Eve, 

The two laws are conceptually similar in that they give legal standing to third-party custodial agents in information governance --- great developments for UMA!. But RUFADAA and the Access Act involve different agent qualifications and oversight (for example, the Access Act positions the FTC as the regulatory body while RUFADAA custodians are unregulated). The two laws also deal with different use cases. (In other words, the Access Act doesn't encompass or even overlap the RUFADAA.) 

Tim

On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 4:13 PM Eve Maler <eve@xmlgrrl.com> wrote:
Thanks Adrian! Tim, I wonder how this compares to RUFADAA. I suppose this would be a single federal law, for one. Any comments? (See "SEC. 5. DELEGATABILITY")



Eve Maler
Cell or Signal +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl



On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 2:33 PM Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com> wrote:

On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 11:02 PM Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com> wrote:

Especially Section 5: Delegation. (There's a link to a nice summary at the very end of the page.) It calls for a right to specify a fiduciary agent, hopefully one that I can compile and own myself. I can imagine a law like this applying to all of our service providers above a certain size, like say 50 employees.

--
Adrian
--

Adrian Gropper MD

PROTECT YOUR FUTURE - RESTORE Health Privacy!
HELP us fight for the right to control personal health data.
_______________________________________________
WG-UMA mailing list
WG-UMA@kantarainitiative.org
https://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma
_______________________________________________
WG-UMA mailing list
WG-UMA@kantarainitiative.org
https://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma