Hospital Revises Email Distribution as a Result of a Disclosure to Persons Without a "Need to Know"
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 shared the OR scheduled with the complainant’s
supervisor, who was not part of the employee's treatment team, and did
not need the information for payment, health care operations, or other
permissible purposes. The hospital disciplined and retrained the
employee who made the impermissible disclosure. Additionally, in order
to prevent similar incidents, the hospital undertook a complete review
of the distribution of the OR schedule. As a result of this review, the
hospital revised the distribution of the OR schedule, limiting it to
those who have “a need to know.”
| Pharmacy Chain Enters into Business Associate Agreement with Law Firm Covered Entity: Pharmacy Chain Issue: Impermissible Uses and Disclosures; Business Associates A complaint alleged that a law firm working on behalf of a pharmacy chain in an administrative proceeding impermissibly disclosed the PHI of a customer of the pharmacy chain. OCR investigated the allegation and found no evidence that the law firm had impermissibly disclosed the customer’s PHI. However, the investigation revealed that the pharmacy chain and the law firm had not entered into a Business Associate Agreement, as required by the Privacy Rule to ensure that PHI is ...read more |
| When does the Privacy Rule allow covered entities to disclose protected health information to law enforcement officials? Answer: The Privacy Rule is balanced to protect an individual’s privacy while allowing important law enforcement functions to continue. The Rule permits covered entities to disclose protected health information (PHI) to law enforcement officials, without the individual’s written authorization, under specific circumstances summarized below. For a complete understanding of the conditions and requirements for these disclosures, please review the exact regulatory text at the citations provided. Disclosures for law enforcement purposes are permitted as follows: To comply with a court order or ...read more |
| 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 |
| May a covered entity dispose of protected health information in dumpsters accessible by the public? For example, depending on the circumstances, proper disposal methods may include (but are not limited to): Shredding or otherwise destroying PHI in paper records so that the PHI is rendered essentially unreadable, indecipherable, and otherwise cannot be reconstructed prior to it being placed in a dumpster or other trash receptacle.Maintaining PHI for disposal in a secure area and using a disposal vendor as a business associate to pick up and shred or otherwise destroy the PHI.In justifiable cases, based on the size and the ...read more |
|
February 2026
| 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 |
|
|
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
BAA (4)
EHR Fraud (1)
HIPAA (2)
Data Breach (1)
Covered Entity (40)
PPP Fraud (1)
Telehealth (1)
ePHI (2)
HIPAA Enforcement (3)
|
