That would bother me tremendously too. Why isn't his door shut?

I don't think it matters at all what one person might consider to be confidential and another not. That varies quite a bit for everyone. Besides, just because today you have dry eye doesn't mean tomorrow it couldn't be something very personal.

Is there a pharmacy in the next town over where they might not know you? My medication comes through the mail. I have to order this way for my ongoing prescriptions. That said, even if I went to the local pharmacy, a low dose cholesterol medicine and a dry eye medication wouldn't exactly get tongues wagging.

My favorite: We give our landline to our doctors. "Someone in your household has an appointment with Dr. Smith on Tues. etc." Okaaay, I don't, and since Dr. Smith is a Gyn, that leaves out DH. Mmmmm, I goes that appointment is for my DD."

These messages always make me laugh.

Joanie, I am always given a clipboard. I have never had that happen.

Snookums, as I said in my OP, the husband is in a different profession entirely. He comes to visit his wife.

The pharmacy still has the same name, but even if the husband jointly owns it with his wife, I don't think it's ethical he be there behind the counter where the drugs are, along with our files on the computer.

Since he's there at times, I'm guessing it's allowed, but it's still not right.

I have zero obligation to leave the room if a client calls on the house phone. Nor is my husband ethically responsible if I hear some of the conversation since they chose to call after hours and on the family phone. DH has another number in his office they could call. It doesn't happen often, maybe a couple of times a month. I never ask what the conversation is about, either. But someone inside a pharmacy can look at the bottle of medicine being filled and know exactly why it was prescribed.

My favorite: We give our landline to our doctors. "Someone in your household has an appointment with Dr. Smith on Tues. etc." Okaaay, I don't, and since Dr. Smith is a Gyn, that leaves out DH. Mmmmm, I goes that appointment is for my DD."

Hmmm...usually there is a "preference" on the sign in sheet (or at least initial appointment sheet) in which you can state your preference re how you want messages left - i.e., if you want any identifying info, or prefer no message be left if person not home, or by email only, etc.

An owner of the pharmacy is still covered by privacy laws. An employee, professional or paraprofessional or any other worker of the pharmacy is covered by privacy laws. If anyone has access to protected information, they have to keep their mouths shut. I would absolutely not worry about it. All people have marital, sexual, drug, psychological, legal, criminal, gynecological, brain, health issues. So what?

Duvet, thanks I realize that. I was just making a joke in the way the message is presented. I find it funny.

I work with HIPAA related transactions a lot at clinics and hospitals. While hospital staff are much more aware of what HIPAA is and how it affects them, I am simply amazed at how little the staff at off site clinics know about it, which is pretty scary when you consider the fines that can be imposed if it's violated.

HIPAA extends to all medical entities including pharmacies but with the EMR systems they're required to use, I seriously doubt the Pharmacist's husband has access to yours or anyone else's personal or medical information. Everyone is required to have their own log on and movements on these systems is highly restrictive and tracked. Also, due to rising costs many many doctors have now moved their practices under the umbrella of a hospital and when doing so they start using the hospital's EMR system as well.

Medical insurance providers may not need your authorization to see your records but they still fall under the law of HIPAA when it comes to confidentiality. Just because someone works within a medical office, pharmacy, 3rd party vendor or an insurance agency, your information is supposed to be protected and far from a free for all. When it comes to the records themselves, one area that is still vulnerable to a breach are those medical clinics that are still using paper files. Obviously it's harder to track the hands the file falls into but on the flip side, most people can't read doctor scribble so the notes are pretty much useless to a snooper anyways.

Oakly, laws prohibit him from snooping through the bottles. If you are so uncomfortable with it, maybe you should call the regulating office, ask what the laws are regarding that scenario and if warranted, file an anonymous complaint.

Tricky situation because laws and ethics should keep people from both snooping and revealing private information. I too live in and grew up in a small town. Some professionals here are paragons of discretion. They know everyone's dirty laundry and they keep it to themselves and treat people graciously and with dignity no matter what. And then some people don't. The rules are made for those who can't manage to do the former. Hard to know which kind of person you are dealing with.

Oak, if your sons had grown up with the person who is now the pharmacist would it bother you?

I would just go some place else if having that familiar person around your medical information is uncomfortable. Less convenient but the worry gone.

I agree with Palimpsest. Since you don't think you have an obligation to leave the room, I think your husband has an obligation to tell the caller s/he has mistakenly called the house, please call my office phone. I would hope the pharmacist and her husband are just as ethical as you and your husband are.

I agree. Legal matters are confidential. I would leave the room, myself, to provide another their privacy, and have, but as the person in charge, he should take the call into another room and close the door. It doesn't matter if everyone is discreet or not.

