Wiretap laws and the perioperative physician - The current state of affairs.

BACKGROUND: Wiretapping laws generally govern the legality of surreptitious or unconsented audio recording or other interception of face-to-face conversations, telephone calls, and other oral or wire communications. Many of these laws were originally passed in the late 1960s or 70s, and many have since been modified or amended. Wiretap laws vary from state to state within the United States, and many clinicians as well as patients are often unaware of the scope and implications of these laws. CASE EXAMPLES: We provide three hypothetical case examples to illustrate scenarios in which wiretapping laws come into play. METHODS: Through a review of current legislation, we compiled relevant wiretapping statutes for each state, as well as the potential civil remedies and criminal punishments that could be imposed for violations. We include the results of targeted research related to cases in which rights or claims under applicable wiretap statues have been asserted in the context of medical encounters and healthcare practice. RESULTS: We classified thirty-seven out of 50 states (74%) as one-party consent state laws, nine out of 50 states (18%) as all-party consent state laws, and the remaining four states (8%) as "Mixed". Remedies and punishments for violations of state wiretapping laws generally can involve civil or criminal fines and/or potential incarceration. Cases in which healthcare practitioners have asserted rights under wiretap laws remain rare. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate heterogeneity with regard to the wiretapping laws state-to-state. The majority of punishments for violations involve fines and/or potential incarceration. Given the wide variability in state legislature, we suggest that anesthesiologists know their state's wiretapping law.

Hearing Aid Compatibility Standards. Final rule; announcement of effective date.

In this document, the Commission announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, the information collection associated with rules adopted in the Commission's document Access to Telecommunication Equipment and Services by Persons with Disabilities; Amendment of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Mobile Handsets et. al., Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration (Order). This document is consistent with the Order, which stated that the Commission would publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date of those rules.

Rules on determining hearing appearances. Final rule.

This final rule is another step in our continual efforts to handle workloads more effectively and efficiently. We are publishing final rules for portions of the rules we proposed in October 2007 that relate to persons, other than the claimant or any other party to the hearing, appearing by telephone. We are also clarifying that the administrative law judge (ALJ) will allow the claimant or any other party to a hearing to appear by telephone under certain circumstances when the claimant or other party requests to make his or her appearance in that manner. We expect that these final rules will make the hearings process more efficient and help us continue to reduce the hearings backlog. In addition, we made some minor editorial changes to our regulations that do not have any effect on the rights of claimants or any other parties.

HIV is rare among low-risk heterosexual men and significant potential savings could occur through phone results.

BACKGROUND: The legislation in Victoria requires HIV-positive results to be given in person by an accredited health professional. Many sexual health clinics require all men to receive HIV results in person. Our aim was to determine the proportion of low-risk heterosexual men at a sexual health centre who tested HIV-positive. METHODS: The electronic data on all HIV tests performed between 2002 and 2008 on heterosexual men at the Melbourne Sexual Health Centre (MSHC) was reviewed. The individual client files of all heterosexual men who tested HIV-positive were reviewed to determine their risks for HIV at the time that the HIV test was ordered. RESULTS: Over the 6 years there were 33 681 HIV tests performed on men, of which 17 958 tests were for heterosexual men. From these heterosexual men, nine tested positive for the first time at MSHC (0.05%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.01%, 0.09%). These nine cases included six men who had had sex with a female partner from the following countries: Thailand, Cambodia, China, East Timor, Botswana and South Africa. Two men had injected drugs and one had a HIV-positive female partner. Of the 17 958 test results for heterosexual males, 14 902 (83% 95% CI: 84%, 86%) test results were for men who did not have a history of intravenous drug use or had sexual contact overseas. Of these 14 902 low-risk men, none tested positive (0%, 95% CI: 0, 0.00025). CONCLUSION: Asking the 83% of heterosexual men who have an extremely low risk of HIV to return in person for their results is expensive for sexual health clinics and inconvenient for clients. We have changed our policy to permit heterosexual men without risk factors to obtain their HIV-negative results by phone.