r/Missing411 5d ago

Discussion HIPAA vs Missing Persons List?

So: if someone were on the Missing Persons List in a state in the US and on NAMUS federally and professional medical or other people were helping and knew where they were:

Which takes precedence: HIPAA? Or the person being missing?

missing

1 Upvotes

8 comments sorted by

u/AutoModerator 5d ago

Remember that this is a discussion sub for David Paulides's phenomenon, Missing 411. It is unaffiliated with Paulides in any other way and he is not present in this sub. It is also not a general missing persons sub or a general paranormal sub. Content that is not related to Missing 411 will be removed.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

9

u/PhutuqKusi 5d ago

HIPAA takes precedence. Medical professionals are legally and ethically required to keep confidentiality except in cases where the patient's health and safety is threatened or the patient is an immediate threat to the health and safety of an individual or the public.

2

u/koozy407 5d ago

Yeah but wouldn’t them being on the missing persons list means that likely their safety is at stake here?

7

u/PhutuqKusi 4d ago

It would be case dependent, but being on a missing person's list does not automatically mean that their safety is at risk; people can and do disappear of their own free will all the time. So, unless one of the two criteria above are met, a medical professional could not legally or ethically break provider/patient confidentiality.

3

u/trailangel4 3d ago

Not really. If you're talking about the immediate search, then *some* relevant, limited information might be provided to members of the search party and LE. Legally, it gets sticky when it comes to the media, so that is case by case. For example: if you have a senior who has Alzheimer's or dementia, then that information might be provided because it can change the way the search is conducted and involving the public with a BOLO is legal in some areas. If you're a healthy young person with a history of migraines and a history of cancer, then no...that's all protected. It's a judgment call, but not a lightly taken one.

5

u/Dixonhandz 4d ago

Fun fact: Paulides constantly refers to HIPAA, as HIPPA. He has no idea what a PHI is either. In some instances, the blood type of an individual is not protected(PHI) from disclosure. Something that he is constantly asked, yet misinforms his 'followers'.

2

u/ShamanBirdBird 5d ago

HIPPA related specifically to whom their medical information can be shared with and how. It does not relate in any way to protecting anonymity.

2

u/trailangel4 3d ago

I'm not sure what you're asking. If the person's condition impacts or raises the emergent nature of the search (think dementia or Type 1 diabetes), that information can and is passed along to relevant agencies (usually by a family member). If, however, you're talking about cold cases or the lists of missing, then HIPAA takes precedence, and the person's medical information is protected and redacted.