Public Hospital Corrects Impermissible Disclosure of PHI in Response to a Subpoena
Public Hospital Corrects Impermissible Disclosure of PHI in Response to a Subpoena
Covered Entity: General Hospital
Issue: Impermissible Uses and Disclosures
A public hospital, in response to a subpoena (not accompanied by a
court order), impermissibly disclosed the protected health information
(PHI) of one of its patients. Contrary to the Privacy Rule protections
for information sought for administrative or judicial proceedings, the
hospital failed to determine that reasonable efforts had been made to
insure that the individual whose PHI was being sought received notice of
the request and/or failed to receive satisfactory assurance that the
party seeking the information made reasonable efforts to secure a
qualified protective order. Among other corrective actions to remedy
this situation, OCR required that the hospital revise its subpoena
processing procedures. Under the revised process, if a subpoena is
received that does not meet the requirements of the Privacy Rule, the
information is not disclosed; instead, the hospital contacts the party
seeking the subpoena and the requirements of the Privacy Rule are
explained. The hospital also trained relevant staff members on the new
procedures.
| May a covered entity use or disclose protected health information for litigation? Answer: A covered entity may use or disclose protected health information as permitted or required by the Privacy Rule, see 45 CFR 164.502(a) (PDF); and, subject to certain conditions the Rule typically permits uses and disclosures for litigation, whether for judicial or administrative proceedings, under particular provisions for judicial and administrative proceedings set forth at 45 CFR 164.512(e) (GPO), or as part of the covered entity’s health care operations, 45 CFR 164.506(a) (PDF). Depending on the context, a covered entity’s use or disclosure of protected health information in ...read more |
| Private Practice Revises Policies and Procedures Addressing Activities Preparatory to Research Covered Entity: Private Practice Issue: Impermissible Disclosure-Research A private practice physician who was the principal investigator of a clinical research study disclosed a list of patients and diagnostic codes to a contract research organization to telephone patients for recruitment purposes. The disclosure was not consistent with documents approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB). The private practice maintained that the disclosure to the contract research organization was permissible as a review preparatory to research. Activities considered “preparatory to research” include: preparing a research protocol; developing a research hypothesis; ...read more |
| Large Medicaid Plan Corrects Vulnerability that Resulted in Disclosure to Non-BA Vendors Covered Entity: Health Plans Issue: Impermissible Uses and Disclosures; Safeguards A municipal social service agency disclosed protected health information while processing Medicaid applications by sending consolidated data to computer vendors that were not business associates. Among other corrective actions to resolve the specific issues in the case, OCR required that the social service agency develop procedures for properly disclosing protected health information only to its valid business associates and to train its staff on the new processes. The new procedures were instituted in Medicaid offices and independent ...read more |
| Pharmacy Chain Revises Process for Disclosures to Law Enforcement Covered Entity: Pharmacies Issue: Impermissible Uses and Disclosures A chain pharmacy disclosed protected health information to municipal law enforcement officials in a manner that did not conform to the provisions of the Privacy Rule. Among other corrective actions to resolve the specific issues in the case, OCR required this chain to revise its national policy regarding law enforcement's access to patient protected health information to comply with the Privacy Rule requirements, including that disclosures of protected health information to law enforcement only be made in response to written requests from ...read more |
|
November 2025
| Su | Mo | Tu | We | Th | Fr | Sa |
| | | | | | 1 |
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
| 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 |
Blog Home
Newest Blog Entries
1/21/25 Understanding Business Associate Agreements
11/12/22 Modernizing Medicine Agrees to Pay $45 Million to Resolve Allegations of Accepting and Paying Illegal Kickbacks and Causing False Claims
11/12/22 Indian National Charged in $8 Million COVID-19 Relief Fraud Scheme
11/12/22 Former Hospital Employee Pleads Guilty To Criminal HIPPA Charges
11/12/22 Covered entities and those persons rendered accountable by general principles of corporate criminal liability may be prosecuted directly under 42 U.S.C. § 1320d-6
11/12/22 The Delaware Division of Developmental Disabilities Services Data Breach
11/12/22 OCR Settles Three Cases with Dental Practices for Patient Right of Access under HIPAA
11/12/22 HHS Issues Guidance on HIPAA and Audio-Only Telehealth
11/12/22 Five Former Methodist Hospital Employees Charged with HIPAA Violations
11/12/22 May a covered entity use or disclose protected health information for litigation?
11/12/22 When does the Privacy Rule allow covered entities to disclose protected health information to law enforcement officials?
Blog Archives
November 2022 (54)
January 2025 (1)
Blog Labels
Data Breach (1)
BAA (4)
HIPAA (2)
PPP Fraud (1)
ePHI (2)
Covered Entity (40)
HIPAA Enforcement (3)
Telehealth (1)
EHR Fraud (1)
|
