Readers want change in confidentiality laws | Behavioral Healthcare Executive Skip to content Skip to navigation

Readers want change in confidentiality laws

June 17, 2010
by Lindsay Barba
| Reprints

Prompted by an April 2010 article written by expert Renee Popovits, JD, (www.behavioral.net/popovits1004) we asked readers how they felt about the current confidentiality law for substance use treatment information (42 CFR, Part 2). The results are in:

Do you think that the current confidentiality law for substance use treatment information (42 CFR, Part 2) ought to be changed?

  • Yes 61.9%
  • No 38.1%

Noteworthy comments from those in favor of change included:

  • “[It is a] barrier to integration strategies and HIT [and] EMR connectivity among direct providers.
  • “There seem[s] to be more secrecy around this than there is around nuclear weapons [and] makes it incredibly challenging to adequately coordinate care.”
  • “New technologies and the need to effectively communicate within a professional network should have been important ten years ago. There are many occasions when the release of information provided by a patient/client and permitted by signature causes excess delay in communications that at times become critical to treatment and patient/client retention and/or redirection in the treatment process.”

Our latest poll, found on the left-hand side of our Web site, is:

What has been your organization’s greatest challenge in implementing an e-prescribing system?

  • Choosing the software
  • Affordability
  • Training the physicians to use the system
  • We don’t use e-prescribing

Share your experiences with e-prescribing in our comments box. For more information about implementing an e-prescribing system, read E-prescribing: Coming your way soon by Dennis Grantham, Senior Editor at www.behavioral.net/viewsontech1007.

Topics

Lindsay Barba

www.behavioral.net

Lindsay Barba was associate editor of Behavioral Healthcare from 2009 to 2010.

The opinions expressed by Behavioral Healthcare Executive bloggers and those providing comments are theirs alone and are not meant to reflect the opinions of the publication.