Westsider, once more, this person is not an employee of the pharmacy. He hangs out in the small area where the drugs are kept and filled. He can easily look at the label on the bottle, and even see the the big bottle they use to pour the pills out for the prescription.

Maddie, like I told Westsider, I'm not concerned about the pharmacist, it's her non-employee husband.

Does anyone ever read the whole post anymore?

Luk, he may not be able to view my records on the computer, but he was there one day in the area where my prescription was being filled.

As far as DH and his ethics go, those clients who call the home phone, all at nighttime, know darn well they called the home number. Trust me when I say, ethics come first for my dh. It's a really big deal to him. But he has nothing to do with this topic, it was me explaining that I do know all about confidentiality.

I'm not changing pharmacies, I was just wondering if family or friends who are not employees of the pharmacy can hang out where the meds are being filled. To me, it's no different than a non-employee hanging out in a Dr.'s examination room.

Oakley, I am sure you and your husband are discreet.

But I am not sure how you hearing a conversation about legal matters is any different than the husband being present in this pharmacy, particularly if he has something to do with the business (even if he is not a pharmacist). Why do you think he is poring through your personal information any more than you are hanging on every word your husband and client say so you could repeat it later? I am sure you are not doing that, and I doubt he has any interest in your medications either.

Beyond that, I am sure you can understand much more of what your husband is talking about to another lay person on the phone than a non-pharmacist understands what particular drugs are used for unless they are taking the same or similar drugs themselves. I teach a basic pharmacology course, and I don't recognize off hand exactly what some drugs are for, particularly when identified by generic name.

I would go somewhere else if you are this concerned, but really I think you are assuming that the pharmacist's husband is a lot more interested in your medical history than he is.

Oakley, you may not have an obligation to leave the room when your husband is on a call with a client, but HE should ask you to leave, or leave the room himself, should he not?

The situation between your DH's business and you hearing confidential calls is not exactly like the pharmacist's husband seeing patient prescriptions but it is similar enough for analogy. Since you brought that up yourself I am surprised you don't see that.

Fyi, you would be stunned if you knew how many people have access to your medical records.....the part time high school helper who scans documents, the blabby clerk at the local doc in the box, the local IT tech who comes to troubleshoot computers and they have to use somebody's records for testing if they don't have an active fake "test" patient.....the list would make your hair stand on end. I would think that the joint owner of a pharmacy would be far more discreet as it is in his best business interests to be so, and as an owner he would obviously be bound by HIPAA rules like anyone else. And as an owner---if he is an owner---he is not just "hanging out" in the pharmacy; he is either helping out or minding his own business :-)

i don't think there is anything wrong with it and would not worry.

It would bother me. I have worked in HR and medical environments and now with private student information (I must have a trustworthy face) and would not let my husband sit behind me while I worked on spreadsheets with private data. That said I would allow him into my office if he ever cared to come visit, but not with private info on display. To me "behind the counter" at a pharmacy is a bit like a private computer display but being up front is not.

Choosing to trust a professional is not the same as choosing to trust their spouse. There was a huge flap here when the husband of a superintendent of schools released a private video that she legitimately had as part of her job, to the media. No repercussions for either :(

HIPAA??? One of our pharmacies sold entire business to another without notifying clients. It was in the local newspaper after a done deal. Legal? Yes! But in my opinion medical records were sold!

If she is a younger pharmacist she may not have as much experience and may be less sensitive to patient privacy issues. If it is bothering you, chances are it bothers someone else. Suggest - help her out professionally by either talking with her or sending her a note.

On a less serious note, a few years ago a pharmacy made me sign HIPPA forms for a medication - I was picking up for my cat.

Even worse if the pharmacy owner allows non-employee relatives to wander around where protected health info is visible.

Hospitals and physician practices are bought and sold all the time and so go your medical records. Fortunately there are no regulations requiring patient notification, etc. That would add even more to the cost of healthcare along with HIPAA and all the other government reporting and compliance requirements.

Try this, Oakley, from what you wrote above:

"I'm not changing pharmacies *lawyers,* I was just wondering if family or friends who are not employees of the *lawyer* can hang out where *the case is being discussed. meds are being filled. To me, it's no different than a non-employee hanging out in a Dr.'s examination room."

If you think a Pharmacist should should not allow her husband in the room, so to speak, don't you also think a lawyer should also not allow his wife to be in the same room when a case is being discussed? IMHO, I think your husband should refuse to discuss business on the house phone. He should tell callers to contact him on his office phone. Attorney/client privilege, and all that.

oakley said:

"When clients call my dh for advice on the house phone, I hear his side of the legal conversation, and I know it's confidential and I act dumb when I see his clients. More than likely, they don't know that I know what's going on. So I know about confidentiality."

