The Privacy Implications of Insurers' Information Practices: Comment
评论了Skipper教授对MIB公司（原医疗信息局）的批评，指出其基于不准确假设，并澄清MIB记录自动删除、同意书有效期等事实。
These comments are addressed to three statements about MIB, Inc. formerly the Medical Information Bureau made by Professor Skipper the March 1979 issue of this Journal. ' Skipper's observations, despite his vast knowledge of MIB and its operations, are based on a somewhat tenuous set of assumptions. The results are inaccurate statements and misdirected criticisms of MIB and its member life insurers. First, Skipper makes the charge that the authorization, which by MIB rules must be signed by all applicants to member insurers, constitutes . . consent perpetuity, including consent to query MIB connection with claim processing. ' This claim overlooks a basic, indisputable fact: an MIB record is automatically deleted seven years after entry date. Therefore, the term in perpetuity is simply inapplicable to the system. Furthermore, it is both the position and practice of MIB and its membership to consider the consent given per the signed authorization as valid only for the period of contract contestability generally two years. When MIB is to be checked as part of claim processing after this period, a new consent form must be executed. Skipper also questions (on p. 25) both the reliability of MIB information and membership incentive . . . to correct the information.' In terms of reliability, MIB's source limitations, based on Fair Credit Reporting Act definitions, act to obviate the need for its own independent verification of reported information. MIB's coding instructions to members state: