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.
| Direct Liability of Business Associates In 2009, Congress enacted the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act,1 making business associates of covered entities directly liable for compliance with certain requirements of the HIPAA Rules. Consistent with the HITECH Act, the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued a final rule in 2013 to modify the HIPAA Privacy, Security, Breach Notification, and Enforcement Rules.2 Among other things, the final rule identifies provisions of the HIPAA Rules that apply directly to business associates and for which business associates are directly liable.3 As set forth in the HITECH ...read more |
| Dentist Revises Process to Safeguard Medical Alert PHI Covered Entity: Health Care Provider Issue: Safeguards, Minimum Necessary An OCR investigation confirmed allegations that a dental practice flagged some of its medical records with a red sticker with the word "AIDS" on the outside cover, and that records were handled so that other patients and staff without need to know could read the sticker. When notified of the complaint filed with OCR, the dental practice immediately removed the red AIDS sticker from the complainant's file. To resolve this matter, OCR also required the practice to revise its policies and operating ...read more |
| Hospital Implements New Minimum Necessary Polices for Telephone Messages Covered Entity: General Hospital Issue: Minimum Necessary; Confidential Communications A hospital employee did not observe minimum necessary requirements when she left a telephone message with the daughter of a patient that detailed both her medical condition and treatment plan. An OCR investigation also indicated that the confidential communications requirements were not followed, as the employee left the message at the patient’s home telephone number, despite the patient’s instructions to contact her through her work number. To resolve the issues in this case, the hospital developed and implemented several new procedures. ...read more |
| Entity Rescinds Improper Charges for Medical Record Copies to Reflect Reasonable, Cost-Based Fees Covered Entity: Private Practice Issue: Access A patient alleged that a covered entity failed to provide him access to his medical records. After OCR notified the entity of the allegation, the entity released the complainant’s medical records but also billed him $100.00 for a “records review fee” as well as an administrative fee. The Privacy Rule permits the imposition of a reasonable cost-based fee that includes only the cost of copying and postage and preparing an explanation or summary if agreed to by the individual. To ...read more |
|
August 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 |
| 31 |
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
January 2025 (1)
November 2022 (54)
Blog Labels
ePHI (2)
Covered Entity (40)
HIPAA (2)
PPP Fraud (1)
Data Breach (1)
EHR Fraud (1)
HIPAA Enforcement (3)
BAA (4)
Telehealth (1)
|
