Protect Your Right to Use the MN Vaccine Conscientiously Held Belief Exemption Without Obstructions!



The issue about whether vaccine science is safe and effective is a secondary issue.

The primary issue is about who makes vaccines and why they really want to force us to inject their vaccines in our bodies. That is something you need to know before the vaccine compliance SWAT team knocks on your door. Dees_Vaccines


Minnesota S.F.380 Vaccine bill has a Senate Hearing Wednesday March 18th!

Oppose S.F. 380 NOW!

Click Here and Immediately Write to Committee Members and OPPOSE the bill!
If you have already written, WRITE AGAIN!
When you take action your email will automatically be sent to all of the Committee Members of the Health and Human Services and Housing in the Senate as well as the Committee Members of House Health and Human Services Reform. Their names and contact info will appear on your screen to confirm that you have taken action. Please use this info and call the Senate Committee members and leave a message to vote NO on S.F.380.

►Come to the hearing
Wednesday March 18, 2015
12 Noon – 1:30pm and then again at 5:00pm into the evening

Because S.F.380 is near the end of the agenda, it may not be heard until after 5pm, but no way of knowing yet. We will let you know if and when we know more.

Committee on Health, Human Services and Housing
Chair: Sen. Kathy Sheran
Room 15 Capitol

►Sign up to Testify
Email the Committee Administrator to testify
S.F. 380/H.F. 393 are bills attempting to impose barriers on parents before they exercise their fundamental right to decline vaccines under MN’s legal exemptions!

HF. 393 authors: Immunization exemption procedures modified.
Freiberg ; Ward ; Schultz ; Liebling ; Halverson ; Simonson ; Carlson
; Bernardy ; Murphy, E. ; Yarusso ; Fischer ; Loeffler ; Erhardt ; Davnie
; Rosenthal ; Kahn ; Isaacson ; Slocum ; Uglem

Minnesota S.F. 380/H.F. 393 seeks to make opting out of childhood vaccinations more difficult for MN parents. Under current law, parents can opt children out of vaccination for medical reasons if approved by doctors, or because they hold conscientiously held beliefs if they present notarized forms to their schools. But, SF 380/HF 393 would require those parents to first talk to a Physician and obtain a statement from the physician verifying that the physician has reviewed with the parent information about the risks and benefits of the vaccines that is consistent with information published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.(emphasis, mine.  This is the last place I would go for relevant information on vaccines.)

Please help stop this attempt to set up hurdles for parents before they exercise their fundamental rights to direct the health choices and wellness path of their children. Click Here to Take Action by putting in your zip code and sending an automatic message to your legislator and the Committee Members NOW!
Click Here to read the bill introduced on January 29, 2015 and referred to the Senate Health, Human Services and Housing Committee and to the House Health and Human Services Reform Committee.

Take Action Here.

Economic Stimulus Bill Mandates Electronic Health Records for Every Citizen without Opt-out or Patient Consent Provisions



Economic Stimulus Bill Mandates Electronic Health Records
for Every Citizen without Opt-out or Patient Consent Provisions 


January 23, 2009

(Washington, DC)—The Institute for Health Freedom (IHF) warns that the economic stimulus bill mandates electronic health records for every citizen without providing for opt-out or patient consent provisions.  “Without those protections, Americans’ electronic health records could be shared—without their consent—with over 600,000 covered entities through the forthcoming nationally linked electronic health-records network,” says Sue A. Blevins, IHF president.

“President Obama has pledged to advance freedom.  Therefore the freedom to choose not to participate in a national electronic health-records system must be upheld,” Blevins says. “Unless people have the right to decide if and when their health information is shared or whether to participate in research studies, they don’t have a true right to privacy.”

IHF calls on Americans who care about health privacy to contact their members of Congress and President Obama to voice their own opinions about the need for opt-out and patient consent provisions, to ensure true patient privacy rights.

Some provisions of the economic stimulus bill include:

* “The utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014.”

* “The National Coordinator shall perform the duties…consistent with the development of a nationwide health information technology infrastructure that allows for the electronic use and exchange of information and that…facilitates health and clinical research…”

The federal medical privacy rule promulgated under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) already permits the disclosure of personal health information without patient consent for treatment, payment, and oversight of the healthcare system.  IHF has long called for modification of the HIPAA rule to restore patient consent in order to preserve the confidential doctor-patient relationship. The stimulus bill fails to restore patient consent, while at the same time, mandating electronic health records and facilitating the electronic exchange of every American’s health information.

