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.
| DOVER (Oct. 21, 2022) – The Delaware Division of Developmental Disabilities Services is announcing today that it is mailing letters to service recipients and legal guardians who were impacted by a recent data breach incident and is providing information to the public regarding the incident. On August 23, 2022, staff within the Division of Developmental Disabilities Services (DDDS) discovered that in the process of creating new user accounts in the division’s client database, DDDS staff inadvertently provided access to individual records of 7074 individuals. As a result of these actions, 159 new users had potential access to service recipients’ ...read more |
| § 164.314 Organizational requirements. (a) (1) Standard: Business associate contracts or other arrangements. The contract or other arrangement required by § 164.308(b)(3) must meet the requirements of paragraph (a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(ii), or (a)(2)(iii) of this section, as applicable. (2) Implementation specifications (Required) - (i) Business associate contracts. The contract must provide that the business associate will - (A) Comply with the applicable requirements of this subpart; (B) In accordance with § 164.308(b)(2), ensure that any subcontractors that create, receive, maintain, or transmit electronic protected health information on behalf of the business associate agree to comply with the applicable requirements of ...read more |
| Hospital Revises Email Distribution as a Result of a Disclosure to Persons Without a "Need to Know" Covered Entity: General Hospital Issue: Impermissible Use and Disclosure A complainant, who was both a patient and an employee of the hospital, alleged that her protected health information (PHI) was impermissibly disclosed to her supervisor. OCR’s investigation revealed that: the hospital distributed an Operating Room (OR) schedule to employees via email; the hospital’s OR schedule contained information about the complainant’s upcoming surgery. While the Privacy Rule may permit the disclosure of an OR schedule containing PHI, in this case, a hospital employee ...read more |
| Large Provider Revises Patient Contact Process to Reflect Requests for Confidential Communications Covered Entity: General Hospital Issue: Impermissible Disclosure; Confidential Communications A patient alleged that a general hospital disclosed protected health information when a hospital staff person left a message on the patient’s home phone answering machine, thereby failing to accommodate the patient’s request that communications of PHI be made only through her mobile or work phones. In response, the hospital instituted a number of actions to achieve compliance with the Privacy Rule. To resolve this matter to the satisfaction of OCR, the hospital: retrained an entire Department with ...read more |
|
October 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
November 2022 (54)
January 2025 (1)
Blog Labels
Covered Entity (40)
HIPAA Enforcement (3)
Telehealth (1)
BAA (4)
ePHI (2)
HIPAA (2)
Data Breach (1)
EHR Fraud (1)
PPP Fraud (1)
|
