.
good old usa………… about 1650.00 per month spent by ourselves and our employers but it will pay only 80% of the cost of procedures (in plan only) after we spend down a 4000.00 deductible with our own money.
what a deal huh?
like i said a few days ago. and i believe craig agreed with me. it is way past time to fix this. this is way too much money wasted on companies and a system that just doesn’t work anymore. and the baucus healthcare bill didn’t solve the real problems with it. in fact, with mandates and raising premiums, it has made things worse. we need to fix this before it bankrupts us all.
January 26, 2011 at 3:27 pm
As a self-employed builder, property manager and sometime videographer, I’d give my left (insert body part here) to be in the state’s health care plan. So would my wife, who was recently turned down by Blue Cross for a pre-existing condition (hypothyroidism).
January 26, 2011 at 3:43 pm
sole proprietors, farmers ranchers and the self-employed are really the big losers in the baucus health care game. no help for them whatsoever.
opening up existing government provided health insurance pools to allow everyone who wants to opt in seems the easiest and fairest way to solve the health insurance mess.
if we have an option to compete with the private insurers, it should make for better products at better value. at least that is what the free marketers preach.
yet, the free marketers and the baucus insurance industry written mandates bar the public from creating or even having the option to buy into better alternatives to private for profit companies who essentially have a monopoly in montana. and the ones that do compete collude with each other to keep premiums high.
time to start talking about a citizens initiative here in montana that either creates a non profit pool or allows montana workers and employers to join the existing government provided health insurance plans. i am sure that 95% of montanans would sign such a petition. it would be tough for even the most right wing politician to ignore that kind of demographic.
i don’t know anyone in my circle of contacts that is very happy with their private insurance carrier regardless whether they buy it themselves or it is employer provided. they all suck because they don’t have any competition.
January 26, 2011 at 7:07 pm
I think the initial post is right on – the legislators may have their right to privacy, but if one side discloses, the other side might decide to do so also. If not, a point has already been made.
January 26, 2011 at 7:14 pm
it’s kind of hard to complain about a free meal on the taxpayers while your mouth is full AND you are denying those same taxpayers the same entree you are wolfing down.
January 26, 2011 at 3:19 pm
heh heh