High court backs broad disclosure of records

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. -- Careful. Your medical records may not be as private as you think.

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled Thursday that signing one sweeping document can leave your records open to others for years to come.

The case involves a man -- identified only as M.A.K. -- who took out an insurance policy and signed a document saying any doctor or medical facility could give his records to the insurance company.

When he was treated for alcoholism, the company obtained his records and canceled his policy for lying on his insurance application.

The man sued Chicago's Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center, accusing it of breaching doctor-patient confidentiality. The hospital should have checked with him before releasing any information, he said.

He argues the form is so broad that it violates federal regulations on releasing information about drug and alcohol addiction. He also says it cannot apply to records created after he signed.

The medical center's attorneys countered that the disclosure form is commonly used. A lower court siding with M.A.K. "has shocked and alarmed Illinois hospitals, physicians and insurers," they said in court documents.

The Illinois Hospital and Healthsystems Association filed a brief in support of Rush.

The Supreme Court ruled that the disclosure form meets the federal requirements and it rejected M.A.K.'s argument that the form did not apply to records created after he signed.

Justice Thomas Kilbride dissented.

"It would defy logic to conclude that a patient may validly waive the right of confidentiality in records that do not even exist at the time," he said.

------

On the Net:

http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/Uploads.htm12/20