The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 15-20

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 15... ... 15 stages of the emergency.118 Dedicated efforts to establish relationships among airport stakeholders during the communicable disease planning process will help facilitate swift internal communication during communicable disease incidents. Preparedness plans should clarify the responsibilities for notifications and communications among airport management, public health authorities, and airlines.119 Such plans should also consider international communications, particularly to outbreak areas from which travelers may be arriving.120 External communication covers information exchanges with entities not directly connected to the airport's routine operations, including local or state health authorities, other airports, media, and travelers.121 FAA recommends that airport emergency plans incorporate a public information officer (PIO) Read the entire page →
From page 16... ... 16 personal and health information, and personal autonomy of self and property, subject to some limitations. Airport communicable disease investigations may implicate and affect privacy rights, where tension exists between safeguarding individuals' privacy and protecting the public's health through disease detection and control methods. Read the entire page →
From page 17... ... 17 attendants offering medical aid are likely not covered by HIPAA, the best practice is to have policies and procedures that are reasonably compliant. Public Health Exception Individual written authorization is not always required before a covered entity may disclose PHI.147 There are certain applicable exceptions that allow a covered entity to disclose PHI without permission.148 The "public health" exception allows a covered entity to disclose PHI for public health activities authorized by law, such as disease prevention and control, disease reporting, injury, birth, death, and public investigations.149 If notice to the individual is still required, the individual can give oral as well as written consent.150 Law Enforcement Exception Another exception allowing covered entities to transmit PHI without consent is the law enforcement exception.151 This allows covered entities to transmit PHI for disclosures required by law, such as pursuant to a court order or a grand jury subpoena; required reporting of special wounds or physical injuries for law enforcement purposes; required reporting of a death, crime, or emergency; or per administrative request.152 Even so, the manner of disclosure may be limited (e.g., specific and limited in scope relevant to the court order) Read the entire page →
From page 18... ... 18 under the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. Courts have considered invasive medical tests to be "searches" under the Fourth Amendment.163 Therefore, in addition to the requirement that CDC have a reasonable belief of infection before apprehending travelers, the agency must obtain their consent before conducting invasive procedures.164 To conduct a reasonable and thus constitutional search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment, a government agent typically needs a valid warrant based on probable cause in order to seize individuals and search them or their effects unless they voluntarily consent165 or another recognized exception to the warrant requirement applies.166 Under the exigent-circumstances exception, a warrantless search may be reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances.167 During exigencies, government agents seeking to protect the public's health may not have time to obtain a warrant,168 but probable cause is still needed to detain someone or search his or her belongings without a warrant.169 In the case of a PHE, case law is still unclear on whether the need to protect the public and the likelihood of an individual carrying a communicable disease constitute probable cause to search or detain a person.170 Two exceptions to the warrant requirement that require less than probable cause are the bordersearch exception and the administrative-search exception. Read the entire page →
From page 19... ... 19 violated by a contracted, non-governmental employee at the airport, the passenger could attempt to bring a civil action against that contracted worker. The passenger may allege that the employee's conduct constituted an invasion of privacy, defined as an intrusion upon the private affairs or concerns of another person that a reasonable person would find highly offensive.180 This claim can be brought against anyone who violates one's privacy interests and can include both physical intrusions and other types of intrusions.181 Privacy Act of 1974 In 1974, Congress enacted the Privacy Act to protect the personal information of all individuals identified in government information systems, to regulate the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of personal information, and to prohibit any unnecessary and excessive sharing of an individual's personal, private information either within the government or to outside individuals.182 When a government entity maintaining someone's personal information intentionally or willfully violates the Privacy Act, the individual whose personal information the government unnecessarily shared can bring a civil action under § 552a(g) Read the entire page →
From page 20... ... 20 consider the false light as highly offensive and (2) the defendant had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the matter put into the public eye and/or knew that the plaintiff would be placed in false light.194 In Hickox v. Read the entire page →

From page 15...

... 15 stages of the emergency.118 Dedicated efforts to establish relationships among airport stakeholders during the communicable disease planning process will help facilitate swift internal communication during communicable disease incidents. Preparedness plans should clarify the responsibilities for notifications and communications among airport management, public health authorities, and airlines.119 Such plans should also consider international communications, particularly to outbreak areas from which travelers may be arriving.120 External communication covers information exchanges with entities not directly connected to the airport's routine operations, including local or state health authorities, other airports, media, and travelers.121 FAA recommends that airport emergency plans incorporate a public information officer (PIO)

Read the entire page →

From page 16...

... 16 personal and health information, and personal autonomy of self and property, subject to some limitations. Airport communicable disease investigations may implicate and affect privacy rights, where tension exists between safeguarding individuals' privacy and protecting the public's health through disease detection and control methods.

Read the entire page →

From page 17...

... 17 attendants offering medical aid are likely not covered by HIPAA, the best practice is to have policies and procedures that are reasonably compliant. Public Health Exception Individual written authorization is not always required before a covered entity may disclose PHI.147 There are certain applicable exceptions that allow a covered entity to disclose PHI without permission.148 The "public health" exception allows a covered entity to disclose PHI for public health activities authorized by law, such as disease prevention and control, disease reporting, injury, birth, death, and public investigations.149 If notice to the individual is still required, the individual can give oral as well as written consent.150 Law Enforcement Exception Another exception allowing covered entities to transmit PHI without consent is the law enforcement exception.151 This allows covered entities to transmit PHI for disclosures required by law, such as pursuant to a court order or a grand jury subpoena; required reporting of special wounds or physical injuries for law enforcement purposes; required reporting of a death, crime, or emergency; or per administrative request.152 Even so, the manner of disclosure may be limited (e.g., specific and limited in scope relevant to the court order)

Read the entire page →

From page 18...

... 18 under the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. Courts have considered invasive medical tests to be "searches" under the Fourth Amendment.163 Therefore, in addition to the requirement that CDC have a reasonable belief of infection before apprehending travelers, the agency must obtain their consent before conducting invasive procedures.164 To conduct a reasonable and thus constitutional search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment, a government agent typically needs a valid warrant based on probable cause in order to seize individuals and search them or their effects unless they voluntarily consent165 or another recognized exception to the warrant requirement applies.166 Under the exigent-circumstances exception, a warrantless search may be reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances.167 During exigencies, government agents seeking to protect the public's health may not have time to obtain a warrant,168 but probable cause is still needed to detain someone or search his or her belongings without a warrant.169 In the case of a PHE, case law is still unclear on whether the need to protect the public and the likelihood of an individual carrying a communicable disease constitute probable cause to search or detain a person.170 Two exceptions to the warrant requirement that require less than probable cause are the bordersearch exception and the administrative-search exception.

Read the entire page →

From page 19...

... 19 violated by a contracted, non-governmental employee at the airport, the passenger could attempt to bring a civil action against that contracted worker. The passenger may allege that the employee's conduct constituted an invasion of privacy, defined as an intrusion upon the private affairs or concerns of another person that a reasonable person would find highly offensive.180 This claim can be brought against anyone who violates one's privacy interests and can include both physical intrusions and other types of intrusions.181 Privacy Act of 1974 In 1974, Congress enacted the Privacy Act to protect the personal information of all individuals identified in government information systems, to regulate the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of personal information, and to prohibit any unnecessary and excessive sharing of an individual's personal, private information either within the government or to outside individuals.182 When a government entity maintaining someone's personal information intentionally or willfully violates the Privacy Act, the individual whose personal information the government unnecessarily shared can bring a civil action under § 552a(g)

Read the entire page →

From page 20...

... 20 consider the false light as highly offensive and (2) the defendant had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the matter put into the public eye and/or knew that the plaintiff would be placed in false light.194 In Hickox v.

Read the entire page →

Key Terms

← Previous Chapter Skim

Next Chapter Skim →

This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.