The Privacy Implications of Insurers' Information Practices: Author's Reply

Abstract

Swarts' comment provides an opportunity to explore more fully the functioning of MIB, Inc. (Medical Information Bureau), and to discuss in more depth some privacy problems associated with that insurance support organization. Before I address Mr. Swarts' three major criticisms, I would like to update and correct certain aspects of the article which are unrelated to Swarts' comments. First, the Impairment Bureau of the National Insurance Association (NIA) has been disbanded by NIA. This action took place a short time prior to publication of the article and, in my opinion, represents an appropriate and praiseworthy action by the NIA. Second, in printing, a superscript referring to footnote 10 on page 13 was omitted from the text of the article. It should have appeared after the sentence which precedes the listing of the six consensus principles. Third, the last sentence of the second paragraph on page 15 should have read: Nonetheless, the MIB continues to be a source of controversy for. . . . ' Finally, the last two sentences of the second full paragraph on page 18 somehow were changed between galley proof and publication. They should have been combined as follows: Individuals are not notified when information about them is sought from other sources, regardless of consequences, nor are the subjects notified if information about them is transmitted to the MIB or the Impairment Bureau.' As to Swarts' comments, he states: Skipper's observations [about the MIB] . . . are based on a somewhat tenuous set of assumptions. The results are inaccurate statements and misdirected criticisms of MIB and its member life insurers.'' I believe that my observations and criticisms are accurate. Mr. Swarts' comments either are not completely correct or are unrelated to the substance of the article. First, Mr. Swarts states: