PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

There always is a controversy over whether health care issues and identities should be made public or kept private.

Often, privacy rules and that’s okay.

But, issues with the Covid virus have underlined the tension as never before.

Consider this.  What if, in a community of which you are a part, some individuals are reported to have come down with the virus?  Should their names be made available, at least to you and others in the community, in order to help stop the potential spread?  Or, should the names be confidential?

In the health care arena, one of the controlling laws is called HIPPA – the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.  Passed in 1996, it required creating national standards to protect sensitive patient health information from being disclosed without the patient’s consent or knowledge. 

The law has controlled health care information for years and creates a balancing test that often falls down on the side of privacy.  Which, I add, is good in the sense that I want my health information protected, just as many citizens do.

I lived closely with HIPPA during my professional career, 15 years in Oregon state government management and 25 years as a lobbyist during which I represented hospitals and health insurers.  HIPPA governed many of our operations, including in the development of public policy at the Capitol in Salem.

I remember many times that, due to HIPPA, I could not respond to requests from legislators for information on their constituents who might have been in hospitals or on health insurance company rolls that I represented.

The rubber has met the road during the pandemic.

Here’s how.

In the community where I live, it became known that three individuals had tested positive for the virus.  Should their identities be released or kept private?

I can argue both sides:

• On one side, it should be up to the individuals who tested positive to decide whether to allow their names to be released or not.

• On the other side, the rationale to prod release of the names is to allow others who may have come in contact with the three to decide how to respond, including whether to quarantine to reduce chances for the virus to spread.

• Would I support forcing release of the names?  No.  The decision should rest with those individuals who have contracted the virus.

To avoid the “one side-other side” debate, let me just say this.  If I came down with the virus, I would allow my name to be known so others could decide how to respond – and so effective tracing could be done.

Beyond all this, my fervent hope is that a vaccine will be approved soon and that the tough issues of distribution will be solved so we can begin healing from the pandemic.

Meanwhile, all of us should diligently follow reasonable prescriptions to slow spread of the virus, even if, on occasion, divulging names trumps privacy.