not want their privacy being shared with others and therefore the law was officially implemented in 2001. connecticut-specific laws in order to solve hipaa issues within connecticut, state legislatures tried to create better provisions to protect the people living within the state. one of the issues that connecticut tried to solve were issues with consent. within the consent clause, health plans and health care clearinghouses do not need to receive consent from individuals because of a general provider consent form with gives healthcare providers permission to disclose all medical information. the patient thus does not get notification when their information is being shared afterwards. connecticut, like many other states, tried to protect individual's information from disclosure of information through additional clauses that would protect them from businesses initiatives. in order to do so, connecticut legislature passed the connecticut insurance information and privacy protect act, which provides additional protections of individual medical information. if third parties neglect to follow this law, they will be fined, may face jail time, and may have their licenses suspended. yet, even in these additional provisions, there were many holes within this legislation that allowed for businesses agreements to be denied and subsequently, information was compromised. connecticut is still working to shift its divergent purposes to creating more stringent requirements that create better protections through clear provisions of certain policies. california-specific laws in california, the confidentiality of medical information act (cmia), provides more stringent protections than the federal statutes. hipaa expressly provides that more stringent state laws like cmia, will override hipaa's requirements and penalties. more specifically, cmia prohibits providers, contractors and health care service plans from disclosing phi without prior authorization. these medical privacy laws also set a higher standard for health it vendors or vendors of an individual's personal health record (phr) by applying such statutes to vendors, even if they are not business associates of a covered entity. cmia also outlines penalties for violating the law. these penalties range from liability to the patient (compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, costs of litigation) to civil and even criminal liability. likewise, california's insurance information and privacy protection act (iippa) protects against unauthorized disclosure of phi by prohibiting unapproved information sharing for information collected from insurance applications and claims resolution. new zealand in new zealand, the health information privacy code (1994) sets specific rules for agencies in the health sector to better ensure the protection of individual privacy. the code addresses the health information collected, used, held and disclosed by health agencies. for the health sector, the code takes the place of the information privacy principles. netherlands the introduction of a nationwide system for the exchange of medical information and access to electronic patient records led to much discussion in the netherlands. privacy for research participants main article: privacy for research participants in the course of having or being part of a medical practice, doctors may obtain information that they wish to share with the medical or research community. if this information is shared or published, the privacy of the patients must be respected. likewise, participants in medical research that are outside the realm of direct patient care have a right to privacy as well.