NC Sheriffs Seek List of Everyone on Prescription Drugs

[Kythas]

The Sheriff's Association in North Carolina has requested access to the State's database listing everyone who is taking prescription drugs.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/09/08/ ... ought.html

[Oldgringo]

Now is a really good time for the ACLU to do its thing.

[chartreuse]

Now is a really good time for the ACLU to do its thing.

[bdickens]

What qualifies the members of the NC Sherriff's Association to question the professional opinion of medical doctors in that state? I wonder where they got their medical degrees.

[Excaliber]

One could make a better case for publishing the controlled substance prescriptions filled by sheriffs so the voters could decide whether or not they are taking enough behavior altering medication to affect the execution of their high liability law enforcement duties.

Law enforcement is a service profession, not a license to rummage around in the lives of the innocent.

Anyone who can't adhere to his oath of office by respecting the rights of the people he works for and says he needs constitutional exceptions, especially in the areas of search and seizure or privacy, to do his job right isn't qualified to hold the position and needs to be helped out of that line of work. This statement is made from hard experience. Such people make bad cops and cause nothing but trouble for both the public and their agencies throughout their careers, which often don't reach retirement.

It seems to me that the voters in North Carolina have some housecleaning to do.

A good start would be electing some sheriffs who know how to enforce the law without trampling on the Constitution.

The bright side of this boneheaded effort is that you can bet plenty of NC politicians have had occasion to use controlled substance prescriptions. Their level of enthusiasm for giving sheriffs (who are political beings) access to this information may raise some pretty obvious concerns. I wouldn't expect this proposal to go very far.

[Pete92FS]

It seems to me that the voters in North Carolina have some housecleaning to do.

A good start would be electing some sheriffs who know how to enforce the law without trampling on the Constitution.

The bright side of this boneheaded effort is that you can bet plenty of NC politicians have had occasion to use controlled substance prescriptions. Their level of enthusiasm for giving sheriffs (who are political beings) access to this information may raise some pretty obvious concerns. I wouldn't expect this proposal to go very far.

All they have to do is sit back and wait. I'm sure once Obummer's health bill takes full effect there will be a lot more information than this that will be available. Obummer, Pelosi et. al. seem to already do a pretty good job of trampling the Constitution.

[snorri]

Now is a really good time for the ACLU to do its thing.

If people are concerned, it would have been better to have done something when the state created the database. It seems a little like closing the barn door after the horse is gone to complain that North Carolina CLEOs want access to a North Carolina government database.

[Excaliber]

Now is a really good time for the ACLU to do its thing.

If people are concerned, it would have been better to have done something when the state created the database. It seems a little like closing the barn door after the horse is gone to complain that North Carolina CLEOs want access to a North Carolina government database.

This is another good example of the folly of passing potentially dangerous legislation on the basis of trust that the law won't be misused. If it can be misused, it will be misused at some point by some politician or enforcement authority. It's just a matter of time.

It's a lot like leaving your car unlocked because most people are honest and then finding your GPS and laptop computer gone. If you leave an opportunity for mischief open long enough, it's an absolute certainty that someone will eventually take you up on it.

[The Annoyed Man]

One word: HIPAA

It's one of them there federal issues. Maybe those boys down in NC ain't heard that they's a federal gummint involved in this stuff....
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/un ... index.html

State Law

Preemption. In general, State laws that are contrary to the Privacy Rule are preempted by the federal requirements, which means that the federal requirements will apply.85 “Contrary” means that it would be impossible for a covered entity to comply with both the State and federal requirements, or that the provision of State law is an obstacle to accomplishing the full purposes and objectives of the Administrative Simplification provisions of HIPAA.86 The Privacy Rule provides exceptions to the general rule of federal preemption for contrary State laws that (1) relate to the privacy of individually identifiable health information and provide greater privacy protections or privacy rights with respect to such information, (2) provide for the reporting of disease or injury, child abuse, birth, or death, or for public health surveillance, investigation, or intervention, or (3) require certain health plan reporting, such as for management or financial audits.

Exception Determination. In addition, preemption of a contrary State law will not occur if HHS determines, in response to a request from a State or other entity or person, that the State law:

Is necessary to prevent fraud and abuse related to the provision of or payment for health care,
Is necessary to ensure appropriate State regulation of insurance and health plans to the extent expressly authorized by statute or regulation,
Is necessary for State reporting on health care delivery or costs,
Is necessary for purposes of serving a compelling public health, safety, or welfare need, and, if a Privacy Rule provision is at issue,if the Secretary determines that the intrusion into privacy is warranted when balanced against the need to be served; or
Has as its principal purpose the regulation of the manufacture, registration, distribution, dispensing, or other control of any controlled substances (as defined in 21 U.S.C. 802), or that is deemed a controlled substance by State law.

I'm guessing that the last bit is what NC is basing its authority on, but I'm also guessing that it wouldn't withstand a legal challenge.

No cop has any legitimate reason to access my medical records without either my permission, or a search warrant signed by a judge. Any cop who thinks he has extra-constitutional authority to invade my medical privacy can go hang himself, and I hope he catches an antibiotic resistant STD on the way to buy some rope.

[snorri]

The North Carolina government database already exists. They would kill the database, and require pharmacies and insurance companies to purge their records after some period, if medical privacy was more than illusion.

[ELB]

One could make a better case for publishing the controlled substance prescriptions filled by sheriffs so the voters could decide whether or not they are taking enough behavior altering medication to affect the execution of their high liability law enforcement duties...

+1 to that and all that follows.

My first thought was "NC has a statewide database of prescriptions?"

Does Texas have one?

[ELB]

...Does Texas have one?

Google and ye shall find. Apparently the answer is "yes."

http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/faq/rx_monitor.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some excerpts. Go to the link for the whole thing.

1. What is a prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP)?

According to the National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws (NAMSDL), a PDMP is a statewide electronic database which collects designated data on substances dispensed in the state. The PDMP is housed by a specified statewide regulatory, administrative or law enforcement agency. The housing agency distributes data from the database to individuals who are authorized under state law to receive the information for purposes of their profession.

...

4. Which states currently have a PDMP?

As of July 2010, 34 states have operational PDMPs that have the capacity to receive and distribute controlled substance prescription information to authorized users. States with operational programs include:

Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

...
6. Who can I contact regarding a PDMP in a specific state?

Each state designates a state agency to oversee its PDMP, which may include health departments, pharmacy boards, or state law enforcement. The Alliance of States with Prescription Monitoring Programs (http://www.pmpalliance.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) maintains a list of state contacts.

7. Where can I find state laws pertaining to prescription drug monitoring?

The National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws (http://www.namsdl.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) provides links to each state’s statutes and regulations regarding PDMPs.

...

9. Is federal funding available for PDMPs?

There are currently two federal sources of funding for state PDMPs. The first is the Harold Rogers Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (HRPDMP) administered by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance. ....

...

10. What is the difference between HRPDMP and NASPER?

The purpose of the HRPDMP is to enhance the capacity of regulatory and law enforcement agencies as well as public health officials to collect and analyze controlled substance prescription data through a centralized database administered by an authorized state agency.

...