Conference 7.286::digital

    If my experience with Personnel and employee/manager disputes is any
    indication of the general attitude in Personnel, don't expect ANY level
    of cofidentiality.  After over 21 years with DEC, I can say that my
    only positive experience with Personnel was with ONE Personnel
    Consultant.  The quality of your experience is entirely dependent on who
    your contact person is, not on any general philosophy or attitude of
    the organization.
    
    After much thought, I have decided that Robert Townsend, former
    President of Avis and author of "Up The Organization", was right when
    he said his first order as President was, "fire the Personnel Department!" 
                           

    Marge,
    
    Unless your LTD employee got "special dispensation," s/he was
    *required* to submit confidential medical information via LTD
    forms to Personnel who then forwarded them to Prudential.  I
    suspect that most employees are not aware that this process
    requirement violates the DEC P & P.  When I inquired, I was told
    that the confidential doctor (and patient) forms MUST be given
    to Personnel, and cannot be sent directly to Prudential.
    
    There is nothing in the LTD process that I am aware of that
    would involve management.  It is Personnel's intrusion into
    the "confidential medical information" that is the issue in this
    process.

    Could we keep Personnel problems NOT relating to "confidential
    medical information" in another note,  and keep this note and
    replies for the LTD process and the violation of DEC's own 
    P & P?
    
    Thanks!
    
    	Pennie

re: .5

I deleted my .4 although it was indicative of the massive problems within the
personnel department, it didn't directly relate to the personnel problem
described in the base note.

Bob

    re: base
    
    Perhaps there's a semantics issue here, since the Medical Department
    *reports* to Personnel.  I have no experience with LTD, but when I was
    out on STD, all the relevant forms and communications were processed
    through the site nurse, not the PSA or Personnel Rep.  This seems to be
    the "right" way to process medical info, IMO.
    
    Maybe you should explore this angle further.  Have you talked to the
    Medical Department assigned to your site yet?  There's *no way* that I
    would have given a confidential medical form to any Personnel Rep!
    
    Dick.

    re: .7
    
    STD (that's Short Term Disability, lest there be any ambiguity :-)
    forms are indeed handled by Health Services *only*.  Um, that is,
    IF Health Services does not [inadvertantly/purposefully] "share"
    that information with Personnel and/or Management.
    
    But the LTD forms are handled entirely differently.  And in clear
    violation of the P & P.
    
    I am really curious if it is true that "no one else ever complained
    about this" (as I was told), or if each person who did inquire/complain
    was told some variant of "too bad, that's how it MUST be done,"
    and thus, reasonably wanting to receive benefits in the form of
    $$, just followed the current procedures.

If personnel is responsible for *transmitting* the medical information
to Prudential (rather than for *evaluating* it), why can't the information
be placed in a sealed envelope?  Or, better yet, why can't the employee,
her physician, or health-services be given a pre-addressed envelope
to be used for transmission.

If one were worried about someone in personnel opening the sealed
envelope, it could be sealed, stamped, (and certified).  Opening
such an envelope (by other than the addressee) might well be more
than merely a violation of P&P.

Martin.

re:

>If one were worried about someone in personnel opening the sealed
>envelope, it could be sealed, stamped, (and certified).  Opening
>such an envelope (by other than the addressee) might well be more
>than merely a violation of P&P.

	Unfortunately, it isn't, until said envelope has been delivered
	by the sender to the USPO.

					Tom_K

    re: .9
    
    Hi Martin,
    
    Alas, it is not quite so simple.  There are two forms;  one for
    the physician, one with side (a) for the employee and side (b) for
    Personnel to complete.  No, Personnel "doesn't" complete side (b),
    then have employee complete side (a), and then seal the form in
    an envelope [this non-scenerio assumes one trusts the envelope in
    question to keep itself sealed, of course].  And, yes, the employee
    side also contains confidential medical information (e.g., diagnosis),
    although not as detailed as the form the physician completes.
    
