Privacy an issue with access to drug database : News-Record.com : Greensboro & the Triad's most trusted source for local news and analysis

GREENSBORO — When the N.C. Sheriffs’ Association asked for access to a state prescription drug database this week, some found the thought unsettling: local law enforcement looking over who is prescribed what, without warning or a warrant.

“I just don’t know that I want my name and my medical information on some list that the government can look at if I want to get prescription medicine,” said Kathy Seward , 34-year-old mother of two from Greensboro.

“I didn’t even know that this list existed, but now I feel like my privacy is being violated. That’s the most private kind of information.”

State officials and privacy advocates say the issue is more complicated than the Big Brother concerns it inspires.

Since 2007, pharmacists in North Carolina have been required to report the filling of certain prescriptions to a state database maintained by the state’s Department of Health and Human Services . The database is only for controlled substances scheduled by the Drug Enforcement Agency — pain killers, stimulants, sedatives and tranquilizers. It does not include prescriptions for things like birth control or allergy medication.

William Bronson is the program manager for the Drug Control Unit at DHHS. He said the database is meant to prevent “doctor shopping,” the practice of one patient going to many providers to get more drugs than they should safely be prescribed.

But the State Bureau of Investigation can access the database in drug investigations. Bronson said only 14 agents have access and they must notify the state attorney general’s office when they use it.

Sarah Preston thinks that’s already too many people. She’s the policy director for the North Carolina branch of the American Civil Liberties Union . Her group opposed expanding access to the database three years ago. She said there’s little or no difference now.

“It’s a pretty basic privacy interest problem,” Preston said. “It violates the Fourth Amendment. If law enforcement wants access to that kind of private information, they should have to go get a warrant.”

Beyond philosophical problems, Preston said her group is worried about the effect of more eyes on the database .

“There is a lot of stigma that is still associated with a lot of illnesses these drugs are used to treat,” Preston said. “Especially mental illness. Anything that makes people less likely to seek treatment when they need it — like concerns about who is going to know what medications they’re taking — that’s a bad thing.”

Preston said doctors also could factor in attention from law enforcement when deciding how they prescribe these drugs — worrying about how prescribing higher doses would look rather than whether it’s the best medical choice .

Bronson said studies were conducted when the database was approved in 2005 and after it went into effect in 2007, with no evidence people were less likely to seek treatment. That doesn’t mean expanding access to local law enforcement couldn’t have an effect, he said — which is why if it is done, it needs to be done carefully.

“What we have recommended is that local law enforcement could request information on a specific suspect and we could grant them that information pursuant to a bona fide investigation,” Bronson said. “They wouldn’t use the database to identify suspects. They wouldn’t have complete, open access to that database. And they would have to notify the attorney general like the FBI now does, in order for there to be accountability.”

Guilford County Sheriff BJ Barnes issued a press release Thursday to clarify the kind of drug information that would be accessed, but he did not take a stand for or against his office accessing the information. Other area sheriff’s offices failed to return calls on the issue or said they haven’t given much thought to the proposal.

“The main thing is that this is primarily a tool to help physicians to better care for their patients,” Bronson said. “The system and the data is well protected, and we want to make sure it stays that way.”

Contact Joe Killian at 373-7023 or joe.killian@news-record.com

noname77

September 11, 2010 - 5:35 am EDT

That's just plain wrong!

speakup2

September 11, 2010 - 5:46 am EDT

Absolutely NOT...People need to look long and hard at ANY and ALL of the Sheriffs and Deputies that support such a thing...Get these people OUT of Office. They are a danger to our Freedoms.

blackstream

September 11, 2010 - 7:49 am EDT

Not only is this a clear violation of our Constitutional rights to privacy, but it also violates the new Hippa laws which protect your medical records. If a specific person was to be investigated, I could go along with allowing them access to a specific record provided they have a warrant for that information. But to allow them access whenever they want, absolutly not. Any law enforcement agency that wants such access, in my opinion, would willing violate any of our rights and should be delt with by the American People.

retiree

September 12, 2010 - 6:14 am EDT

If you find "privacy rights" in the Constitution, please post it for us. It does not exist but has become an inferred "right" over the years.

Panacea

September 12, 2010 - 9:18 am EDT

The SCOTUS has disagreed with you . . . repeatedly.

dusenberry

September 11, 2010 - 9:05 am EDT

BJ, Did you fall for this ?I
If you did it's -1 vote next time.

johnodrake

September 11, 2010 - 9:48 am EDT

There is nothing at all wrong with Law Enforcement having access to the data.

