Outdated Privacy Law Limits Effective Substance Use Disorder Treatment: The Case Against 42 CFR Part 2

On November 17, 2016, Surgeon General Vivek Murphy released the first report on substance use disorder (SUD) in the U.S. This landmark document described the tremendous toll of alcohol and drug use on the health and well-being of our nation. With the report, the Surgeon General issued a call to action, stating “how we respond to this crisis is a test for America.” Highlighted in the recommendations was the need to address the segregation of SUD treatment outside of medical care and the need to fight persistent stigma. However, full implementation of these recommendations remains nearly impossible so long as the archaic federal privacy law known as 42 CFR part 2 remains in place. The intentions of 42 CFR part 2 were good and necessary in the era before the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). These strict federal confidentiality regulations were enacted in response to concerns that stigma and fear of prosecution might discourage patients from entering addiction treatment. In the 1970s and 1980s drug and alcohol use disorders were still viewed as moral failings, and fears around disclosure of treatment for these illnesses were justified. However, this confidentiality becomes a stumbling block because 42 CFR part 2 requires addiction treatment providers to obtain written consent from patients in order to share any information with non-addiction clinicians — the only exception being for “true emergencies.” Designed to protect ...
Source: Health Affairs Blog - Category: Health Management Authors: Tags: Featured Health Professionals Population Health Public Health Quality 42 CFR Part 2 ADA addiction HIPAA opioid epidemic patient privacy Substance Use Disorders Source Type: blogs