ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST:
We finish our series this week on America's natural gas boom with a story about a new law in Pennsylvania, a law that has doctors nervous. It allows physicians access to information about trade secret chemicals that are used by natural gas drilling companies.
Doctors say they need to know what's in those formulas in order to treat patients who may have been exposed to them, but the new law also says the doctors can't tell anyone else, not even other doctors, what's in those formulas.
Susan Phillips reports on what's being called the doctor gag rule.
SUSAN PHILLIPS, BYLINE: Dr. Amy Pare is a plastic surgeon who practices in suburban Pittsburgh. She does reconstructive surgeries and deals with a lot of skin issues. She tells me about one case when parents brought in a boy with strange skin lesions.
AMY PARE: Their son is quite ill, has had lethargy, nosebleeds, has had tremendous lymphadenopathy, he's had liver damage. I don't know if it's due to exposure.
PHILLIPS: The family lived near natural gas drilling activity and there was some concern he may have been exposed to some of the chemicals being used. Producing natural gas is pretty industrial and gives off a lot of fumes. Chemicals help to get the gas flowing.
Pare's first step was to figure out what chemicals the drillers were using and that information isn't easy to get. In this case, the patient's family had a good lawyer who helped find out what the company was using.
PARE: If I don't know what they've been exposed to, how do I find the antidote for what they've been exposed to? It's impossible. You know, we're definitely not clairvoyant.
PHILLIPS: But Pennsylvania has a new law that's supposed to make things easier for doctors and patients. The new law requires drillers to post the chemicals used to produce oil or gas on a public website that doctors like Pare could access, but the website doesn't list all the chemicals used. It doesn't list trade secrets. These are ingredients that a company says they have to keep secret in order to maintain an edge over their competitors.
Before the law, doctors couldn't find out what those trade secrets were. Now, they can. But here's the catch: Doctors can only get chemical names if they sign a confidentiality agreement and agree not to share that information, and that makes doctors like Amy Pare very nervous.
PARE: As I understand it, it's legally binding, so if 20 years from now, I hiccup that someone was exposed to zip-a-dee-doo-dah, I'm legally liable for that.
PHILLIPS: It's not even clear if doctors like Pare can tell the patient what they've been exposed to, or the patient's neighbors, coworkers or even primary care doctor. Ever since the law was signed earlier this year, doctors have been asking lots of questions, but authors of the law say doctors are overreacting.
Drew Crompton is a legislative staffer and one of the primary drafters of the law.
DREW CROMPTON: It's not to discredit those who are sincerely looking out for the health of others, but I think a mountain has been made out of a molehill.
PHILLIPS: The law was modeled after a federal OSHA regulation. At a recent talk, the state's top environmental official, Michael Krancer, defended what some are calling the doctor gag rule.
MICHAEL KRANCER: The, quote, "gag order" on physicians. Well, nothing could be further from the truth or more nonsensical than this. The provisions in Act 13 are exactly like what we have already and have had in the federal system since the '70s. There's nothing new there.
PHILLIPS: But there are some differences. The federal law was designed for workers. The new state laws cover everyone and critics say some important parts of the federal law are missing in these state laws.
Barry Furrow is the director of the Health Law Program at Drexel University in Philadelphia. He says the law is vague.
BARRY FURROW: They've lacked definition. They haven't defined the boundaries of disclosure, so doctors are properly nervous. What can they disclose to the state? What can they disclose to the community?
PHILLIPS: Pennsylvania health officials recently issued a statement assuring doctors that they would be able to share information with their patients and public health officials, but law professor Barry Furrow wonders how well that statement would hold up in court.
FURROW: If Halliburton decides to sue a doctor, that's quite terrifying. You have a very large - probably rather aggressive company, given its history.
PHILLIPS: Dr. Howard Frumkin is the dean of the School of Public Health at the University of Washington. He's an expert in treating workers exposed to chemicals on the job. He agrees there's a legitimate right for industry to protect trade secrets, but there's also a need to balance that with the public's right to know about what they're being exposed to.
HOWARD FRUMKIN: In this case, it seems that the law tried to make the balance, but didn't quite get it right because there are very chilling statements there that would inhibit physicians and public health officials from getting information that they need.
PHILLIPS: Some state lawmakers are responding to doctors' confusion. A bill has been introduced to remove the need for a confidentiality agreement.
For NPR News, I'm Susan Phillips in Philadelphia.
SIEGEL: That story came to us from StateImpact, a collaboration between NPR and member stations. It explores how state issues affect people's lives.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by a contractor for NPR, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of NPR's programming is the audio.