[Scan-DC] Blocking EMS scanner traffic hurts the public

[Alan Henney]

San Antonio Express-News

July 31, 2009 Friday 
STATE&METRO Edition

Blocking EMS scanner traffic hurts the public

BYLINE: Scott Stroud

SECTION: METRO AND STATE NEWS; Pg. 1B

LENGTH: 540 words

Starting today, reporters at the Express-News and other local media outlets will not have access to emergency medical services scanner traffic. This will make their jobs harder because they won't hear addresses where incidents occur, or the reason an ambulance is needed. 

It should alarm you, too. The change inhibits your ability to learn how well the police, fire and emergency medical workers that your tax dollars pay for are performing - whether they're arriving at crime and accident scenes in time to help people in trouble, for example. It also diminishes your ability to know about emergencies that could threaten your well-being.

City Attorney Michael Bernard, who instigated the change, thinks allowing reporters to hear EMS scanner traffic - as they always have - could lead to violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

In plain English, public discussion of a person's medical condition by any medical worker, including a paramedic, violates their privacy. Because Congress has strengthened the penalty provisions of HIPAA, which protects medical information from disclosure, Bernard thinks discussing someone's condition on the radio could get emergency workers in serious legal trouble.

That risk, though, is far outweighed by the value of having emergency workers perform their duties under the eyes of a free press, which also can let people know when they're in danger.

Reporters, of course, don't win popularity contests these days. Every third movie that comes out contains the obligatory scene where a gaggle of annoying journalists presses forward to shout questions into the face of their hapless victim.

I've been in those gaggles, and it's no fun from the inside, either. It happens when lawyers and public officials control access to information or to the people and stories that make news. Often this is justified, and sometimes it can't be avoided, but few police reporters I know relish the situation.

Nor do they take much glee in exploiting private tragedy. They're outraged by the outrageous, offended by the offensive. Most pursue their vocation for other reasons - sympathy for victims, a sense that certain crimes need more attention than they receive or to be sure that the weakest and most vulnerable among us - a 4-week-old baby with a mentally ill mother, for example - get the protection they need.

Some reporters still believe in heroes and think people on the front lines are as worthy of recognition as anyone. Some even hope their work might help solve a crime or protect people from harm.

Bernard agreed to meet with a lawyer for local media outlets next week, but he didn't stop the reprogramming of the scanners, which takes effect today. Both he and City Manager Sheryl Sculley vowed to look for ways to make as much information available as possible, but they held firm on protecting workers from what they regard as serious legal exposure. Neither, however, could name another city that has responded to changes in the HIPAA law this way.

Throughout his campaign and even after his election, Mayor Julián Castro spoke eloquently about the value of open government and its role in ensuring accountability.

This seems like a pretty good place to start.

jstroud at express-news.net