Professional Documents
Culture Documents
:
:
CD 6 208A
Respectfully Submitted:
__________________
__________________
SSS
Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro Se
Project Hope Foundation
Advanced Media Group
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com
Page 1 of 35
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. BACKGROUND OF MOVANTS
Page 3
a. Stanley J. Caterbone
b. Project Hope
c. Advanced Media Group
2. PREFACE TO ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT
Page 7
Page 8
Page 11
5. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Page 12
6. EXHIBITS ___
Page 13
Page 13
Page 16
Page 29
f.
Page 22
Page 24
Page 28
Page 33
Page 2 of 35
BACKGROUND OF MOVANTS
Stanley J. Caterbone (CATERBONE)
CATERBONE has been following very closely the case of Meghan Lippiatt and was a witness
to the trial on one of the few last days before the Honorable Judge James P. Cullen in the
Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas to hear the testimony of Psychiatrist Dr. Gotlieb of the
Lancaster General Hospital.
known law expert and constitutional scholar Jonathan Turnley on December 19, 2007 days after
the conclusion of the trial. Jonathan Turley, like other national experts, had posted an opinion on
the Lippiatt case after the verdict and conclusion of the trial. The response is EXHIBIT A.
CATERBONE has been involved with Project Hope Foundation for more than 10 years and
has conducted extensive research in the field of mental illness and has been an advocate for
mental illness for almost 3 decades.
1960s and has been an extremely challenging dilemma resulting in the untimely and suspicious
deaths of two brothers in their 30s.
Christmas day of 1984 with the death being ruled a suicide, but now known to have been a
murder. In 1996 his youngest brother, Tom had committed suicide and the circums tances are
currently being litigated in the federal courts as a wrongful death complaint.
CATERBONE has
researched and investigated the causes of both deaths as it relates to the issue of mental illness
and has conducted research and instigations into his own malicious diagnosis of his own mental
health record. His father, Samuel, has a history of mental health records however; he too has a
history of psychic phenomena and a history of suspicious activities with the United States
Government and the Lancaster community. His mental health record is also in dispute. He was a
very successful businessman and had served in the U.S. Navy as a radioman and graduated from
gunner school with honors. He also developed new technologies for the Dry Cleaning industry. He
has also conducted extensive research into areas concerning U.S. Government activities.
CATERBONE has developed relationships with mental health professionals for his work with
Project Hope and has been the main person responsible for coordinating and administrating the
mission of creating awareness and education to the community-at-large with the distribution of
Project Hopes video Numbers Dont Lie; including to the Mental Health and Retardation
Department of the County of Lancaster this past year. CATERBONE has worked extensively with
Contact Lancaster, the Mental Health Alliance of Lancaster County, and other mental health
organizations as well faith based organizations.
professionals and organizations in the field; especially since C. EvreTt Koop, the former U.S.
Surgeon General and Tipor Gore made mental health awareness a top priority in 1998. Tipor Gore
also received the Project Hope video for distribution as a resource for other non-profit
organizations. CATERBONES research includes national and local trends of suicides; symptomatic
Page 3 of 35
behavior in bi-polar and manic depression; and the issues and stigma confronting those affected
with mental illnesses.
CATERBONE brings a unique perspective to the courts that may help to shed light into how
people with mental illnesses are treated unfairly by family, friends, and the community-at-large.
It should be noted that CATERBONE is also telepathic with a history of psychic traits in his family
dating back 2 generations. CATERBONE is currently engaged in extensive litigation challenging his
own mental health record, treatment, and diagnosis in federal and state courts. His own mental
health record includes 2 fabricated suicide stories that are part of the record in hospitals and with
police departments; this is in addition to the 30 false arrests. Mental health and criminal records
can be very damaging in destroying a persons credibility and reputation and ultimately his
professional and personal life if not respected by all.
CATERBONE is presently the founder of Advanced Media Group and conducts his business
from Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. For the past several years, in addition to appearing before
the courts as a pro se litigator, Advanced Media Group has been developing several business
interests in the revitalization of downtown Lancaster,
Copy and Shipping Store; the Theater at Hotel Brunswick; and the Excelsior Place Business Plan,
In 2006 CATERBONE began his role as an Activist Shareholder for Fulton Financial, which
is listed as "FULT" on the NASDAQ stock exchange. As a founder of Financial Management Group,
Ltd., a full service financial firm, CATERBONE has drawn upon the success in developing the
strategic vision for his company and the experience gained in directing the legal affairs and public
offering efforts in dealing with Fulton Financial.
In 2005 CATERBONE, as a Pro Se Litigant filed several civil actions as Plaintiffs that are in
current litigation in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the
United States Third District Court of Appeals, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, The Pennsylvania
Superior Court, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, The Court of Common Pleas of
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. These litigations include violations of intellectual property rights,
anti-trust violations, and interference of contracts relating to several business interests. Central to
this litigation is the Digital Movie, Digital Technologies, Financial Management Group, Ltd,/FMG
Advisory, Ltd., and its affiliated businesses along with a Federal False Claims Act or Federal
Whistleblowers Act regarding the firm of International Signal and Control, Plc., (ISC) the $1Billion
Dollar Fraud and the Export violations of selling arms to South Africa and Iraq. This litigation dates
back to 1987. CATERBONE was a shareholder of ISC, and was solicited by ISC executives for
professional services. The Federal False Claims Act is currently part of RICO Civil Complaint in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals, as docket no. 05-2288.
Page 4 of 35
A complete biography and history is located on the website of Advanced Media Group at:
www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com
PROJECT HOPE
Project Hope Foundation was founded in 1996 after the untimely suicide of Thomas P. Caterbone,
brother of Stanley J. Caterbone.
W. Caterbone of Austin Texas, and other friends and relatives that wanted to continue the legacy
of Tom Caterbone and make a contribution to the community-at-large in dealing with mental
health issues and mental health awareness.
In 1996 Project Hope Foundation produced the extremely successful instructional video Numbers
Dont Lie for helping teenagers deal with suicide and help them to identify kids which may be at
risk. The video was produced and directed by Dr. Phil Caterbone & Psychologist Craig Crabtree,
both of Austin, Texas. The video is a approximately 20 minutes and is accompanied by an
instructional workbook for the monitors and a workbook for the students. "Numbers Don't Lie"
has been sold to the Texas School Board of Education to pay for its development and production.
The video has been provided to other Faith Based non-profit organizations, school districts, church
groups, and municipalities by CATERBONE and Advanced Media Group over the past 10 years.
The video can be viewed online at: www.advancedmediagroup.youtube.com and clic king on the
Numbers Dont Lie video.
Project Hope provided funding for the Mental Health Alliance of Lancaster County, Contact/Lifeline
of Lancaster (The 24/7 Suicide Hotline), The Schreiber Pediatric Center, and other charitable
organizations and faith based charities. In 1999 Project Hope donated and constructed a soccer
field on the new Headquarters of the Schreiber Pediatric Center on Goods Road, in Lancaster.
Tom's Project Hope is funded by an annual golf tournament on the 1st Saturday in August, called
the Tommy Caterbone Memorial Golf Tournament.
The Lancaster County Mental Health/Mental Retardation department is currently using the video
as a resource Mental Health/Mental Retardation Department.
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
In 1989 CATERBONE founded Advanced Media Group, Ltd., which was one of only 4 or 65
U.S. domestic companies that had the capability to manufacture CD-ROM's.
Advanced Media
Group also developed tools, applic ations, and provided consulting to information technologies.
Page 5 of 35
Advanced Media did business with commercial companies, government agencies, educational
institutions, and foreign companies including the Department of Defense; NASA, National
Institution of Standards & Technology (NIST); Department of Defense, The Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA); and the Defense Mapping Agency, Central Intelligence
Agency; (CIA), IBM; Microsoft, AMP; Commodore Computers, American Bankers Bond Buyers;
and a host of others. I also was working with R.R, Donnelly's Geo Systems; which was developing
various interactive mapping technologies, which is now a major asset of Map Quest. Map Quest is
the premier provider of mapping software and applications for the Internet and is often used in
delivering maps and directions for Fortune 500 companies.
Advanced Media Group now has interests in various business and fields including the film and
entertainment industries; information technologies; revitalizations of downtown Lancaster;
Research and Study in Mind Control and ESP; and the fulfillment and distribution of past
intellectual property assets.
PREFACE TO ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT1
Upon the verdict of the lower court trial of not guilty by reason of insanity, CATERBONE
posed the question of why a condition for release of a psychiatric evaluation was not issued by
presiding Judge James P. Cullen. This is evident in the Jonathan Turley Post of December 19,
2007 which states the following:
Here is a brief synopsis; In the VERDICT ORDER there did not seam
to be any condition for Ms. Liappatt to be held in custody until a
further psychiatric evaluation could be performed. This set in motion
a number of court filings by the District Attorney, the Defense
Counsel, and others trying to recommit her to a treatment facility.
There has been much research done on the subject of conditional releases in not guilty by
reason of insanity cases throughout this country and most all have concluded that conditional
releases are a very acceptable and successful legal alternative to quell the public fear and
animosity of persons getting away with murder.
variety of post verdict mental health treatment plans that may include community participation
The legal opinion of Stan J. Caterbone was formulated on or before December 19, 2007 prior
to conducting any research on the topic or using any internet search engine to define the words
conditional release or any similar terminology. Stan J. Caterbone again is suspicious of the
dates of the post on the Jonathan Turley blog of December 19, 2007. The post may have been
posted prior to that date.
Page 6 of 35
until it can be proven by a certified psychiatrist that the person no longer poses any threat to
society before being released into the community.2 3
SECTION 304 OF THE PENNSYLVANIA MENTAL HEALTH PROCEDURES ACT P.S. 7304 IS
OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
2. DID THE COURT GIVE DUE CONSIDERATION TO THE CLAIMS BY MEGHAN LIPPIATT
REGARDING RETALIATION BY THE PUBLIC DURING AND AFTER A PUBLIC HEARING ON
THE ISSUES.
Geoge M. Parker, MD Under conditional release, such acquittees are released into the
community with various conditions imposed; for example, they are often required to live in
specified housing and not to use illegal drugs. They remain under the jurisdiction of a criminal
judge or a central monitoring agency, such as a psychiatric security review board. Adherence to
mental health treatment in the community is almost always a condition of release. As leverage,
this type of mandated community treatment uses both avoidance of jail and avoidance of
hospitalizationboth a brief jail stay and rehospitalization are possible consequences of
violation of the conditions of release, depending on the state. See Exhibit B.
3
See Exhibits A thru D.
Page 7 of 35
Under Section (e) 4. of the Section 304 of the Pennsylvania Mental Health Procedures
Act P.S. 7304 it clearly states the following:
The hearing shall be public unless it is requested to be
private by the person or his counsel.
In Judge James P. Cullen ORDER and OPINION of July 11, 2008 Judge Cullen appears to
be abusing his discretion by mandating a higher burden and threshold for showing good cause
why Ms. Lippiatt is entitled to her request of a closed hearing. It also appears that Judge Cullen
is trying to pacify the public interest and outcry when Meghan Liappitts was released at the
conclusion of her trial, which should have been addressed with a condition for release, which
Judge James P. Cullen failed to address in his VERDICT ORDER of December 13, 2008.
HIPAA CONSIDERATIONS
The privacy laws of health records addressed with the passage if the Health Information
Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) in 1996 may have some controlling interest in these
matters. A summary of HIPAA is as follows:
A major upshot of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
(HIPAA) of 1996 is a series of federal rules that have a considerable impact on
providers and patients their interactions, their rights, and their responsibilities.
In sorting through the details and compliance requirements of the privacy rule in
particular, it helps for practitioners to know something of the historical and
political context in which HIPAA and the rules that resulted from this law took
shape.
Under HIPAA, Congress tasked the Department of Health Human Services (HHS)
with developing federal rules that govern how patient records are handled,
shared, and protected in the health care system. The transactions rule, the
first rule promulgated by HHS, provides for standard formatting of electronic
patient records for health care claims and other purposes. This rule benefits
health professionals by making it easier for them to work with uniform rather
than multiple claims forms. While more rules will follow, the 800-pound gorilla
of the series, the privacy rule, was finalized last April. The privacy rule
provides some important protections for psychology records, with provisions that
will impact the confidentiality of the psychologist-patient relationship. 4
See Exhibit F: A Look Behind the Scenes of HIPAA and the Privacy Rule by Doug Walter, J.D.
Page 9 of 35
An Open Hearing would be placing mental health records in the public domain
and may be a violation of the rights of Ms. Lippiatt as defined in the HIPAA code.
The general public really has no interest in the process or the Section 304 of the
Pennsylvania Mental Health Procedures Act P.S. 7304 hearing, but rather has an interest in the
conclusion of the hearing in protecting itself from someone whom may pose a danger or threat
to others. That danger and or threat to the community-at-large is not compromised nor is it
supported by an open hearing. That danger and or threat is only of importance and relevant if
Ms. Lippiatt is found to have a mental health illness and is not committed for treatment. The
question of an open or closed hearing is not relevant, only the conclusion of the matters that
will be presented to the courts.
II) DID THE COURT GIVE DUE CONSIDERATION TO THE CLAIMS BY MEGHAN LIPPIATT
REGARDING RETALIATION BY THE PUBLIC DURING AND AFTER A PUBLIC HEARING ON
THE ISSUES?
