User login
An appeals court may soon decide whether federal authorities can access a patient’s medical records through a statewide prescription drug monitoring database without a warrant or if such searches infringe upon privacy rights.
On Oct. 10, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments in U.S. Department of Justice v. Jonas, which centers on an investigatory subpoena issued by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency in 2018 that sought records about a certain patient from New Hampshire’s Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP). The subpoena’s recipient, PDMP program manager Michelle Ricco-Jonas, refused to comply, citing state law that prohibits law enforcement from accessing the database without a court order based on probable cause. Releasing PDMP records to authorities without cause violate patients’ privacy protections under the Fourth Amendment, Ms. Jonas and the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office argued.
The U.S. Department of Justice sued to enforce the subpoena, contending that the DEA’s authority to investigate suspected criminal drug activity preempts New Hampshire’s law under the Supremacy Clause. In November 2018, U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrea K. Johnstone agreed with the DOJ and recommended the district judge grant the government’s motion to enforce the subpoena, a decision affirmed by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire in January 2019. The court ruled the government met its burden to satisfy the modest requirements for enforcement of the subpoena. Attorneys for New Hampshire appealed to the 1st Circuit.
The case is being closely watched by states, physician groups, pharmacies, and patient advocacy groups. In a joint court brief by the New Hampshire Medical Society and the American Civil Liberties Union, the organizations urged the appeals court to protect patient privacy by finding in favor of New Hampshire.
“The DEA has sought to enforce a subpoena that both injures Jonas and threatens to invade the Fourth Amendment privacy rights of individuals whose private medical information resides in the database, and whose privacy and confidentiality Jonas is statutorily charged with protecting. ... but who have no ability to challenge that impending harm,” the groups wrote in the brief. “The prescription records at issue in this case reveal intimate, private, and potentially stigmatizing details about patients’ health, including details of those patients’ underlying medical conditions. For that reason, as with other medical records, people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in them.”
Oregon’s PDMP faced a similar legal challenge in 2012. In that case, the DEA attempted to access the records of one patient and two prescribing physicians from Oregon’s prescription database. The state sued to prevent release of the records, and the ACLU intervened as a plaintiff on behalf of several unnamed patients and a doctor. A district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the DEA’s actions constituted a Fourth Amendment violation. However, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court in 2017 overturned the decision, ruling that federal law regarding administrative subpoenas trumps Oregon law. In addition, the appeals court ruled that the ACLU lacked standing to intervene and seek relief different from that sought by Oregon. By invalidating ACLU from the suit, the Fourth Amendment argument was never resolved by the 9th Circuit.
New Hampshire is one of 49 states that have Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs in addition to the District of Columbia. The programs collect, monitor, and analyze electronically transmitted prescribing and dispensing data submitted by physicians and pharmacies with the aim of reducing prescription drug abuse and diversion.
An appeals court may soon decide whether federal authorities can access a patient’s medical records through a statewide prescription drug monitoring database without a warrant or if such searches infringe upon privacy rights.
On Oct. 10, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments in U.S. Department of Justice v. Jonas, which centers on an investigatory subpoena issued by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency in 2018 that sought records about a certain patient from New Hampshire’s Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP). The subpoena’s recipient, PDMP program manager Michelle Ricco-Jonas, refused to comply, citing state law that prohibits law enforcement from accessing the database without a court order based on probable cause. Releasing PDMP records to authorities without cause violate patients’ privacy protections under the Fourth Amendment, Ms. Jonas and the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office argued.
The U.S. Department of Justice sued to enforce the subpoena, contending that the DEA’s authority to investigate suspected criminal drug activity preempts New Hampshire’s law under the Supremacy Clause. In November 2018, U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrea K. Johnstone agreed with the DOJ and recommended the district judge grant the government’s motion to enforce the subpoena, a decision affirmed by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire in January 2019. The court ruled the government met its burden to satisfy the modest requirements for enforcement of the subpoena. Attorneys for New Hampshire appealed to the 1st Circuit.
The case is being closely watched by states, physician groups, pharmacies, and patient advocacy groups. In a joint court brief by the New Hampshire Medical Society and the American Civil Liberties Union, the organizations urged the appeals court to protect patient privacy by finding in favor of New Hampshire.
“The DEA has sought to enforce a subpoena that both injures Jonas and threatens to invade the Fourth Amendment privacy rights of individuals whose private medical information resides in the database, and whose privacy and confidentiality Jonas is statutorily charged with protecting. ... but who have no ability to challenge that impending harm,” the groups wrote in the brief. “The prescription records at issue in this case reveal intimate, private, and potentially stigmatizing details about patients’ health, including details of those patients’ underlying medical conditions. For that reason, as with other medical records, people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in them.”
Oregon’s PDMP faced a similar legal challenge in 2012. In that case, the DEA attempted to access the records of one patient and two prescribing physicians from Oregon’s prescription database. The state sued to prevent release of the records, and the ACLU intervened as a plaintiff on behalf of several unnamed patients and a doctor. A district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the DEA’s actions constituted a Fourth Amendment violation. However, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court in 2017 overturned the decision, ruling that federal law regarding administrative subpoenas trumps Oregon law. In addition, the appeals court ruled that the ACLU lacked standing to intervene and seek relief different from that sought by Oregon. By invalidating ACLU from the suit, the Fourth Amendment argument was never resolved by the 9th Circuit.
New Hampshire is one of 49 states that have Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs in addition to the District of Columbia. The programs collect, monitor, and analyze electronically transmitted prescribing and dispensing data submitted by physicians and pharmacies with the aim of reducing prescription drug abuse and diversion.
An appeals court may soon decide whether federal authorities can access a patient’s medical records through a statewide prescription drug monitoring database without a warrant or if such searches infringe upon privacy rights.
On Oct. 10, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments in U.S. Department of Justice v. Jonas, which centers on an investigatory subpoena issued by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency in 2018 that sought records about a certain patient from New Hampshire’s Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP). The subpoena’s recipient, PDMP program manager Michelle Ricco-Jonas, refused to comply, citing state law that prohibits law enforcement from accessing the database without a court order based on probable cause. Releasing PDMP records to authorities without cause violate patients’ privacy protections under the Fourth Amendment, Ms. Jonas and the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office argued.
The U.S. Department of Justice sued to enforce the subpoena, contending that the DEA’s authority to investigate suspected criminal drug activity preempts New Hampshire’s law under the Supremacy Clause. In November 2018, U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrea K. Johnstone agreed with the DOJ and recommended the district judge grant the government’s motion to enforce the subpoena, a decision affirmed by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire in January 2019. The court ruled the government met its burden to satisfy the modest requirements for enforcement of the subpoena. Attorneys for New Hampshire appealed to the 1st Circuit.
The case is being closely watched by states, physician groups, pharmacies, and patient advocacy groups. In a joint court brief by the New Hampshire Medical Society and the American Civil Liberties Union, the organizations urged the appeals court to protect patient privacy by finding in favor of New Hampshire.
“The DEA has sought to enforce a subpoena that both injures Jonas and threatens to invade the Fourth Amendment privacy rights of individuals whose private medical information resides in the database, and whose privacy and confidentiality Jonas is statutorily charged with protecting. ... but who have no ability to challenge that impending harm,” the groups wrote in the brief. “The prescription records at issue in this case reveal intimate, private, and potentially stigmatizing details about patients’ health, including details of those patients’ underlying medical conditions. For that reason, as with other medical records, people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in them.”
Oregon’s PDMP faced a similar legal challenge in 2012. In that case, the DEA attempted to access the records of one patient and two prescribing physicians from Oregon’s prescription database. The state sued to prevent release of the records, and the ACLU intervened as a plaintiff on behalf of several unnamed patients and a doctor. A district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the DEA’s actions constituted a Fourth Amendment violation. However, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court in 2017 overturned the decision, ruling that federal law regarding administrative subpoenas trumps Oregon law. In addition, the appeals court ruled that the ACLU lacked standing to intervene and seek relief different from that sought by Oregon. By invalidating ACLU from the suit, the Fourth Amendment argument was never resolved by the 9th Circuit.
New Hampshire is one of 49 states that have Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs in addition to the District of Columbia. The programs collect, monitor, and analyze electronically transmitted prescribing and dispensing data submitted by physicians and pharmacies with the aim of reducing prescription drug abuse and diversion.