This has been crossposted to Daily Kos. Note: I wrote the diary intended for both audiences, GMD and Kos, so I apologize if I spend too much time explaining Vermont politics or history, but wanted to be thorough enough for both audiences without having a radically different document from one to the other --julie
UPDATE: Based on confirmation from law enforcement sources, pharmacies that were approached by the State Police on Friday November 30th and from legal sources representing people affected by State Police conduct last Friday, GMD can add the following to the reporting that has occurred already.
The Department of Public Safety was planning last weeks pharmacy checks ("Fishing Derby Friday") for several weeks.
The State Police visited multiple pharmacies on Friday November 30th.
At least twothree pharmacies were told to by the State Police to turn over patient profiles for every patient who received a schedule II prescription from that pharmacy.
At least one pharmacy was told it would be required to update the patient profile information with the police every two weeks.
At several pharmacies the police merely introduced themselves to the pharmacist, gave their business cards and asked the pharmacist to call the police officer if they encountered any suspicious behavior such as indications of "Doctor shopping" or prescription fraud.
Late Friday, due to intense push back and complaints from pharmacists who were concerned about requests from the Vermont State Police that they reveal confidential and federally protected medical information about their customers, State Police management sent an email to all State Police involved with the pharmacy checks throughout the state instructing them to cease the pharmacy checks. After the email went out, Fish Derby Friday ceased (for now).
It's always good to start with the constitution, this time from Amendment IV:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Yesterday, Green Mountain Daily scooped all the Vermont news outlets by publishing a story about state police collecting pharmacy records across the state. You can find the original piece here.
A few weeks back, Caoimhin wrote a fantastic diary expressing concerns over proposed implementation of 2005's legislation creating the Vermont Prescription Monitoring System. At the time, he wrote:
The Department of Health is in the process of seeking legislative approval of administrative rules the Department drafted to govern VPMS. The proposed rules will monitor your physician's provision, and your access to, hundreds of treatments for thousands of conditions. The purpose of the law is intended to identify substance abusers and to facilitate their treatment -- nothing inherently wrong with that and in fact it is a laudable goal. However, the proposed regulations by the Department of Health do not accomplish the goal set out by the legislature, violate the laws governing the VPMS and present too many dangers for disclosure, misuse, mishandling of sensitive patient medical information.
As CL stated, the law mandates collecting the minimum necessary information to achieve it's stated goals.
But instead of the Department of Health, we apparently needed to be watching out for the State Police.
GMD has learned that State Police representatives are going to Vermont Pharmacies and demanding complete dumps of all information about patients with Schedule II prescriptions (the class of medications that include prescription drugs with street value). After talking to a few pharmacists, I found one in Franklin County that confirmed they had been approached, and had been advised by the state that they did, indeed need to comply with the request. Needless to say, he wasn't too happy about it.
What's even more disturbing? When I asked if he knew of any other pharmacies that were being mined for data in this way, he responded that it was his understanding that this was a process that was to take place across the state.
Sounds to me like the State Police is actively putting together a medical records database of Vermonters across the state for the purpose of, as this pharmacist opined, "fishing expeditions."
And if you think something of this magnitude wasn't signed off on by the Governor's office, you're kidding yourself.
I had a feeling when I said I was leaving for an indefinite time, that it'd be either a very long time or a very short one. So while I am back, don't get too used to me, as you won't be seeing me around very much - at least for the time being. As I said when I'd left, the attacks on me personally from those who haven't approved of what I've written (SVR being the most recent and high-profile, but hardly the only such case) have impacted my life in various ways - but things can change quickly. As such, here I am, but I don't intend to return to Front Page status or be a very frequent contributor for a while. Personal matters still need to settle down, but it's good to feel that I don't have to stay away completely to protect myself and my family. Thanks to everyone for your kind words and wishes (many of you I saw last Saturday in Burlington, and I should have thanked you there and then, but I think I was subconsciously pretending that everything was hunkey-dorey... either that or I was just being a jerk... sorry). Thus endeth a few really crappy weeks (I hope)
But I just had to come back today. I couldn't stay quiet when I heard the news. No, not Town Meeting...or Scooter Libby... I mean the bad news. The news that Captain America is dead.
Yeah, okay, so I'm enough of a geek that I've blogged about Cap before. But consider the storyline in Captain America comics; a superhero-symbol of America not simply dead, but gunned down leaving the courthouse where he was on trial for his refusal to comply with a draconian law that completely deprived an entire class of Americans of their civil rights in the interest of law enforcement and national security.
Now I'm not going to belabor the metaphor's obvious relevance except to make the point that sometimes things that we roll our eyes at or don't take seriously can contain real content that should be openly talked about rather than casually dismissed.
Case in point, but in a negative way: Rep. Tom Koch's (R-Barre Town) proposed legislation that would mandate a $600 fine for virtually any "distraction" while driving - not simply cell phones, but coffee, or dealing with pets, children, or presumably scratching oneself in hard-to-reach places.
The reaction to this bill has generally been to mockingly dismiss it, the exception being Charity who implied that such a proposal was atypical of a Republican and more consistent with Democrats. I think both perspectives are fallacies (details below the fold)...