The Institute for Health Freedom is a national nonprofit, educational organization whose mission is to bring the issues of personal health freedom to the forefront of the American health-policy debate. IHF monitors and reports on national policies that affect citizens’ freedom to choose their health-care treatments and providers, and to maintain their health privacy—including genetic privacy. IHF is not affiliated with any other organization. © 2009 Institute for Health Freedom.


Private Medical Records Can Be Identified and Used Against Patients and Doctors.

Leave a comment

PART 2  from CCHC….Minnesota  mailto:twila@cchconline.org

Private Medical Records Can Be Identified and Used Against Patients and Doctors.

The following is from the Senate version of SF 3099.

RE-IDENTIFICATION – Note that language about de-identification references the so-called federal HIPAA “privacy” rule (§164.514 – line 48.16). This allows the provider of the data to assign an identification “code” that allows the data to be re-identified, meaning that the data is NOT anonymous.

MEASURING DOCTORS – On lines 49.5 and 49.12, it is clear that the data will be used to “grade” doctors and clinics, reporting and measuring doctors by how many services they provide and how expensive they are.

RATIONING CARE – Physician payments will be attached to these report cards, potentially leading to limited services for patients in the near future.


48.1    Subdivision 1. Development. (a) By January 15, 2009, the Health Care
48.2Transformation Commission shall report to the legislature recommendations for advancing
48.3an innovative payment system for the chronic conditions of coronary artery and heart
48.4disease, diabetes, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and depression.
48.5    (b) By January 15, 2010, the Health Care Transformation Commission shall report to
48.6the legislature additional changes necessary to accomplish comprehensive payment reform
48.7designed to support an innovative payment system to reduce costs and improve quality.
48.8    (c) By January 1, 2011, the Health Care Transformation Commission shall develop
48.9rules to implement a comprehensive payment system that encourages provider innovation
48.10to reduce costs and improve quality.
48.11    Subd. 2. Encounter data. (a) Beginning September 1, 2009, and every three months
48.12thereafter, all health plan companies and third-party administrators shall submit encounter
48.13data to the Health Care Transformation Commission. The data shall be submitted in a
48.14form and manner specified by the commission subject to the following requirements:
48.15    (1) the data must be de-identified data as described under the Code of Federal
48.16Regulations, title 45, section 164.514;
48.17    (2) the data for each encounter must include an identifier for the patient’s health care
48.18home if the patient has selected a health care home; and
48.19    (3) except for the identifier described in clause (2), the data must not include
48.20information that is not included in a health care claim or equivalent encounter information
48.21transaction that is required under section 62J.536.
48.22    (b) The commission shall only use the data submitted under paragraph (a) for the
48.23purpose of carrying out its responsibilities in designing and implementing a payment
48.24restructuring system. If the commission contracts with other organizations or entities to
48.25carry out any of its duties or responsibilities described in this chapter, the contract must
48.26require that the organization or entity maintain the data that it receives according to the
48.27provisions of this section.
48.28    (c) Data on providers collected under this subdivision are private data on individuals
48.29or nonpublic data, as defined in section 13.02. Notwithstanding the definition of summary
48.30data in section 13.02, subdivision 19, summary data prepared under this section may be
48.31derived from nonpublic data. The commission shall establish procedures and safeguards
48.32to protect the integrity and confidentiality of any data that it maintains.
48.33    (d) The commission shall not publish analyses or reports that identify, or could
48.34potentially identify, individual patients.
48.35    (e) The commission may publish analyses and reports that identify specific providers
48.36but only after the provider has been provided the opportunity by the commission to review
49.1the data and submit comments. The provider shall have 21 days to review and comment,
49.2after which time the commission may release the data along with any comments submitted
49.3by the provider.
49.4    Subd. 3. Utilization and health care costs. (a) The commission shall develop a
49.5method of calculating the relative utilization and health care costs of providers. The
49.6method must exclude the costs of catastrophic cases and must include risk adjustments
49.7to reflect differences in the demographics, health, and special needs of the providers’
49.8patient population. The risk adjustment must be developed in accordance with generally
49.9accepted risk adjustment methodologies.
49.10    (b) Beginning April 1, 2010, the commission shall disseminate information to
49.11providers on their utilization and cost in comparison to an appropriate peer group.
49.12    (c) The commission shall develop a system to index providers based on their
49.13total risk-adjusted resource use and quality of care, and separately for the conditions
49.14of coronary artery and heart disease, diabetes, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary
49.15disease, and depression. In developing this system, the commission shall consult and
49.16coordinate with health care providers, health plan companies, and organizations that work
49.17to improve health care quality in Minnesota.

%d bloggers like this: