Unless the Administrative Law Judge chooses otherwise, the Minnesota public will be at the mercy of the Health Department's warehousing, data-mining, tracking, research and health care rationing agendas. Their private data will be warehoused in the State of Maine and placed online. They won't have had a choice—or a voice.
After our delivery in May 2004, citizen petitions continued to arrive at our office. We include these because we believe they were not part of the petitions you received last year. And like those delivered last year, we have placed them in a red binder.
The Minnesota legislature should not authorize the establishment of a medical decision-making bureaucracy in state government. We believe this legislation is a giant step toward state-approved health care rationing and government control of the practice of medicine. These proposals violate the rights of citizens and patients, interfere in the patient-doctor relationship, and are inconsistent with a free society.
Massachusetts' “universal coverage” legislation with the "Connector" mimics the government bureaucracy and bureaucratic controls of the 1993 Clinton Health Security Act and the 2011 so-called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).
“This legislation will make sure the national health IT coordinator’s post is a permanent one, and it will overcome some of the key obstacles that have slowed our progress toward adoption of a national, interoperable electronic system” (Rep. Nancy Johnson, Press Release, October 27, 2005).
Public Comments
•
October 21, 2011
The federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plans to make sweeping changes to federal regulations on human subjects research. In this response to the administration's request for public comments on their Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CCHF says data and DNA ownership as well as patient consent for access to and use of medical records and biospecimens collected from patients in clinics, hospitals and elsewhere is necessary.
Public Comments
•
September 27, 2011
Citizens' Council for Health Freedom opposes this proposed federal rule, particularly the sweeping data collection plan, the mandate to create “risk scores” on individuals, the redistribution of funds that will likely lead to rationing of care, the fuzzy math that is “risk adjustment”, the “risk corridors” that will facilitate fuzzy math and fund transfers, and the power of the federal government to mandate reinsurance contributions by States.
Public Comments
•
September 21, 2011
In general, CCHF is opposed to the proposed exchange regulation, which requires States to set up a federal structure by which the federal government will control virtually all facets of health care nationwide (coverage and care). We conclude our public comments by asking HHS to withdraw the entire rule.
Some State legislators believe a federally-approved Exchange established by the State will be better than a federally- imposed Exchange established by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). However, the federal law makes it clear that every Exchange must conform to federal requirements, including pending regulations. Thus, a “State Exchange” is actually an imposed Federal Exchange. Some might call it a "lobster trap" for States - once in, there's no getting out.
National Reports
•
December 09, 2011
"A Radical Restructuring of Health Insurance" is a paper to be read by all Americans. The Galen Institute has provided an extraordinary list of examples of insurance companies dropping people from insurance due to Obamacare. The numbers are staggering. For instance, Blue Cross in New York is dropping 20,000 businesses. Cigna is ending coverage for small businesses in 16 states.
National Reports
•
November 01, 2011
The battle over the Exchange is raging right now in Wisconsin. This document shows the plans for the Wisconsin Health Insurance Exchange and has a particularly descriptive photo of the intrusive "Complex Data Environment" required if States decide to install a federal exchange in their state in compliance with Obamacare. Unprecedented data sharing with the federal government would take place in the Exchange before individuals would be allowed to purchase health insurance through the exchange. Many employers may decide to send their employees to the exchange. The exchange is also intended to "police" the Obamacare mandate to purchase health insurance, now being challenged in the courts.
Minnesota Reports
•
November 09, 2011
Although there is no state legislative authority to create a government health insurance exchange as prescribed by Obamacare, the administration of Governor Mark Dayton is pushing forward using federal dollars to design and develop it. During the public comment (open mike) period of the first meeting of the MN Health Insurance Exchange Advisory Task Force, the Commissioner of Commerce refused to give CCHF's president a "yes" or "no" answer to her question about legislative authority.
Minnesota Reports
•
November 01, 2011
The 2011 Minnesota House GOP proposes passing the Obamacare Health Insurance Exchange into law. This CCHF document provides the legislature with seven reasons to say "no."
Minnesota Reports
•
November 01, 2011
The Record Locator Service is part of a Health Information Exchange. When a patient's medical records are requested, the RLS moves out onto the network to find all medical records of that individual. Some states have patient consent requirements. Other states have none.
Informational brochure on the impact of Obamacare on patient privacy.
LARGER VIEWS OF CARDS & BROCHURES
Info Cards/Brochures
•
December 12, 2003
This document, explaining the impact of the provider tax on cost of health care services, can be hung on the back of exam room doors, inserted as a double-sided poster in billing statements, framed at the front desk of the clinic, and provided as a handout in the waiting room. Phone numbers for contacting state officials are included on the second page. This document may be copied unaltered for noncommercial distribution and information purposes only.
Policy Briefs
•
May 01, 2005
The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) will designate certain treatment protocols as the MN standard of care. At their own discretion, they will decide which protocols will be called “evidence-based” and approved for use. MDH will collect data on physician adherence to these government-issued protocols and publicly report compliance rates on their website. Physi- cians with low compliance rates may be financially penalized.
Policy Briefs
•
April 11, 2005
The so-called “Federal Medical Privacy Rule” (45 CFR Parts 160/164) —from the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)—permits broad use and disclosure of individually-identifiable “protected health information” without patient consent. It is often referred to as the “HIPAA Privacy Rule” or just “HIPAA.” Minnesota’s medical privacy law (M.S. 144.335) more often requires patient consent before use and disclosure (see also M.S. 62J.55).
Policy Briefs
•
April 10, 2005
The federal HIPAA "Privacy" Rule allows broad use and disclosure of private medical records without patient consent. Specifically, no consent is required for 12 National Priority Purposes, including law enforcement and public health, or for Payment, Treatment and Health Care Operations. The definition of "Health Care Operations" is 390 words long.
