No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Recent Developments in Health Law
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2021
Extract
Disability & ADA: Sixth Circuit Affirms Congressional Intent of Title III
In an appeal from a claim brought under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held in Parker v. Metropolitan Life Insurance CO. that Title III's prohibitions do not apply to employer-sponsored benefit plans. The court reasoned that employer- sponsored plans do not qualify under Title III because it prohibits discriminatory practices by places of public accommodation and employer sponsored plans are not goods offered by places of public accommodation. The court also stated that the purpose of the ADA was to prevent discrimination among nondisabled and disabled persons, not to ensure equal treatment for people with different disabilities.
- Type
- Recent Developments in Health Law
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1997
References
References
American with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12182–89 (1990).Google Scholar
Parker v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 121 F.3d 1006 (6th Cir. 1997).Google Scholar
See id. at 1014.Google Scholar
See 42 U.S.C. § 12182.Google Scholar
See 121 F.3d at 1010.Google Scholar
See id. at 1015.Google Scholar
See Jeffrey, N.A., “Court Allows Mental-Illness Benefit Caps,” Wall Street Journal, Aug. 1, 1997, at B1.Google Scholar
See 121 F.3d at 1008.Google Scholar
See id.Google Scholar
See id.Google Scholar
See id. at 1009.Google Scholar
See id.Google Scholar
See id. at 1014.Google Scholar
See id. at 1010.Google Scholar
See id.Google Scholar
See id. (citing 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a)).Google Scholar
See id. (relying on strict construction of “place of public accommodation” advanced in Stoutenborough v. National Football League, 59 F.3d 580 (6th Cir. 1995)).Google Scholar
Id. at 1011.Google Scholar
See id.Google Scholar
See id. at 1010.Google Scholar
See id. at 1012.Google Scholar
See id. at 1015.Google Scholar
See id. at 1015–16.Google Scholar
See id. at 1017 (citing Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. CAN Insurance Cos., 96 F.3d 1039, 1044 (7th Cir. 1996)).Google Scholar
See 96 F.3d at 1044.Google Scholar
See id.Google Scholar
Mental Health Parity Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-5 (1996).Google Scholar
See 131 F.3d at 1018.Google Scholar
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, 42 U.S.C. § 300gg.Google Scholar
See 131 F.3d at 1018.Google Scholar
See id.Google Scholar
See Jeffrey, , supra note 7.Google Scholar
See id.Google Scholar
See 131 F.3d at 1013–14.Google Scholar
See id. at 1014.Google Scholar
See id.Google Scholar
See id. at 1019–20 (Markin, J. dissenting).Google Scholar
References
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104–191, 110 Stat. 36 (codified as amended in scattered sections of the U.S.C.) (hereafter HIPAA).Google Scholar
See id.Google Scholar
Examples of these include federal and state constitutional law; freedom of information and privacy acts, fair information practice acts; regulations related to drug and alcohol abuse treatment records; child and domestic abuse reporting laws; and common law.Google Scholar
See HIPAA, § 264 (1996).Google Scholar
Turkington, R.C., “Medical Record Confidentiality Law, Research, and Data Collection in the Information Age,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 25 (1997): At 122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See HIPAA, § 1173 (1997).Google Scholar
See id. § 1173(b).Google Scholar
See Tobler, L., “When Medical Secrets Have Nowhere to Hide,” National Conference of State Legislatures, 23, no. 4 (Apr. 1, 1997).Google Scholar
See Bell, A., “Patient Consent Urged on Sharing Medical Records,” National Underwriter Life & Health-Financial Services, Mar. 17, 1997.Google Scholar
See Stanley, , supra note 3.Google Scholar
See id.Google Scholar
See “Insurance Bill Would Set Policy for Electronic Health Data Exchanges,” Health Care Daily (BNA), at D-2 (Aug. 16, 1996).Google Scholar
See Fair Information Practices Act of 1997: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Government Management, Information and Technology of the House Comm. on Government Reform and Oversight, 105th Cong. (June 5, 1997) (statement of Donald J. Palmisano, M.D., J.D.).Google Scholar
Fair Information Practices Act of 1997: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Government Management, Information and Technology of the House Comm. on Government Reform and Oversight, 105th Cong. (June 5, 1997) (statement of Steven Kenny Hoge, J.D.).Google Scholar
See Tobler, , supra note 9.Google Scholar
See id. For an in-depth discussion of the problems of maintaining confidentiality even after explicit identifiers are removed from medical records, see Sweeney, L., “Weaving Technology and Policy Together to Maintain Confidentiality,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 25 (1997): 98–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Tobler, , supra note 9 (managed care organizations require more information for quality assurance, payments, and utilization reviews, while employers are demanding more information from health providers).Google Scholar
See Smith, S., “Medical Checkup Privacy at Issue: Your Health is Not Just Between You and Your Doctor Anymore,” San Diego Union-Tribune, Nov. 18, 1996, at E1.Google Scholar
See Stanley, , supra note 3.Google Scholar
Pear, R., “Clinton to Back Law on Patient Privacy,” New York Times, Aug. 10, 1997, at 4.Google Scholar
See Smith, , supra note 20.Google Scholar
See id.Google Scholar
See Stanley, , supra note 3.Google Scholar
See Lowrance, W.W., Privacy and Health Research, A Report to the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Washington, D.C.: Department of Health and Human Services, May 1997).Google Scholar
See id.Google Scholar
See id. In addition, the study the Lowrance report recommends that institutional review boards and other ethics review bodies become fully engaged with the privacy, confidentiality, and security aspects of individual health data. It is also suggested that internal and external accountability be maintained for those disseminating and using such medical information. See id.Google Scholar
See National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics, Health Privacy and Confidentiality Recommendations (issued June 25, 1997) <http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/ncvhs/privrecs.htm>..>Google Scholar
See id.Google Scholar
See id.Google Scholar
See id.Google Scholar
See id.Google Scholar
See id.Google Scholar
See Confidentiality of Individually-Identifiable Health Information, Recommendations of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, pursuant to section 264 of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (Sept. 11, 1997).Google Scholar
See id.Google Scholar
“Shalala Urges Congress to Legislate Protection for Medical Records,” Health Lawyers News, 1, no. 10 (1997): At 19 (pursuant to HIPAA § 264 (1996)).Google Scholar
See “Privacy Proposals Hit; Critics: Shalala's Rules Would Give Cops Access to Medical Records,” Capital Times, Sept. 12, 1997, at A1.Google Scholar
See id.Google Scholar
See “Medical Privacy Gets Clinton Nudge,” Orlando Sentinel, Sept. 12, 1997, at A3.Google Scholar
Smith, , supra note 20.Google Scholar
Seachrist, L., “Shalala's Medical Privacy Report Gets Mixed Reviews,” Bioworld Today, 8, no. 178 (1997).Google Scholar