As the immediate past chair of APA’s Committee on Confidentiality and principal author of our “Minimum Necessary Guidelines for Third-Party Payers,” I am writing to respond to the November 7 article, “Privacy Rule Shows Need for Documentation Standards.”
It is crucial to clarify for APA members and others that this position statement was written by my committee, and approved by the Board of Trustees in 2001, to reflect the nation’s two most stringent, longstanding, and workable state mental health privacy laws (the Washington, D.C., and New Jersey statutes). The document was carefully thought out, with extensive review and input from member clinicians, academicians, forensic psychiatrists, and consultant attorneys.
The end product represented our profession’s ethical standard, as well as the surgeon general’s position in his report on mental health: a necessary condition for quality psychiatric care is trust, rendered possible only with the assurance of doctor-patient privacy. This position has been the foundation for this organization’s policy statements, lobbying and advocacy agendas, and media outreach to the public.
Therefore, I was extremely troubled and startled to read the comments of former APA president Richard Harding, M.D., about our “minimum necessary” policy, particularly because they appeared to represent the Board of Trustees’ position—that this document is a “starting point for a negotiated agreement with MCOs about information collection.”
The study by the Department of Health and Human Services certainly outlines the familiar conflict between clinicians and payers regarding patients’ personal information, and this issue remains to be resolved as the federal privacy rule is implemented. And that is precisely why Dr. Harding’s statement in this publication—that our privacy-protective position is “negotiable”—is a blatant, up-front abandonment of our profession’s ethics, practicing psychiatrists, and, most important, our patients.
Our organization, the American Psychiatric Association, cannot afford to “negotiate” away our ethics at a time when patient care and member participation are both in serious jeopardy. If trust in our organization and psychiatry is to be fostered, it must begin with a formal retraction by Dr. Harding, as well as a Board of Trustees’ endorsement in word and action, of the “minimum necessary” policy it voted to approve.