This would kind of hurt if reports are not made public, a lot of gamblers depend on them.
June 16, 2002
by Jerry Magee of the SD Union-Tribune
"Probable," "questionable," "doubtful" and "out," words to hang on for those seeking to fathom an NFL team's status for a particular week, are apt to be less defining in 2003.
The words are those teams use in their weekly injury reports to detail a player's fitness. The NFL, to its credit, has been particularly mindful that teams act with frankness in making these reports, the league's position being that if the reports are not based on fact, gamblers would use surreptitious means of obtaining injury data.
In April 2003, however, a federal law is to become effective making it unlawful for a health-care provider to disclose a person's medical status unless the individual has waived his right of privacy. The law, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (Hipaa), was approved by Congress in 1996. According to Jim Godes of the San Diego law firm of Foley and Lardner, the legislation was not intended to bear on sports franchises.
"It was intended to make sure that all care providers do their billing electronically," said Godes. Being billed electronically instead of on paper creates savings for the government of $30 billion, according to Godes.
Godes made the point that one health-care provider that is a client of his firm has found that it costs the government $3.50 to process a claim made on paper. The cost of handling an electronic claim: 2 cents.
Enter the politicians, by Godes' account. They viewed this is an opportunity to put a federal privacy act into place. Their thrust was to insure that hackers could not obtain information concerning a person's health by intruding into the Internet.
"No one was thinking about pro athletes," contended Godes.
They are now. What Hipaa's final regulations will be won't be hammered out until this summer, according to Godes, but he said a team trainer could be violating the law if he advises his employer concerning a player's condition.
Some players on a team could choose to make their injury status public information, others could not. A player could alter his status from week to week.
"It could lead to gamesmanship," said Godes. "You could hear somebody say, 'You won't renegotiate? The heck with you. I revoke my authorization (to have his injury status made public).' "
The NFL is aware of how chaotic this situation could become. Said Greg Aiello, the league's vice president for public relations:
"We are following the regulatory process closely and will be prepared to advise our clubs after the final compliance rules are determined."
The law places the league in a position of not being able to identify its product, which is its players. From week to week, teams would not be able to list which players were fit to perform and which players were not.
Godes said how the NFL determines to act when the final regulations are fixed is going to be interesting to follow. One option would be to challenge the constitutionality of the law. Another would be simply to abide by the law. A third would be for the league and its players union to write into their collective bargaining agreement that they were authorizing the disclosure of injury data.
"But would that be enforceable?" Godes questioned concerning this last option. "Probably not." The matter would be subject to lawsuits that players would win, in Godes' thinking.
Many states, including California, have privacy laws, Godes said, but they are not strictly enforced. How well Hipaa is to be enforced is uncertain.
Even without injury reports, teams are going to be aware of the injury status of players they are preparing to oppose. They have advance scouts to ascertain this. It is the gaming community that would be most influenced by the absence of injury reports, which are examined closely by those who support their NFL opinions with money.
Godes said he can envision gambling interests engaging in scurrilous activities in order to obtain this data. "You could have players being followed around," said the attorney.
John Harper is a Las Vegas oddsmaker for whom the NFL is an area of expertise. "I would imagine most of the players would waive their right of privacy," said Harper, who questioned why Congress should have involved itself in reports concerning athletes' fitness.
"There are plenty of instances out there with the Internet where privacy matters should be under scrutiny, but in sports it doesn't make any sense," said Harper. "If a quarterback gets hurt, everybody sees it. Whether or not the team divulges anything, the newspapers are going to figure out whether he is practicing or not and make a pretty good guess on whether he is playing. This would not be limiting the beat writer; it would only be limiting the player's employer."
Should teams be unable to classify injuries, Harper said his expectation is that there still will be injury lists that originate in sources apart from the NFL. "Teams can say, 'We don't contribute to that,' but they will," predicted Harper. "People will contact the trainer, and the trainer will say something."
But Hipaa could make being straightforward concerning injuries, as the NFL has been, a thing of the past.
June 16, 2002
by Jerry Magee of the SD Union-Tribune
"Probable," "questionable," "doubtful" and "out," words to hang on for those seeking to fathom an NFL team's status for a particular week, are apt to be less defining in 2003.
The words are those teams use in their weekly injury reports to detail a player's fitness. The NFL, to its credit, has been particularly mindful that teams act with frankness in making these reports, the league's position being that if the reports are not based on fact, gamblers would use surreptitious means of obtaining injury data.
In April 2003, however, a federal law is to become effective making it unlawful for a health-care provider to disclose a person's medical status unless the individual has waived his right of privacy. The law, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (Hipaa), was approved by Congress in 1996. According to Jim Godes of the San Diego law firm of Foley and Lardner, the legislation was not intended to bear on sports franchises.
"It was intended to make sure that all care providers do their billing electronically," said Godes. Being billed electronically instead of on paper creates savings for the government of $30 billion, according to Godes.
Godes made the point that one health-care provider that is a client of his firm has found that it costs the government $3.50 to process a claim made on paper. The cost of handling an electronic claim: 2 cents.
Enter the politicians, by Godes' account. They viewed this is an opportunity to put a federal privacy act into place. Their thrust was to insure that hackers could not obtain information concerning a person's health by intruding into the Internet.
"No one was thinking about pro athletes," contended Godes.
They are now. What Hipaa's final regulations will be won't be hammered out until this summer, according to Godes, but he said a team trainer could be violating the law if he advises his employer concerning a player's condition.
Some players on a team could choose to make their injury status public information, others could not. A player could alter his status from week to week.
"It could lead to gamesmanship," said Godes. "You could hear somebody say, 'You won't renegotiate? The heck with you. I revoke my authorization (to have his injury status made public).' "
The NFL is aware of how chaotic this situation could become. Said Greg Aiello, the league's vice president for public relations:
"We are following the regulatory process closely and will be prepared to advise our clubs after the final compliance rules are determined."
The law places the league in a position of not being able to identify its product, which is its players. From week to week, teams would not be able to list which players were fit to perform and which players were not.
Godes said how the NFL determines to act when the final regulations are fixed is going to be interesting to follow. One option would be to challenge the constitutionality of the law. Another would be simply to abide by the law. A third would be for the league and its players union to write into their collective bargaining agreement that they were authorizing the disclosure of injury data.
"But would that be enforceable?" Godes questioned concerning this last option. "Probably not." The matter would be subject to lawsuits that players would win, in Godes' thinking.
Many states, including California, have privacy laws, Godes said, but they are not strictly enforced. How well Hipaa is to be enforced is uncertain.
Even without injury reports, teams are going to be aware of the injury status of players they are preparing to oppose. They have advance scouts to ascertain this. It is the gaming community that would be most influenced by the absence of injury reports, which are examined closely by those who support their NFL opinions with money.
Godes said he can envision gambling interests engaging in scurrilous activities in order to obtain this data. "You could have players being followed around," said the attorney.
John Harper is a Las Vegas oddsmaker for whom the NFL is an area of expertise. "I would imagine most of the players would waive their right of privacy," said Harper, who questioned why Congress should have involved itself in reports concerning athletes' fitness.
"There are plenty of instances out there with the Internet where privacy matters should be under scrutiny, but in sports it doesn't make any sense," said Harper. "If a quarterback gets hurt, everybody sees it. Whether or not the team divulges anything, the newspapers are going to figure out whether he is practicing or not and make a pretty good guess on whether he is playing. This would not be limiting the beat writer; it would only be limiting the player's employer."
Should teams be unable to classify injuries, Harper said his expectation is that there still will be injury lists that originate in sources apart from the NFL. "Teams can say, 'We don't contribute to that,' but they will," predicted Harper. "People will contact the trainer, and the trainer will say something."
But Hipaa could make being straightforward concerning injuries, as the NFL has been, a thing of the past.
