quick note on injury updates

[eball]

as mentioned somewhere by another poster, there are privacy rules concerning the disclosure of specific medical information. the law is called HIPAA, and new privacy requirements went into effect over the last year or two.

 

in order for any team to be able to disclose a player's medical condition, that player would have to specifically authorize the disclosure. i'm certain that is one reason for the lack of detailed information concerning player injuries in all sports leagues recently.

 

secondly, a team is certainly within its rights to take the position that disclosure of specific medical information, even if authorized by the player, is potentially detrimental to the team if it gives an opponent an edge in any respect.

 

i agree that the bills have been vague concerning the recent injury to parrish, and even the "tweak" to mcgahee saturday night. but it is senseless to draw any conclusions from the situation, because there are a number of legitimate reasons why certain things may be said or unsaid.

 

now, back to your regularly scheduled hand-wringing over what are surely season-ending injuries to roscoe parrish and willis mcgahee.

[eSJayDee]

You bring up a good point w/ respect to HIPAA which I wasn't at all familiar w/.

However, in the past, teams have been required to disclose injury info & have been fined for not doing so. W/ respect to disclosing this info, since all teams are required to abide by the same rules, no overall benefit is derived.

From a passionate fan's perspective, one certainly would like to have this info disclosed.

It would be nice if someone (of authority) would confirm that our new policy of vagueness is required to remain in compliance w/ these new regs. (I don't follow other teams closely enough to know if they're doing a similar thing.)

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

Could be NFL injury rules don't apply for pre-season?

 

You bring up a good point w/ respect to HIPAA which I wasn't at all familiar w/.

However, in the past, teams have been required to disclose injury info & have been fined for not doing so.

408777[/snapback]

[eball]

Could be NFL injury rules don't apply for pre-season?

408803[/snapback]

that may be true...but regardless, the NFL injury rules, even during the regular season, do not supersede HIPAA. if you look at what is required by the NFL, it is very vague. "doubtful" means a 10% chance of playing, "questionable" means 50/50, and "probable" means 90% -- AT THE TIME THE REPORT IS MADE. i also don't believe that the teams are required to offer any more specific information than to list a particular body part -- i.e., "leg" -- in the injury report.

 

there is lots of room for teams to exercise gamesmanship and misdirection with respect to players' injuries and expectations for the coming week.

[krazykat]

now, back to your regularly scheduled hand-wringing over what are surely season-ending injuries to roscoe parrish and willis mcgahee. 

408735[/snapback]

LOL Also, preseason is weeks long. both may be perfectly healthy by season starting and I'm sure Willis will be. Even if Parrish misses a few games, it's not the Pats and Jets we're playing first. I think we can handle Houston, New Orleans and Tampa without Parrish. If not then we have other issues than whether or not Parrish could play. Heck, if we can't hold Tampa to under 14 points, then something's wrong.

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

All of this is open to interpretation and the blessed lawyers are more than happy to be paid by us to debate for us what "is" means.

 

However, in general it will be tough to argue against a team complying with HIPA by not giving out specifics of health problems, but stating when a player is expected to return to action or how long or likely he is to be out.

 

In theory, adherence to HIPAA would require total secrecy about health problems by an employer. but there is a recognition by the law in practice and probably with the usual wiggle room in the language (we need to depend on you lawyers for this) that their also is an important commerce need for balancing that levels the gambling playing field by requiring teams to report honestly (subject to fines if they stretch reality).

 

The bottomline here is that I would not worry about HIPAA because though one can make some sort of argument based on theory or ideology to interpret application of the law, money talks. There is a huge chunk of change which drives the NFL in terms of gambling and this need strikes me as trumping in reality what folks think is the "right thing to do" in terms of ideology just about every time.

 

Add to this that the HIPA laws clearly allows the individual to waive their right to restrict access to health data when they choose (we do this routinely on HIPAA forms allowing the hospital to share our health data with insurers or other parties who must be paid) that there is no seeming restriction under the law for the teams to "allow" (meaning force if the want to) players to sign a waiver which allows their team to make statements about their health condition for economic reasons (aka creating a balanced playing field for gamblers though they would never say this.

 

HIPAA is a non issue.

[Buckeye Eric]

as mentioned somewhere by another poster, there are privacy rules concerning the disclosure of specific medical information.  the law is called HIPAA, and new privacy requirements went into effect over the last year or two.

 

408735[/snapback]

 

My guess that this is exactly the reason we are not getting the information. But, some fans like to think something more covert is going on and that their right to know supercedes federal laws.

 

And yes, HIPAA *IS* an issue. Parrish has the right not to waive any of his rights.

[eball]

an important commerce need for balancing that levels the gambling playing field by requiring teams to report honestly (subject to fines if they stretch reality).

408866[/snapback]

FFS, there's a reason why they call it gambling. the oddsmakers certainly consider a team's propensity to "stretch the truth" concerning injuries when they set the lines.

 

i believe it's naive to think that HIPAA is a non-issue in this context.