Health insurance companies are required to disclose the name, address, and Social Security number of anyone who requests it.
They’re also required to tell the individual if the individual is under 18 and how old the individual needs to be to enroll in insurance.
But the companies are also not required to provide the full details of the health information.
It is unclear how the companies would comply with this law if they were required to comply with the federal law.
That is a problem because insurance companies will not sell information about a person’s health history unless the individual requests it from them.
“Social media is a powerful tool for helping consumers connect with their health information,” said Amy Schmid, president of the advocacy group Privacy Rights Clearinghouse.
“If insurance companies were required by law to disclose this information, consumers would not be able to use this tool to connect with the care providers they are most likely to see, and the health care information could not be used to determine whether or not to enroll an individual.
Consumers will still be able use this information to make their own health care decisions.”
A federal judge ruled last year that insurance companies cannot sell personal information to third parties.
If the Supreme Court decides to take up the case, the court will have to decide how the government can compel companies to comply.
“This is not just a matter of the courts and the government should be given some sort of authority to compel insurers to disclose their health records,” said Schmid.
The companies have argued that because the law only requires insurers to provide information about the individual’s health status, they are not obligated to do so.
“We are not asking them to share any personal information about an individual that would be available to a third party without the individual knowing,” said Michael Cappello, a spokesman for the insurance industry trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans.
“As we’ve said from the beginning, we do not provide health information for sale to third-party marketers.”
If the court rules in favor of the companies, it could open the door for the use of a number of other privacy safeguards.
First, insurance companies could be required to obtain a court order to share health information on behalf of an individual or their spouse or dependent child.
Insurance companies could also be required by the court to provide individual and family health information that is not subject to privacy laws.
Second, insurers could be allowed to refuse to sell certain health information to other insurers.
Insurance plans could be forced to sell the information only to their own customers, or to a company that can be identified by the individual.
Third, the companies could have to pay a penalty for not disclosing personal health information within 10 days.
Finally, insurers may have to require people to submit an application before they can get access to their health data.
Insurance providers can charge fees for each health information request, and they may not be required or allowed to disclose personal health data on behalf at least three other insurers in their network.
“I would imagine that there would be a lot of interest in having insurance companies do this,” said Jennifer Granick, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who wrote a book on privacy issues for the Center for American Progress, a think tank.
“But there are a lot fewer companies willing to do it.”
For example, if an insurance company refused to sell information on a person, that insurer would have to stop selling insurance to the individual, Granick said.
“There would be some cost to insurers, and I don’t think the insurance companies would be willing to pay that cost.
So I think this is going to be an uphill battle for insurers.”