HR 3015, the National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act

5:32 pm in News by News

Oct 8, 2004
Press Release
Painreliefnetwork.org


The NASPER bill, National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act, has not even been received in committee. Since this is being maneuvered by the drug warriors, right here at the end of session, I would expect a quick push…


Call your Senators and ask to speak to the aide who advises the Senator on health and prescription drug issues. Say that this effort comes at the end of a long reign of terror against physicians who treat pain and would only consolidate law enforcement’s gains to the great and permanent detriment of patients in pain and their families. The aides I spoke with were very receptive and attentive. I also said that PRN would file suit to enjoin the enactment of the law were it to pass. And we would be very critical of anyone who had allowed such a dangerous and invasive measure to pass without more scrutiny.


Go to the following website and give your two senators a call.
Calling is a simple and very effective way to make your opinion known.


http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm


Thanks,
Siobhan
President
PRN


Basic Information:


HR 3015, a National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act, is slated for a voice vote like they did in the house where it passed by a 2/3 majority. A voice vote is a way to pass a bill quickly without much opposition. As this is near the end of the session, they are trying to pass this at the last minute.


Congressman Ron Paul spoke out against the bill. This bill would violate the 4th Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, violate patient privacy including members of Congress and other public officials, and create a national databse that would impede access to health care for patients who would would be forced to choose their privacy or the need for care.


PRN with our networks’ support killed a similar bill in Florida, however this is a national version of the persciption monitoring program.


To see information about the Florida bill click here:
>> KILL BILL: FLORIDA


Background Information About HR 3015


The bill would appear to violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.


The bill permits and encourages the State monitoring programs to notify State drug enforcement authorities if the information reported to the data base “indicates an unlawful diversion or misuse of a controlled substance”. Section 399O(c)(6). It further authorizes the State monitoring program to furnish information from the data base to “any local, State, or Federal law enforcement, narcotics control, licensure, disciplinary, or program authority , who certifies” that the requested information is needed for an investigation. Section 399O(e)(2).


The bill thereby authorizes the use and disclosure of identifiable health information for law enforcement purposes without the patient’s knowledge or consent, without probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and without obtaining a search warrant. The Supreme Court recently found that a similar program violated the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures in Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 121 S. Ct. 1281 (2001). The program found constitutionally deficient in that case provided for a hospital to report to law enforcement officials any case in which a pregnant woman tested positive for controlled substances. The Supreme Court found that in the absence of the patient’s informed consent for this disclosure or a search warrant, the reporting of this health information to law enforcement officials amounted to an unlawful search and seizure.


In reaching that conclusion, the Court found, based on an amicus brief from the American Medical Association, that “[t]he reasonable expectation of privacy enjoyed by the typical patient undergoing diagnostic tests in a hospital is that the results of those tests will not be shared with non-medical personnel without her consent.” Clearly patients would have the same reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to prescriptions to treat an illness.