If you knew about confidentiality, you would not "know what's going on". Just because you may not share the information, does not make it right that you know. The information in the conversation should be between the client and the attorney. You are correct in that it is not your obligation to leave the room. It is the attorney's obligation to make certain the conversation is not overheard. It may not be an ethical breach per se, but it would be the right thing to do.

As far as DH and his ethics go, those clients who call the home phone, all at nighttime, know darn well they called the home number. Trust me when I say, ethics come first for my dh. It's a really big deal to him. But he has nothing to do with this topic, it was me explaining that I do know all about confidentiality.

But it does. This has everything to do with your topic, because you are describing exactly the same thing, only (as has been done above) replacing "pharmacist" with "lawyer." There is no difference at all.

If you think your situation is different - how is it different?

To add, if you really understood confidentiality, you would either leave the room on behalf of the other person or ask your husband to take his calls in his office so you didn't need to. Being able to be discreet and pretending to not know what is going on does not preserve the confidentiality agreement between a professional and their client or customer. That confidentiality has been breached and it is disheartening to know. Of course, that is his responsibility to manage, not yours.

I'd put a second line in his office for the home number so he can easily just take the call into the next room.

One kind of late thought, if your state recognizes community property as having equal ownership and that pharmacy is owned by the wife. It is owned by the husband too. He may not have a license and there for does not dispense meds, but I think it would be silly to expect a co owner to sit outside. Just like it would be silly to call your lawyer at home at night and expect the spouse to go sit on the curb while having your chat.

Back to your original question, yes it would bother me to have family, friends, neighbors, acquaintances handling my personal information. I would guess he is helping out with the family business in some way as any other employee would be doing. You might bring it up with the pharmacist to see what she says. You might get a satisfactory explanation to understand why he is permitted in the back. I would guess she is well aware of her responsibilities under HIPAA. If not, she might then realize he really shouldn't be in the back or near the computer screens or prescriptions and make the necessary changes to comply with HIPAA.

I also doubt he is paying attention to the jars and name labels while he is back there although he could certainly see something accidentally. Just because he is on the computer does not mean he has access to the customer information. He might be tending inventory or something else.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Oakley go sit on the curb while her husband has a confidential phone discussion at home. The onus to uphold attorney-client privilege is her husband's.

No one sees the difference?? Seriously? Oakley's husband's clients make a CHOICE to call their solicitor *after hours* *at his home* where he lives with his wife. What if Oakley answers the phone and recognizes the caller's voice? Or sees a number on the caller display? The caller has chosen to take that risk. I'm guessing her husband has office hours and an office telephone number. Maybe his clients should use them if attorney-client privilege is that important to them.

Besides changing pharmacies, Oakley has no choice in this matter.

(edited for spelling typo)

The difference I see is that there is an assumption that the pharmacist's husband is snooping or looking at customers' orders and prescriptions .. where Oakley has outright said that she'd heard confidential information.

It seems like a lot of drama without details.. or evidence.

If she really felt as though her privacy had been invaded, she'd change pharmacies instead of being resistant to the suggestion.

Knowing someone has called your SO for a legal matter because you answer the phone or see the caller ID does not mean you have a right to know the content of the conversation between the attorney and client.

"I'm guessing her husband has office hours and an office telephone number. Maybe his clients should use them if attorney-client privilege is that important to them.

Not all legal matters can be discussed during office hours. Not all legal matters arise within office hours.

It sounds like it bothers you enough Oakley to post about it, so if I were you I would change pharmacies.

Not all attorneys can be reached during office hours.

I'm guessing her husband has office hours and an office telephone number. Maybe his clients should use them if attorney-client privilege is that important to them.

The attorney is the professional and it is incumbent upon him to uphold attorney-client privilege. Always. Too, when you're in a position of needing to speak directly with an attorney on a matter, you may find yourself in a very vulnerable state to begin with. Even more reason for the attorney to ensure that confidentiality is held in the highest regard.

It's true that the phone calls that come into Oakley's home (whether by landline or cell) and what occurs at the pharmacy lack similarity as far as location. What is exactly is the same, however, is the fact that Oakley says she is privy to information that is none of her business - precisely the thing she is suggesting of the pharmacist's husband.

Just a question (and assumption maybe) but if an attorney chooses to offer his home number and ask his clients to call him there, isn't the omen of confidentiality (not discretion) still required by the attorney? Wouldn't it be considered a breach of client/attorney relationship if family can over hear it? I don't think the client is at fault for his/her conversation being overheard if they call their attorney at home. I'm thinking if it were me in that situation, I'd hope or even expect that the attorney has moved to a private area.

Discussion was over when OP starting criticizing responses.

The difference Jen, in my mind, is that Oakley is where she is supposed to be, in her own home. The pharmacists DH is going to a place behind the counter where he shouldnt be unless of course he is working there part time. I agree with you that the onus is the Oakleys DH to close the office door when talking to clients at home.

This will probably get me into trouble, but I would find it hard to believe that an attorney working on a case where the person is known to his or her spouse would not mention in privacy what was going on with that person.

RoseAbbey said:

"This will probably get me into trouble, but I would find it hard to believe that an attorney working on a case where the person is known to his or her spouse would not mention in privacy what was going on with that person."

You can believe it, RoseAbbey. At least that has been my experience for over 40 years.

Oakley am I remembering correctly that your husband closed his "town" office and moved his office into the home? That could get tricky if he is working strictly out of the home.

About the pharmacy situation, if it is a "family owned" business, and if the husband is part owner, even though he is not the professional (pharmacist) who fills the prescriptions, I am wondering about his rights to be anywhere in the "business" that he needs to be. I am thinking of all scenarios: even though he has another profession, perhaps he assists with billing, purchasing, bookkeeping, tax issues, just the typical "business" end of things. How would the HIPPA laws work in that situation. A pharmacy is a business - perhaps he has a right to "see records". That might be a good question for your lawyer husband to research for you. The flip side of this may be that he is just visiting - that would be entirely different.

Our small town pharmacy is owned by non-pharmacist family. I feel confident they have access to all records.

If I remember correctly, we have a couple of posters on here with physician husbands - Lynn and KSWL - how is that handled as it pertains to HIPPA if your are "working in the office".

RoseAbbey said:

"This will probably get me into trouble, but I would find it hard to believe that an attorney working on a case where the person is known to his or her spouse would not mention in privacy what was going on with that person."

Marlene said:

"You can believe it, RoseAbbey. At least that has been my experience for over 40 years."

Marlene, are you saying you are married to an attorney and he reveals to you confidential information about cases involving people you know?

That is the opposite of what I said.

Good. I find the wording difficult for some reason. I can't imagine a professional would violate a client's privacy like that.

Oakley cleared stated that her husband has a business line in his home office. That's the number a client should be calling ... not the family line.

I know this is not the direction Oakley wanted or expected this conversation to take. I think it went there for a very apparent reason, but in the spirit of the holiday I'm starting to feel that it's not a point that should be argued further. At least this is where I bow out.

I wish you all peace and goodwill. And yams. ;-)

The burden is always on the attorney to ensure confidentiality- and that includes ensuring his or her spouse is not made aware of privileged information. A spouse is a third party (obviously) so would not be bound by attorney/client privilege and thus should not have any access to any confidential information a client shares with an attorney, nor to any confidential information an attorney shares with a client regarding the client's case.

That said, the Supreme Court has ruled:

Lawyer-client communications are confidential if they are made in a context where it would be reasonable to expect that they would remain confidential (Katz v. U.S., U.S. Sup. Ct. 1967)

So, it becomes a question of whether the client calling an attorney at home would reasonably expect both sides of that phone call to be kept confidential.. If the attorney provides the number and tells clients to call, then this seems to be a situation where the client would reasonably expect confidentiality. However, if the attorney's wife answers the phone and it is apparent she is there, can the client reasonably expect confidentiality?

As to the pharmacist, HIPAA is super, super strict. My DH just did his HIPAA compliance manual for the year and it's like 8 binders full of stuff he has to do to make sure medical records don't fall into the wrong hands. Limiting access to areas where patient records are kept is among the requirements.

"Our small town pharmacy is owned by non-pharmacist family. I feel confident they have access to all records."

Per HIPAA, I'm sure this would be a violation. Just because someone owns the business doesn't mean they can access patient records. The only people with those privileges are those who need to in order to do their job.

Jen, I've never had a yam, have you?

Wow! I had no idea. So the garnet "yams" I always buy aren't yams at all.

Honestly, the discussion went where it did because Oakley took it there. You can't open the door and beckon.. and then get bent out of shape when someone enters.

Thanks Beagles for your post and clarification; I pretty much figured that but some of the commentary had me second guessing it.

Most of the posters in this thread have known Oakley for years (and visa versa); we participate in her threads knowing very well that her tendencies are to fight suggestions (sorry Oak but it's true) and that her threads can and often do go sideways. In the spirit of the Holiday, let's refrain....there's really no need to go down a road that's already been traveled so many times before is there?

Info on HIPPA business associate agreements:

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/coveredentities/contractprov.html

Rx data mining:

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/oct/21/business/la-fi-lazarus-20131022

"I don't know if this is the norm at other pharmacies, so tell me if I should ignore this."

No, don't ignore it. Inquire.