Addendum to CCHF's Public Comments - "Human Subject" Designation

Addendum to CCHF's Public Comments - 'Human Subject' Designation

Citizens' Council for Health Freedom would like to underscore the importance of the proposed
"human subject" designation of biospecimens, including newborn DNA.  We support this designation, which is currently in law for newborn dried blood spots (Newborn DNA) under the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Reauthorizaiton Act of 2014.

CCHF NIH Common Rule Comments Jan 4, 2016

CCHF NIH Common Rule Comments Jan 4, 2016

Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom, a national organization existing to support individual health care choices, individualized patient care, and medical and genetic privacy, is actively engaged in protecting the right of citizens to consent or to refuse to consent to the collection, storage, use and sharing of private information for research or other purposes, including biospecimens, and in particular, newborn DNA collected by state government agencies as part of the 50 state government newborn screening programs.

CCHF Comment: “Substantiation Requirement for Certain Contributions” Proposed Rule

CCHF Comment: “Substantiation Requirement for Certain Contributions”  Proposed Rule
PUBLIC COMMENT SUBMITTED: CCHF opposes the "Substantiaton Requirement for Certain Contributions" Proposed Rule.  The proposed rule threatens the privacy rights of individuals, as well as the constitutional rights of individuals to freedom of speech and freedom of association.  This proposed rule is a step toward the expansion of government and a threat to individual rights and the vitality of the private non-profit sector.

CCHF Comment: Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities; Proposed Rule

CCHF Comment: Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities; Proposed Rule

PUBLIC COMMENT SUBMITTED: CCHF opposes the “Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities; Proposed Rule." "Despite the subjectivity of the proposed “internal sense of gender” definition -- and no statutory authority to back up the imposition of an unnatural definition of ‘sex’ and sure-to-be-controversial nondiscrimination prohibitions – HHS proposes to potentially force physicians … "

CCHF Public Comment on Interoperability Roadmap

We are opposed to the creation of a national electronic medical records and patient and doctor tracking system— and the proposed ONC Roadmap to impose that system. We therefore, call for ONC to start over with privacy rights as a priority.

MN DHS Request for Information (RFI) on the treatment of data when private parties with a government entity for health related services.

Oppose Federal Plan to Eliminate All Patient Privacy. DEADLINE: WED., JUNE 25

Oppose Federal Plan to Eliminate All Patient Privacy.  DEADLINE: WED., JUNE 25

The federal government is planning to eliminate privacy protections for medical records regarding treatment for alcohol and drug abuse and treatment for mental health conditions. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will hold a public listening session on Wednesday, June 11, 2014, to solicit public comments on this proposal.

CCHF Comments Opposing IRS Restrictions on Free Speech

CCHF Comments Opposing IRS Restrictions on Free Speech

The Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom, a 501(c)(3) organization respectfully submits these comments in regard to your Proposed Rule: “Guidance for Tax-Exempt Social Welfare Organizations on Candidate-Related Political Activities.”

Slow Obamacare Implementation!

Slow Obamacare Implementation!
The Obama administration has given you just 30 days over the holidays to read more than 700 pages of proposed Obamacare regulations which could then be finalized and have the full force and effect of law. The Wall Street Journal says “many of the rules were approved in-house and ready to go as early as May.” But the Obama administration waited until the holiday season to spring them you. 

CCHF Comment on MN Health Records Access Legislative Study

CCHF Comment on MN Health Records Access Legislative Study

As you know, according to Chapter 247 of Minnesota's Laws 2012, your department is required to report "any relevant patient privacy" recommendations from the heath records access study. We certainly expect to see such recommendations based on our comments and the comments of the general public in the upcoming report. In response to the three questions regarding consent, health records, notification of breaches and audit logs in the Minnesota Health Records Access Study, I provide the following comments on behalf of Citizens' Council for Health Freedom.