Stanley J. Caterbone has been subject to an unprecedented history of retaliation and
intimidation that has been the result of a stigma due to his mental health record. Although this
mental health records validity and authenticity is being challenged in several courts, the stigma
and treatment by the community-at-large is real and can be used to substantiate Ms. Lippiatts
claim of retaliation in her opposition to an open hearing. Subjecting Ms. Lippiatt to unnecessary
intimidation and retaliation for information that would be made public during an open hearing is of
concern to all who may face similar circumstances.
Stanley J. Caterbone has a criminal record of some 30 false arrests in Lancaster County
that would have never been possible without his mental health record. Law enforcement relied
upon the fact that Stanley J. Caterbone had a history and mental health record to discredit him
before the courts, in his arrests, although he was successful in having those arrests and
convictions dismissed and overturned.
Stanley J. Caterbone also must endure a systematic and problematic attack of harassment
in public that is also due to the same mental health record and his fabricated and diminished
reputation caused by the same.
The fact that Ms. Lippiatt was found not guilty by reason of insanity of murdering her small
children should compel the court to consider her claims of retaliation more seriously. If the courts
do no recognize the risks involved to Ms. Lippiatt and others that may come before the courts in
similar circumstances, the courts should be compelled to provide the burden of proof that would
Page 10 of 35
CONCLUSION
The Lippiatt case is apparently precedent in the County of Lancaster of a person being found
not guilty by reason of insanity. That being the case, the court should take extra precaution in
protecting all parties in all related matters and should be careful when reaching opinions and
conclusion that will be precedent to future and similar parties that will come before the courts.
Judge Cullens ORDER and OPINION of July 11, 2008 fails to protect the rights of Ms. Lippiatt
and others that may come before the courts, but does so unnecessarily. Closing the hearing to
the general public would not diminish the public interest, nor would it make the general public
safer. Only a conclusion of an involuntary commitment of Ms. Lippiatt IF she does now possess a
mental health illness that does pose a threat or danger to others.
__________________
__________________
Respectfully Submitted:
Page 11 of 35
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Service was made on this 21s t day of July 2008 upon the following by way of electronic
mails; first class U.S. mails; or personal delivery at the addresses set forth below:
__________________
__________________
Respectfully Submitted:
Page 12 of 35
EXHIBIT A
Page 13 of 35
Pa. Woman Who Killed Her Two Children Found Not Guilty by
Reason of Insanity
Published 1, December 11, 2007 Criminal law , Justice by Jonathan Turley
Meghan Lippiatt has been found not guilty by reason of insanity in a Lancaster court. Lippiatt
admitted suffocating her infant son and drowning her 2-year-old son in 2004.
The killing two-year-old Silas and his four- month-old brother Miles occurred weeks after a
break-up with her husband.
Lippiatt called 911 and told the operator: I did something really bad, I just killed my kids.
She later tried to kill herself and left a note which read: I am sorry, I didnt want to hurt
anyone. I am sorry, goodbye, please help me from the grave.
There is growing interest in allowing greater use of the insanity defense after it was heavily
curtailed after the shooting of President Ronald Reagan.
For a prior column on the insanity defense, click here
For the full story, click here
This is my analysis. And for the record, I did attend the trial and sat to hear
Gottlieb, the psychiatrist testify and be cross-examined. I have also studied
mental health issues for Project Hope, for my own case, and for my familys
different cases, especially my father and brothers Sam and Tom; for over 20
years. So I am not uneducated with the issues.
Being that this is the first such verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity in
Lancaster County, as reported, I think this whole case was purposely
mismanaged so that the next time such a verdict is before a Lancaster County
jury, they can say see, if you find the defendant not guilty by insanity, that
person may be released and freed without any treatment or conditions.
I think Judge Cullen should have to explain why he did not issue a
condition in his verdict to have Ms. Lippiatt held in Lancaster County
Prison or transferred to a mental health facility until the outcome of a
psychiatric evaluation. I dont understand why he did not do this, unless
the law prevented him from doing that. I will have to research this.
I would love to hear your opinion, if you find the time. Hope to meet you in the
future.
STAN J. CATERBONE
Advanced Media Group
Page 15 of 35
EXHIBIT B
Page 16 of 35
Professor Turley received his B.A. at the University of Chicago and his J.D. at Northwestern. (In
2008, he was given an honorary Doctorate of Law from John Marshall Law School for his
contributions to civil liberties and the public interest).
For further information: Ms. Kristen Hilderbrand 202-994-0537
Page 18 of 35
EXHIBIT C
Page 19 of 35
Letters
Conditional Release and Mandated Outpatient Treatment
George F. Parker, M.D.
To the Editor: In the thoughtful and stimulating article on mandated outpatient treatment by
Monahan and colleagues in the September 2001 issue (1), little mention was made of the fairly
substantial literature on mandated treatment of forensic populations in the community.
Conditional release has been used for decades as a technique for managing the risks inherent in
returning a person found not guilty by reason of insanity to the community.
Under conditional release, such acquittees are released into the community with various
conditions imposed; for example, they are often required to live in specified housing and not to
use illegal drugs. They remain under the jurisdiction of a criminal judge or a central monitoring
agency, such as a psychiatric security review board. Adherence to mental health treatment in
the community is almost always a condition of release. As leverage, this type of mandated
community treatment uses both avoidance of jail and avoidance of hospitalizationboth a brief
jail stay and rehospitalization are possible consequences of violation of the conditions of
release, depending on the state.
I recently conducted a thorough literature search, using PubMed and manual strategies, on the
topic of conditional release for persons found not guilty by reason of insanity. I found more than
60 articles, including more than 30 published in the past ten years. Many of the earlier studies
on conditional release focused on the demographic characteristics of persons found not guilty by
reason of insanity. However, most of the articles on this subject for the past 30 years have
reported arrest rates and hospitalization rates of persons on conditional release. A recent metaanalysis on this issue, based on statewide results from New York, California, and Oregon, found
estimated annual arrest rates to range from 3.4 to 7.9 percent, while the estimated annual
hospitalizatio n rates ranged from 14.5 to 25.8 percent (2,3). I recently presented a poster at
the annual meeting of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law showing that among
persons receiving assertive community treatment the annual arrest rate was 1.2 percent and
the annual hospitalization rate was 14.5 percent (4). In addition, some of the published reports
have included statistical models for factors that are predictive of the granting or revocation of
conditional release (5).
The literature on conditional release of persons found not guilty by reason of insanity thus may
hold some of the answers to the many questions about mandated community treatment posed
by Monahan and colleagues. In particular, the issues of the process of mandating treatment,
the outcomes of programs both for the individual and for the systemthat do mandate
treatment, and the legal, ethical, and political questions that result from mandating treatment
in the community have all been discussed, to greater or lesser degrees, in the conditional
release literature over the past 30 years.
Footnotes
Dr. Parker is associate professor of clinical psychiatry at Indiana University School of Medicine
in Indianapolis.
References
1. Monahan J, Bonnie RJ, Appelbaum PS, et al: Mandated community treatment: beyond
outpatient
commitment.
Psychiatric
Services
52:1198-1205,
2001[Abstract/Free Full Text]
2. Wiederanders MR, Bromley DL, Choate PA: Forensic conditional release programs and
outcomes in three states. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 20:249-257,
1997[CrossRef][Medline]
Page 20 of 35
3. Harris VL: Insanity acquittees and rearrest: the past 24 years. Journal of the American
Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 28:225-231, 2000[Medline]
4. Parker GF: Low reoffense rate in a conditional release program. Poster presented at the
annual meeting of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Boston, Oct 25-28,
2001
5. Callahan LA, Silver E: Factors associated with the conditional release of persons
acquitted by reason of insanity: a decision tree approach. Law and Human Behavior
22:147-163, 1998[CrossRef][Medline]
Page 21 of 35
EXHIBIT D
Page 22 of 35
Monitored treatment in the community, also known as conditional release, has been described
a s the most important advance in the treatment of insanity acquittees in the last decade.
Despite the importance of the development of conditional release, however, there has been
relatively little written about relevant issues and planning principles important in designing and
implementing conditional release systems. The present paper discusses important
considerations relevant to conditional release that are associated with key decision points
within systems for persons found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI). Four planning
principles, generalizable to all NGRI systems, are then presented in a way that integrates the
previous discussion. It is concluded that conditional release plays a crucial role in the treatment
of insanity acquittees and that mental health administrators may either proactively modify their
systems, in a way that balances public safety with individual rights and treatment needs, or
wait for the modification mandate to be forced upon them in the wake of a highly publicized,
heinous offense.
Page 23 of 35
EXHIBIT E
Page 24 of 35
management process.
By the mid 1990s, the insurance and business lobbies began pitching to Congress that a
uniform, electronic patient records system to standardize health insurance claims processing,
dubbed administrative simplification, would save the health care system billions of dollars
and relieve the inefficiency and fragmentation in health care claims management. Insurers
were also looking for a federal law that legitimized their demands for broad access to patient
records. While organized psychology supported administrative simplification, it could not come
at a cost to records privacy.
APA was at the forefront of groups concerned that the onerous MCO demands for patient
records disclosures often for administrative purposes not directly related to patient care
had eroded confidentiality. Provider and patient organizations advocated for privacy and
security safeguards that would be needed if Congress were to mandate uniform electronic
claims processing.
The stage for political conflict therefore was set by the time President Clinton included both
patient records privacy and administrative simplification provisions in his Health Security Act
of 1993, which failed to win passage. The inclusion of these provisions shed light on the
bitter fight brewing between patients/providers and MCOs over control of records and
foreshadowed the rancorous congressional debate to come. The underlying conflict, which
continues to this day, was the force that shaped HIPAA law in general and the privacy rule
specifically.
Battle Pits Provider Groups Against Insurers
The advocacy battle began in earnest when Senator Robert Bennett (R-Utah) introduced the
Medical Records Confidentiality Act in late October 1995. The Practice Directorate was
concerned by the Bennett bills bipartisan co-sponsorship by powerful members of Congress
and by the strong support of insurers and other influential organizations. The concern arose
from APAs taking a careful look at the bills details. The directorates analysis revealed
substantial weaknesses in protecting the rights of patients and providers with respect to the
privacy of records. APA and allied groups mobilized to prevent the Bennett bill from being
included in broader health care legislation that Congress also was seriously considering that
fall. That broader legislation eventually was enacted as HIPAA.
A "Final" Rule Is Subject to Change
The political battle between insurance and patient and provider organizations continues to
this day. President George W. Bushs Administration put the HIPAA privacy rule into effect
Page 26 of 35
the rules privacy protections, and even expanding them. For example, the MHLG
continues to urge that the special privacy protection given to psychotherapy notes as
defined in the rule (see article on page 5) should be broadened to apply to other sensitive
information such as psychological testing data.
For several months, the directorates government relations staff worked to educate Congress
and the public about the need for a strong federal privacy bill, or at least a bill that would not
undermine existing state privacy laws that protected patients rights. APAs lobbying push
successfully countered the insurance industrys efforts to win inclusion of the Bennett bill in
HIPAA. In place of the Bennett bill, Congress incorporated a few sentences into HIPAA to
provide a timeline for action. Legislators gave themselves three years, until August 1999, to
enact a federal law governing records privacy and further directed that HHS would establish a
privacy rule within six months of Congress failure to meet its deadline.
Shortly after HIPAAs passage, it became increasingly clear that the patient and provider
lobbies and the insurance lobby were entrenched in polar positions. APA assessed that
Congress would not likely pass legislation. While the association continued to advocate for
appropriate privacy legislation in Congress, APA began focusing efforts on the Administration
in anticipation of a rule from HHS. Organized psychology sought a rule that would recognize
the particular privacy requirements of records associated with mental health treatment,
including the need for heightened protection for psychotherapy notes and other mental health
records.
Too Hot for Congress to Handle
Indeed, the privacy issue ultimately became too controversial for members of Congress to
handle, and HHS ended up proposing a federal privacy rule in November 1999. It looked like a
compromise for both sides of the debate. Insurers saw their broad access to records
recognized in the proposed rule. At the same time, consumers and providers had won strong
protections for records each time they were disclosed to insurers.
Throughout 2000, APA worked to ensure that the proposed rules strong patient protections
were preserved in a final rule. Meanwhile, the insurance lobby pushed to void the rule or at
least substantially weaken its protections. HHS released the final privacy rule in the last days
of the Clinton Administration in much the same form as the proposed rule. The Practice
Directorate considered the final rule a success, with qualification. For example, APA reiterated
in written comments to HHS that the privacy rule allowed insurers too much access to records
for administrative purposes not directly related to treatment. It appeared the conflict and
compromise characteristic of the legislative and rulemaking processes was reflected in the
final rule once it ultimately took effect last April.
The following chronology illustrates from 1993 through 2001 the major events and players
related to the HIPAA law and the final privacy rule from HHS.
Page 27 of 35
EXHIBIT F
Page 28 of 35
created their own records which were not subject to the confidentiality provisions of New York
law. Under HIPAA, the likelihood of this problem is substantially decreased since these entities
must now maintain strict confidentiality or face the penalties under the law.
Access By Individuals to Their Own Records
HIPAA creates a general right for an individual to access his or her own health records
subject to a number of exceptions. Additionally, the comments to the regulations state that
individuals have a right of access to information used to make health care decisions or
determine whether an insurance claim will be paid. The four exceptions to the general right of
access to records are:
1) psychotherapy notes;
2) information compiled in reasonable anticipation of, or use in, a civil, criminal or
administrative action and proceeding;
3) where access is prohibited by the Clincial Laboratory Improvements Amendments of
1988: or
4) records that are exempt under the regulations of the Clinical Laboratory
Improvements Amendment. The Clinical Laboratory Improvements Amendments of 1988 is an
act which forbids laboratories doing tests on human specimens to disclose the results to anyone
except the individual or entity who requested the test.