    	Pennie

    For several years, I was a Compensation, Benefits and Administration
    Manager in one of our manufacturing plants.  My staff and I handled
    confidential information every day as part of our jobs.  I had an A&S
    administrator (accident and sickness) that was completely trustworthy
    in her handling of this type of data.  She would work with Health
    Services in the paper flow/administration of these benefits.  When an
    employee's manager and/or Personnel Rep. needed to be involved in cases
    of return to work restrictions, only Health Services was involved and
    the data shared was very limited and exactly as stated in PP&P 6.18. 
    If I am to understand what this policy is saying, it refers to "direct
    access" versus the handling of some data that becomes part of this
    highly confidential file.  I certainly can't speak to .0's personal
    situation but only to what I managed.  I believe that we handled the
    information with a high level of confidentiality and professionalism.

    re: .12
    
    That's exactly what I am referring to, unfortunately.  Personnel
    may THINK that they are "completely trustworthy in ... handling
    of this type of data."  But the P & P clearly states that
    
    	"Personnel and Managers should be provided with medical
    	conclusions and recommendations needed to accomodate work
    	restrictions and manage the employee.  This report should
    	include a medical assessment of functional ability and specific
    	medical needs related to job and workplace.  It will be based
    	upon the employee medical record, BUT WILL NOT INCLUDE DIAGNOSTIC
    	OR OTHER CONFIDENTIAL MEDICAL DETAILS UNLESS SPECIFICALLY
    	AUTHORIZED BY THE EMPLOYEE." [emphasis added]
    
    I think that "diagnostic or other confidential medical details"
    includes "diagnosis (including any complications)", "Objective	
    findings (including current X-rays, EKG's, laboratory data and
    any clinical findings)", "Nature of treatment (including type and
    date of surgery and medications prescribed, if any)", for starters.
    
    Someone might not want Personnel to know the outcome of an AIDS
    test (or even that such a test was done).  Someone else may not
    want Personnel to know that there were complications following an
    abortion.  Yet another person might not want Personnel to know about
    specific disfiguring surgery.  You can add your own scenario.

    re: base and many previous
    
    I think the concern is eminently well-defined.  I would suggest that
    your next step would be to phone or write Ed Brady (ICS::BRADY), US
    Compensation and Benefits Manager, and get an official response to what
    appears to be a very valid concern.  I have expressed concerns directly
    to Ed in the past relating to Benefits, and he has always responded
    with a comprehensive reply.  You may get faster service with a phone
    inquiry than a written one.
    
    Or, have you already gone this route via the "Open Door"?
    
    Dick.

    I agree with .14  
    
    What my point was in my response (or at least I tried to make!) was who
    in Personnel was handling the information.  In my case, I had a person
    responsible for that portion of our work.  She had been our PSA
    previous to that and had excellent relations with our employees.  They
    would often confide in her and not their Reps. or Health Services!  I
    hear the sensitivity to "who knows" in your concern and think that a
    note or call to Ed to address the Administrative procedures for
    Accident and Sickness benefits is good advice.  

    The following is not directly relevant to the topic of this note, but
    it may provide some insight into the current corporate philosophy
    regarding the confidentiality of employee medical information.

    Several months ago all (U.S.?) employees received a booklet entitled
    "The Drug Information Booklet" (which is discussed elsewhere in this
    conference).  The text of section IV ("Seeking Treatment and
    Assistance"), subsection B ("Health Services") was corrected by
    overlaying the original text with a printed sticker.  The corrected
    text is identical to the original text except that that following
    sentence was DELETED:

    	As with EAP, any contact with Health Services is strictly
    	confidential.

    I am currently on STD. When my paperwork was filled out, my doctor used
    coded numbers (ie 1234.1234).  These numbers mean something to the
    medical industry and insurance industry and ASSURES anyone else
    reading the paperwork no knowledge AT All (ie personnel). I thought
    this was a wonderful idea when my doctor explained why he did it that
    way.  Maybe you can get your doctor to fill out the paperwork the same
    way?  It doesn't solve your immediate problem in .0, but it would help
    in the future.

    re: .17
    
>    I am currently on STD. When my paperwork was filled out, my doctor used
>    coded numbers (ie 1234.1234).  These numbers mean something to the
>    medical industry and insurance industry and ASSURES anyone else
>    reading the paperwork no knowledge AT All (ie personnel). 
    
