Washington I-1639 / More info

[American123]

Mental illness is a wide net. Neuroses are generally transient, fear of heights, clowns, babies, etcetera. Remove the stressor and everything is fine. Depression is treatable, a profound sadness is usually treatable caused by specific events in one's life. Sociopathy and Psychosis are other things entirely.

Being a sociopath and a classic narcissist, I wonder if Trump could qualify to buy a gun in Washington.

The problem is, as near as I can tell, is if some one was treated for, say, depression 20 years ago and recovered. Likely they would still be denied their right to purchase a firearm.

I think you missed my statements intention entirely, calling a specific ideology mental illness as it resonates within the anti-freedom party, without being so direct as to violate previously decreed forum guidelines.

 

[ACO]

If every transfer has to do a background check, then every firearm will now make you waive hippa and have annual background checks? Even suppressors then? I thought this was only about rifles for now, but seems to be more blanketed.

 

[Talos32]

If every transfer has to do a background check, then every firearm will now make you waive hippa and have annual background checks? Even suppressors then? I thought this was only about rifles for now, but seems to be more blanketed.

I think it has to do with whether the purchase uses NICS or the state background check. For now other firearms, and non semi auto longarms still use NICS. So they should not require the waiver.

I wonder if it's all much ado about nothing, as the state would have to know who your doctor was to request your medical records. It's not like that's public knowledge. There is no centralized database they could just type your name and social security number into and get information back about that sort of thing. Additionally, as Sporting Systems pointed out, the state is not covered by HIPAA as it's not a medical provider. That "should" mean that any waiver you sign is not a true HIPAA waiver, and your doctor places themselves in danger of violating HIPAA if they don't have one of the other law enforcement exemptions that would allow them to release your information.

Regarding the annual background checks, if you have a CPL, supposedly they're already doing this. You just don't know about it unless something comes up and they want to take your license.

 

[ACO]

Good points to know. I also feel the medical waiver aspect of the bill is a mess. What if they do decide to do a random HIPPA check. Does that information not now fall under public information and be open for a request for it by anyone?

 

[NW One]

Hi team, new to the site and was looking to share info on where you can get the firearm you are looking for before 7/1 and saw this topic. I work for a medical organization and wanted to share how the search would be really easy. Because of the Electronic Medical Records act or whatever they called it during the Obama years, all facilities that want reimbursement from the Feds had to change all their paper records over to electronic. So all anyone would need is a full name and date of birth (two patient identifiers) and there is everything. This can be done from any PC connected to the interwebs with the correct log in. Dont know if it would be made public but if you have no HIPPA limitations what would stop them? Food for thought

 

[11Charlie]

where you can get the firearm you are looking for before 7/1

side bar!! What are you looking for? I'd do it quick time is running out.

 

[NW One]

Found the items I was looking for but took a little hunting around, thank you for the reminder! Should start new post so everyone can share where to get what?

 

[Talos32]

Hi team, new to the site and was looking to share info on where you can get the firearm you are looking for before 7/1 and saw this topic. I work for a medical organization and wanted to share how the search would be really easy. Because of the Electronic Medical Records act or whatever they called it during the Obama years, all facilities that want reimbursement from the Feds had to change all their paper records over to electronic. So all anyone would need is a full name and date of birth (two patient identifiers) and there is everything. This can be done from any PC connected to the interwebs with the correct log in. Dont know if it would be made public but if you have no HIPPA limitations what would stop them? Food for thought

Do all facilities use the same medical records system, or are there multiple commercial software options? If my facility uses the same records system as another facility, can they share records without one facility giving permission to another?

When you say username and login, is this site specific as in Swedish has a username/login to their records and Harborview has their own credentials even if they use the same electronic records?

I'm asking because to the best of my knowledge there isn't a central repository the government could go to, type in your name, and get all of your records. They might be able to get all your records from Swedish by logging in there, but do hospitals give login credentials with unfettered access to the government or do they pull records themselves when requested?

 

[ACO]

I wonder if having a trust will help at all with this nonsense.

 

[NW One]

No their are multiply programs for EMR. In Wa the most popular I think is called EPIC, so say the state wanted a official log in to review they would only need to get maybe 3-4 different log in's to cover the different health systems. I would say if your current Doctor still uses a paper file for everything it would likely not show up on the EMR and the Doc is probably not taking Medicare/Medicaid. And to directly answer you:

1.No, and I would think yes. When you sign the paperwork I believe that is giving permission to ask for the files. Does really help when they actually enter the notes in for the next provider.
2. Yes specific, so someone from Swedish would need a log in for Harbor View
3.I can not answer if their is a central system but because this is a Wa state thing, and everything in Western Wa seams to be on EMR I cant see it being too difficult.

Hope I got all your questions

 

[NW One]

I wonder if having a trust will help at all with this nonsense.

I thought of that route too but then considered how I would document what the trust owns, and then of course that goes to the Gov...I think but always reserve the right to be way wrong!

 

[IOM]

I-1639 is just another idiotic requirement to discourage law abiding folks, it doesn't do a dang thing to those that have chosen to ignore laws...

 

[11Charlie]

I wonder if having a trust will help at all with this nonsense.

From what I understand no it will not.

 

[ACO]

I thought of that route too but then considered how I would document what the trust owns, and then of course that goes to the Gov...I think but always reserve the right to be way wrong!

With my trust, I have a paper I fill out called an, "assignment of property" it only gets seen when it needs to be. All I do is write in something new when I pick it up. The new 41p or 41f part that requires a "responsible person" to be added is where it will probably get us. That person will have to pass requirements of 1639 I presume. I've never bought anything with the trust, just added things and used it for a form 1 and a form 4.

 

[quneur]

As I understand it, the form would include a space for you to put the doctor's name. Then the authorities will be able to contact their office or hospital. At a hospital, it goes through an information director who determines what relevant information can be given.

There are possible problems. I assume that doctor's office won't have an information director but likely deal with an office manager; so you won't know what is given out. Once information is obtained, the sheriff's office or police chief's office will have the information and you don't know who has access to that information considering there is no liability involved.

 

[Talos32]

As I understand it, the form would include a space for you to put the doctor's name. Then the authorities will be able to contact their office or hospital. At a hospital, it goes through an information director who determines what relevant information can be given.

There are possible problems. I assume that doctor's office won't have an information director but likely deal with an office manager; so you won't know what is given out. Once information is obtained, the sheriff's office or police chief's office will have the information and you don't know who has access to that information considering there is no liability involved.

The form is posted on the DoL website. There's nothing on there about your doctor's name or contact information, just a checkbox by a statement that you are waiving your confidentiality for medical records.

Again, I'm thinking we are worrying about a potential non-issue. The state has no idea who to contact to get your medical records, nor the time to find out- it sounds like they are completely unprepared to implement this new process in a timely manner as is without trying to check the medical records of everyone buying a pistol or rifle.

The second issue is that while there are no restrictions on the state's collection of your data, HIPAA does restrict your medical provider's release of your data. Does this form constitute a valid HIPAA waiver under federal law? Does the state even need one under the law enforcement exceptions?

My guess is the transfer form itself is not a valid HIPAA release- it bears no resemblance to the ones I've seen that all have you write to who, what and for how long you are releasing the information. They also expire automatically after time. If they could get your info without the under the law enforcement exemptions, they probably wouldn't be asking for a waiver. If I'm right, releasing information may place your provider in violation of federal law. I'd like to sees the feds take on whether or not this is a valid release.

 

[NW One]

Talos I 2nd the idea that in the long term the HIPPA waver and all that will get reevaluated and they will need to define terms, limitations and all that. Its federal law they are messing with and that means court. But just like the inability to transfer "other" guns after 7/1 I suspect this too will get drawn out in court basically making a ban on semi auto...I mean "assault weapons" until its worked out or repealed. Ill ask around to see how well info goes between facilities and what really is needed to pull up a file from a smaller Doctor outfit to view at say a Hospital. Again I dont work in the system so not sure how well info goes from Swedish to Harborview or wherever. I just make sure all is working, everyone is doing their job and customer happy.

 

[fmfdoc]

Hello all,
I hope I am not jumping in inappropriatly but i see much ado about "HIPPA" and EMR's. I think there is a misunderstanding about how this data is collected and which is protected information. It really does not matter what EMR is used, even paper based offices need to submit bills electronically, this involves ICD 9/10 codes which are related to diagnoises. The state does not have to go to your provider to get ALL of your diagnoses, they just have to query the insurance clearing houses for icd-9/10 codes and they have your history.
Your diagnosis codes are all out there and accesible without ever contacting your healthcare provider. This combined with "red Flag" laws is chilling.

 

[NW One]

That almost makes too much sense....fmfdoc thats a great point and sounds more likely than EMR, I wonder if the Medcare/caid would push back on the state. Agree completely with the chill, really easy once you sign the paper for them to make something into a issue.

 

[IOM]

I was under the impression the only Medical records that could be looked at were Mental issues, not your regular records...