The definition of psychotherapy notes is notes recorded in any medium by a health
care provider who is a mental health professional documenting or analyzing the contents of a
conversation during a private counseling session or a group, joint, or family counseling
session.
Psychotherapy notes are intended to refer to a mental health professionals own
personal notes of a therapy session. Notes do not count as psychotherapy notes unless they
are kept separately from the patients medical chart.
Reviewable Denial of Access to Records
Under HIPAA, other than the unreviewable reasons discussed below, the right of a
patient to see his own chart can be restricted in only three circumstances. Each of these
circ umstances is reviewable by an appeal process.
First, a licensed health care professional may deny access if in the exercise of his
professional judgement it is determined that such access is reasonably likely to endanger the
life or physical safety of the individual or other person. Under this reason for denial, covered
entities may not deny the access on the basis of the sensitivity of the health information or the
potential for causing psychological or emotional harm. A health care professional must find
that the individual has exhibited suicidal or homicidal tendencies and that access to the records
would reasonably result in murder, suicide or other physical violence.
Second, there is a reviewable exception when the requested information relates to
another person (other than the health care provider) and in the professional judgement of the
licensed health care professional, the access would likely cause substantial harm to such
person.
Third, if the personal representative of an individual makes the request rather than the
individual himself, the request may be denied if the provision of access to records to the
personal representative is reasonably likely to cause substantial harm to the individual or other
person.
This scheme is somewhat different from that found in the New York Mental Hygiene
Law. Under New York law, the treating practitioner may review the information requested. If
after consideration of all factors, the practitioner determines that the requested review could
reasonably be expected to cause substantial and identifiable harm to the patient, client or
Page 30 of 35
others, the facility may deny access to all or a part of the record and may grant access to a
prepared summary of the record.
Unreviewable Denial of Access to Records.
Under HIPAA, there are five areas where an entity may deny access to records without
an opportunity for review of this denial. The areas are:
1) the exceptions to the right of access described above
2) the request of a prison inmate to see his records if obtaining such copy would
jeopardize the health, safety, security, custody or rehabilitation of the prisoner or other
inmates or the safety of the correctional staff.
3) if the protected health information is
contained in records subject to the Privacy Act;
4) the information was obtained from someone other than a health care provider under
a promise of confidentiality and the access would be reasonably likely to reveal the source of
the information.
5) a research subjects request to see his records during research, if the consent form
for the research advised that access to records would be suspended during research and the
patient signed the consent form.
Process of Review of Denial of Access
The review of a denial of the access is to be conducted by a health care professional
designated by the covered entity. This professional may not have been directly involved in
the original denial of the request for access. The review must be conducted in a
reasonable time period but the regulations do not impose deadlines on any entity. There is
no provision for judicial review of this denial.
New Yorks review procedure for a denial of access appears to be more helpful to
consumers. Under the New York Mental Hygiene Law, if access to a psychiatric record is
denied, a patient has the right to appeal for review by the Clinical Records Access Review
Committee. A client must be notified by the facility of his right to a review of the denial by
the appropriate clinical record access review committee. If the client requests this review,
the facility must within ten days of the request, transmit the record to the chairman of the
appropriate committee with a statement setting forth the specific reasons access was
denied. If access is denied by the records access review committee, a patient has a right
to seek judicial review of this denial. Court review must be commenced within 30 days of
receiving notification of the committee decision.
Procedure for Correcting Records
Under HIPAA, an individual has the right to have a covered entity amend protected
health information or records about the individual in a designated record set. An
individuals request for amendment may be denied if the health information or record:
1) was not created by the covered entity;
2) is not part of the designated record set;
3) would not otherwise be available for inspection by the individual;
4) is accurate and complete.
An individual should make a request for the amendment in writing. The entity may
require [that omit DN] the individual to provide reasons to support a requested
amendment to a record. An entity must act on the request within 60 days of the request
for an amendment although this time may be extended once for 30 days if it notifies the
Page 31 of 35
Page 32 of 35
EXHIBIT G
Page 33 of 35
Though the mention of the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)
privacy rule compliance date--April 14--can make some psychologists anxious, most applaud
the new law for increasing privacy protections.