    Using the diagnostic code numbers doesn't ensure privacy.  The code
    books are available in the reference section of many libraries.
    

>    re: .17
>    
>>    I am currently on STD. When my paperwork was filled out, my doctor used
>>    coded numbers (ie 1234.1234).  These numbers mean something to the
>>    medical industry and insurance industry and ASSURES anyone else
>>    reading the paperwork no knowledge AT All (ie personnel). 
>    
>    Using the diagnostic code numbers doesn't ensure privacy.  The code
>    books are available in the reference section of many libraries.
    
    The book is called DSM-3R and I've seen a copy in at least one
    Medical Department office (MRO) at Digital. I would assume they
    are standard in any medical department or personnel organization
    that handles medical paperwork.
    
    			Alfred

    RE: .18 and .19
    
    Geez Guys.. thanks a lot!... Here I thought my doctor was being super
    swift....
    
    
    Gale

    re: .19
    
    The code numbers used on insurance forms and the like since 1979 are
    defined by a classification system known as ICD-9-CM (International
    Classification of Diseases - 9th revision - Clinical Modification).
    
    The DSM-III-R ("Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
    (3rd edition - revised)") contains descriptions of and the ICD-9-CM
    classification numbers of mental disorders only.
    

    so, is there some significance to there being a classification manual
    on mental disorders at the MRO facility?????
    
    
    tony

    re: various
    
    I also have learned about STD processing (not mine) which was
    required to go through Personnel!  And *nowhere* on any of the
    forms for STD is there any suggestion that anyone other than
    Health Services is to be the contact.
    
    As for the ICD codes...the LTD form requires that the code be
    listed, AND requires that more detailed information be provided,
    as I stated earlier.  So even if Personnel did not decipher the
    xxx.y code, the rest of the form spells it out in English.  In
    several places.
    
    As for Ed Brady...I tried to get his assistance a couple of times
    to help John Hancock pay $xx,xxx that they are sitting on that
    various doctors of mine (and hospitals, labs, etc.) would like
    to have paid to them.  Zero assistance, even after many requests
    for help.  [BTW, JH is not claiming that they are not responsible
    for the payments...they are just "in process", and they'll "be happy
    to check on it again" for me...but this is a DIFFERENT problem...but
    one that makes me particularly unhappy about Personnel at all levels.
    Thank goodness I have a great job, and my manager has been super
    about trying not to intrude...she knows a bit about the trouble
    I have been encountering.]
    
    I have already lost one specialist who refused to continue treating
    me because he wasn't getting paid, and it was too much money for
    me to advance him the full amount.  (Some unpaid bills go back to
    1987!) 

    re .23
    
    I know I am digressing from the base note but I want to comment on your
    problem with JH paying its bills.
    
    I had the same problem.  I broke my leg in three places, had two
    operations (surgery=100%, right?) months of physical therapy, three
    different casts and MANY, MANY bills.  I got the royal run around from
    both JH and dec about these bills while collection agencies were
    calling me (I didn't have $20,000 to pay).
    
    Finally, out of (dec induced) frustration, I called JH and told them if
    my bills were not paid immediately and in full, that I would sue them
    for every cent they had, then I asked for a supervisor and repeated my
    demands.  The bills were paid the next week and I have not had a single
    problem with them since.

    re: .24
    
    You were "lucky".  I threatened legal action, both to the JH
    supervisors and to Ed Brady.  Two years ago.
    
    Still very few payments.  I have had to follow up on my threat,
    but give a prior experience with this notes file on this topic,
    I am not able to discuss that issue here.
    
    If others want to discuss it, *great*.

    re: digression in .23-.25:
    
    If I were having problems with JH or Digital paying medical claims, I
    would ask my management to assist me in escalating the problems and
    getting them resolved.  I would probably point out to them that the
    more quickly the problems were resolved, the less of my working hours
    would be spent on the problems.
    
    You may want to try this if you're in a similar situation.
    
    My experience is that some organizations in Digital are much better
    dealt with by managers than by individuals.  This may be one of them.

re: .26:

That sounds like a reasonable suggestion.  Assuming Pennie has tried
that and failed, what should she do next?

You might assume either of the following:

-- the people she has tried to work with are unhelpful (but not malicious).

-- the people she has tried to work with have decided she is attempting
   to pull a fast one over on Dec/JH and are being intentionally unhelpful.

Remember Goldfinger's Law (from the James Bond books):

	Once is happistance.
	Twice is coincidence.
	Three times is enemy action.

We can all sit around and joke about personnel department confusion (sending
out rejection letters to candidates after they have been hired), but what
is the proper strategy when they are *really* out to get you?

Martin.

To answer Martin's question, I suggest that you call KO.

However, if Pennie has already started legal proceedings, then it
would seem to me that the problem is now in Legal's hands.  Sad
commentary on the process however that things couldn't be worked
out without the courts being involved.

Lee G.

    re: .28 and courts
    
    To clarify:  I now have legal assistance in trying to get JH
    to pay the claims that they agree they owe and are "working on it."
    No courts are involved at this time.
    
    But please remember that the topic of this conference is about
    the confidentiality of medical records, *not* health insurance
    problems.  
    
    I have received a number of messages from individuals who also
    had problems like mine, and so far, in all cases, they were/are
    afraid of retribution and prefer not to participate publicly or
    anonymously in this discussion, lest they be terminated.
    
    I find it very scary that the atmosphere here is such that employees
    are afraid to speak up when DEC violates its own policies and
    procedures (and state law, I believe!) because of fear of negative
    sanctions up to and including termination.  
    
    It is one thing if people don't realize that their corporate and/or
    state rights are being violated.  It is quite another if they are
    aware and are afraid to protest.  Or if others are afraid to protest
    on behalf of those who didn't know their rights.
    
    Does no one CARE?  [what's the tale of how no one spoke up when
    they took away one group and then another...until there was no
    one left to defend the last one left...?]  

    re:.0
    
    Boy,does that ring a sour note with me! I'm talking about the part
    whhere personnel says: "nobody's ever questioned this policy before".
    Sounds exactly like what was told to me by personnel last August when I
    moved to Colo. I'll bet they teach 'em that in 'personnel school'...
    
    Ken

    Just some general suggestions of some things I have seen work for others - 
    
    1) Complete forms only with information you choose to disclose.  Any
    field requesting information that is doctor/patient confidential do not
    leave blank but enter "CI-DD", (Confidential Information - Disclosure
    Declined).  Make your response look official! 
    
    2) If personnel declines or refuses to forward the document, kindly
    refer them to the related P & P manual/section.  Inform personnel they
    must  request  "YOUR" confidential information IN WRITING - with
    stated reasons why they require this information.  Also mention to them this
    isn't "your" idea, but advice from your legal counsel working this
    issue with you.  
    
    3) When the document goes to J-H (insurance) someone will be unable to
    process the document due to missing information.  Contact J-H,
    find WHO has the document and needs the information - forward
    missing/updated document to the proper person.
    
    4) Anytime you provide ANY type of document/information to anyone that
    you wish distribution restricted, try the following:
    
    	a. Assign a unique ID-code to the document and write the code
    somewhere on the document. (Don't make it obvious.)
    
     	b. Keep a notebook of all assigned ID's and who the document was
    provided to. (suggest you not tell them)
    
    	c. Periodically check/review your files to see if unauthorized
    copies of documents have been provided to other organizations/groups.
    Original ID-code will tell you what group compromised your information.
    
    	d. If your confidential information has been provided to another
    organization withour your consent request that it be immediately
    returned, then go to battle stations with the original group.  Put
    everything in writing!
    
    Remember - just because people ask for information (SSN, Phone,
    Address, Income level, drivers Lic., . . . . .) doesn't automatically
    REQUIRE you to provided it!
    
    Good luck,
     

    
    This question is in the same vein as STD/LTD rights: 
    
    Can a manager pass along information regarding a 
    person's STD situation to another group in Digital? 
    By information, I mean their own personal assessment
    of what is wrong with you. (Yes it happened to me,
    and I am trying to calmly figure our what to do about
    it.)
    
    
    
    
    

The talking manager has no business stating anything other than the simple fact
that the employee has been on STD for x-period. (It affects schedules for salary
actions and other stuff. The recipient manager should refuse to accept such 
info.