As long as it is in the course of investigating a crime and a competent judge has issued a warrant for that access. There is a lot wrong with LEOs having warrantless access for fishing expeditions.

Anonymous420

September 11, 2010 - 9:55 am EDT

There absolutely is something wrong when law enforcement, which is there to "serve and PROTECT" knowingly and willingly ignore the public's rights to pricvacy. This is a stepping-stone into complete lack of personal privacy, and a clear violation of human rights. Investigators get paid to investigate and this is just another way that they can be lazy, incomplete and violate the laws they vow to uphold.

September 11, 2010 - 9:56 am EDT

You might want to read the entire comment... just sayin'

September 11, 2010 - 10:02 am EDT

Perhaps a better way for law enoforcement to handle this problem would be to actually investigate. It's not illegal, nor an invasion of privacy to go into a doctors office and look at a sign-in sheet, or to actually follow a suspected criminal.

September 11, 2010 - 11:45 am EDT

I think that the process of getting a search warrant from a judge requires probable cause which would require some actual investigation into an actual crime.

skeety7

September 11, 2010 - 3:58 pm EDT

Just like the Gestapo.

devilsadvocate2

September 11, 2010 - 5:51 pm EDT

actually it is a violation of HIPPA to have a appointment list visible in any doctor's office. It should be covered at all times. Any informatin relating to a patient is secure.

September 11, 2010 - 9:51 am EDT

Is it any suprise that "Big Brother" wants more information? Nevermind the doctor/patient confidentiality, next they will be sitting in with your lawer too. Americans have surrendered enough rights that it has become a progression into communism. Vote well.....oh wait, it wont matter how you vote, the federal government will put whomever they want into whatever position of authority they want. Take a stand, and do not re-elect idiots

September 11, 2010 - 11:19 am EDT

Doctor shopping is a crime, but the real answer to the problem is treatment, not jail time.

Patients who are abusing prescription medications need to be confronted about their behaviors by their health care providers, and assessed to see if the real problem is addiction or simply under treatment of their symptoms.

If addiction is the issue, they need rehab. If under treatment is the issue, they need a new plan of care.

September 11, 2010 - 12:09 pm EDT

Do you have a cite for the statute against Dr. shopping? Fraud is a crime, but unless you are defrauding by providing inaccurate information, I don't think you have committed a crime.

sekrph

September 11, 2010 - 3:59 pm EDT

here ya go.....standard enforcement on a daily basis by pharmacies, doctors, and police officer....
NC PHARMACY LAWS..
STATUTES AND REGULATIONS--NC CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT AND REGULATIONS
90-108 (13)......(13) To obtain controlled substances through the use of legal prescriptions which have been obtained by the
knowing and willful misrepresentation to or by the intentional withholding of information from one or more
practitioners;

also:
(10) To acquire or obtain possession of a controlled substance by misrepresentation, fraud, forgery, deception, or
subterfuge;

A CRIME FOR SURE....

September 11, 2010 - 4:00 pm EDT

Sure 1 out of a Thousand.

September 12, 2010 - 8:30 pm EDT

Neither paragraph address "Dr. Shopping" Both address fraud....

Fraud is a crime. Going to more than one Dr. (provided you provide accurate and relevant information and do not misrepresent or mislead (e.g., fraud)) is not now nor has it ever been a crime.

September 12, 2010 - 9:31 pm EDT

John, are YOU on drugs??;-) obtaining ANYTHING by not divulging the proper information, especially CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES, is 'fraud'......that is inherently what Dr Shopping is--going to multiple physicians to obtain drugs, usually controlled substances.....you withhold or deceive a physician by not divulging your Rx history and use of narcotics and lie to him is fraud, cut and dry....those statutes have been on the books for years, and have successfully prosecuted thousands of Rx abusers/deceptors....your statement is misleading as you contradict yourself--of course you can go to multiple doctors for anything..happens thousands of times daily...but to withhold information about your controlled drug usage from these doctors in order to obtain drugs IS blatant fraud......reread the statutes and it is perfectly clear....thousands of lawyers and judges and convictions show it to be so...

September 12, 2010 - 9:43 pm EDT

No, I am not on drugs, and you should drop the ad hominems.
There is no contradiction. Fraud is fraud and that is illegal. Dr. Shopping is not illegal. See Occam's Razor

jorrell245

September 11, 2010 - 11:44 am EDT

With unfettered access to prescription medication information, here is what will happen the next time you are pulled over:
1: License please
2: Registration please
3: I'll run your driving history, registration, and prescription drug record
4: Please step out of the vehicle sir, I will frisk you for weapons.
5: I am placing handcuffs on you for my protection, please step into the back of the cruiser, you are not under arrest.
6: Then the officer explains that you were prescribed opiates two years ago, I need to take you down to the station for a urine and blood test, we will also take a DNA sample (Thanks, Bev!)....

That is just the start of what unfettered unwarranted access to prescription records will do!

September 11, 2010 - 11:48 am EDT

Or you can just say no hablo ingles and the cop says - well alrighty then, see ya......

lexalexander

September 11, 2010 - 12:33 pm EDT

Sigh. What part of "Get a warrant!" do these people not understand?

lavie

September 11, 2010 - 12:53 pm EDT

This ‘offering’ of prescription information is already taking place.
I went to Doctor A who has an electronic health record system.
Doctor A knew about my prescription from Doctor B.
Doctor B did not have an electronic health record system.
The prescription was not a controlled substance.
Neither doctor referred me to the other.
How did Doctor A know about the prescription?
Apparently when we get prescriptions filled, they are accessible to our providers who have an electronic health record system. I don’t recall giving explicit consent for my information to be shared in this way. I don’t mind sharing information to provide better quality of healthcare, but I want to be asked first. And I want to be clearly informed without feeling that this is happening behind my back.
Widening access to very personal information such as DNA and prescription information leads to me wonder if such access will be available for my health records in the near future.

September 11, 2010 - 5:09 pm EDT

HIPPA allows health care providers to communicate with one another in regards to your care.

The current database contains prescriptions for all controlled substances: opiate narcotics, narcotic agonist antagonists, sedatives, hypnotics. What medication exactly are you talking about and are you really sure it is not on the Schedule of Controlled Substances?

Also, if you signed a form allowing Dr. A to get a copy of your medical records from Dr. B, he'd know everything you've taken; he'd just get your chart faxed over. Often when patients establish themselves with a new doctor, one of the forms you sign is a consent for release of information.

Non-controlled medications are not reported to the database.

DNA has nothing to do with this discussion.

September 12, 2010 - 2:50 pm EDT

Panacea, thanks for your suggestions. I realize that HIPAA allows providers to communicate, but in this situation, I had not signed a form to allow these doctors to communicate with one another. If HIPAA allows this sharing of information under the treatment category, then why do I need to sign the HIPAA form? This is NOT a medication on the Schedule of Controlled Substances, either. I'm just trying to determine why the pharmacist's system was allowed to disperse the information between providers. Perhaps pharmacists fall under the realm of covered providers?

In my view, DNA does fall into the discussion because it can reveal information about inheritance of diseases, so please do not tell me it has nothing to do with the discussion. We don't know what we may find about DNA in the future, and it may be that we store it in electronic health records in the future.

buldawg

September 12, 2010 - 12:39 pm EDT

Also, check the corporate structure of your health care providers and in many cases you will find that the company that employees Dr A also employees Dr B even though the two are in apparently totally separate practices. My GP's practice was relatively recently bought by the same company that also relatively recently bought my cardiologist's practice and as such the two share my electronic record. Is this an invasion of my privacy?? Absolutely not, this is a great service to me as now all members of my healthcare team have current information regarding my care to include treatment, complaints and medications. There is much less chance that one will pursue a course of treatment that is contraindicated by the course of treatment being pursued by the other.

September 12, 2010 - 2:59 pm EDT

Thanks, buldawg. These two doctors are definitely not in the same practice organization. I do have other doctors that share the same EHR system, which I think is valuable. So, I fully understand the advantages of sharing my health information electronically, and I don't necessarily think it's bad that the pharmacy shared my prescription information. Just because I think it is good for me doesn't mean I think it's what everyone else wants or even needs. I'm just trying to understand how it all works 'behind the scenes.' In light of the sheriff's access to prescription information, I wondered about prescription information sharing in general. I didn't mean to get too far off of the original article's topic!

Dogwood

September 11, 2010 - 1:44 pm EDT

DEA is on the bandwagon regarding prescription opiates and steriods. DEA failed the stop "illegal cannabis campaign" resulting in herbicides and jailings. Opiate street drugs are stolen or traded "in-house". But most street drugs are manufactured over our borders and imported for distribution through kingpins. It is whacko for a dying cancer patient to worry that her medical records are in the hands of a county sheriff. I would die by a heart attack if former Hege could have read every drug list of each resident of his county. Secure electronic records? Ask the Pentagon this question.

news-record.com

NEWS