Especially interesting to practitioners is the psychotherapy notes provision, says Russ Newman,
PhD, JD, APA's executive director for practice. The provision recognizes that certain kinds of
mental health information need to be protected more than other types of information. Under
HIPAA, psychotherapy notes are defined as "notes recorded in any medium by a mental health
professional documenting or analyzing the contents of conversation during a private counseling
session." These notes, which capture the psychologist's impressions about the patient and can
contain information that is inappropriate for a medical record, are similar to what psychologists
have historically referred to as "process notes."
HIPAA affords psychotherapy notes more protection--most notably from third-party payers-than they'd been given in the past. Under HIPAA, disclosure of psychotherapy notes requires
more than just generalized consent; it requires patient authorization--or specific permission--to
release this sensitive information. And, whereas in the past insurance companies have
requested entire patient records--including psychotherapy notes--in making coverage
decisions, now health plans cannot refuse to provide reimbursement if a patient does not agree
to release information covered under the psychotherapy notes provision.
"In the past, patients could refuse to have this type of information released, but then the
company might refuse to cover services," notes Newman. "The HIPAA privacy rule protection
stops that kind of practice from taking place."
Psychologists take note
The privacy rule gives rights to health professionals, as well as to their patients. Under the new
law, psychologists can decide whether to release their psychotherapy notes to patients, unless
patients would have access to their psychotherapy notes under state law (see the article about
HIPAA and state laws in last month's Monitor). Though the privacy rule does afford patients the
right to access and inspect their health records, psychotherapy notes are treated differently:
Patients do not have the right to obtain a copy of these under HIPAA. And when a psychologist
denies a patient access to these notes, the denial isn't subject to a review process, as it is with
other records.
There is a catch in the psychotherapy notes provision. HIPAA's definition of psychotherapy
notes explicitly states that these notes are kept separate from the rest of an individual's record.
So, if a psychologist keeps this type of information in a patient's general chart, or if it's not
distinguishable as separate from the rest of the record, access to the information doesn't
require specific patient authorization. According to the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS), it makes good sense to keep the notes separate since this type of information
should not be available automatically.
This may, says Newman, be a practical difference from the way some psychologists have
previously stored patient information. But, "if psychologists want higher protections for
psychotherapy notes, then they should keep the information separate," he urges.
Daniel Abrahamson, PhD, professional affairs coordinator for the Connecticut Psychological
Association, adds that psychologists "shouldn't jump the gun." Keeping records separate is an
option and "each practitioner will need to determine whether the benefits of maintaining extra
protection outweigh keeping the records distinctly separate from medical records," he says. In
Page 34 of 35
other words, some psychologists may decide that, for some patients, the information doesn't
particularly need the extra level of protection. If a particular treatment evolves and the
psychologist wants to keep the psychotherapy notes separate, he or she can choose to do that.
"It's part of good clinical judgment," says Abrahamson. "In the past, clinicians didn't include
some information in a record and therefore wouldn't be able to later document that
information. Now they have the option to include detailed content in separate notes."
In addition to keeping these notes separate from other patient information, psychologists
should be aware, says Newman, that there are certain parts of a record that are expressly not
considered psychotherapy notes--and that don't require patient authorization for disclosure-under the HIPAA privacy rule. This information includes medication prescription and monitoring,
counseling session start and stop times, modalities and fre quencies of treatment, results of
clinical tests, and any summary of diagnosis, functional status, treatment plans, symptoms,
prognosis or progress.
This portion of the rule is likely to leave some "potential for interpretation," says Newman.
"What if a managed-care company says it needs a summary of the themes from psychotherapy
sessions? They may say that's outside the psychotherapy notes provision. We'd argue that
divulging themes of the conversations in psychotherapy is tantamount to giving away the whole
conversation," he says.
In the same vein, testing information, like summary information, isn't included under
psychotherapy notes. APA submitted comments to HHS on both the proposed and final rules
asking that psychological test data be included in the provision. Disclosing this type of
information, says Newman, could divulge intimate details about a patient much like the
information from psychotherapy sessions. Unfortunately, he says, HHS declined to expand the
definition.
Despite the exclusion of certain information, however, the psychotherapy notes provision
should be heralded "as a significant victory for privacy advocates," says Nanci Klein, PhD,
professional affairs coordinator for the Utah Psychological Association. "Practitioners have long
found it onerous to have to release psychotherapy notes for additional treatment authorization
by managed-care companies." Now, she says, managed-care companies are only entitled to
certain types of information, not including psychotherapy notes.
"I think this defines the psychologist as the treating expert whose professional analysis and
opinion represent the core information necessary for making judgments about the necessity for
continued treatment," she adds.
This article is the second in a three-part series on HIPAA topics. The next piece, on HIPAA's
minimum necessary requirement, will appear in March.
Page 35 of 35