What is a covered entity’s obligation under the Breach Notification Rule if it transmits an individual’s PHI to a third party designated by the individual in an access request, and the entity discovers the information was breached in transit?

What is a covered entity’s obligation under the Breach Notification Rule if it transmits an individual’s PHI to a third party designated by the individual in an access request, and the entity discovers the information was breached in transit?

What is a covered entity’s obligation under the Breach Notification Rule if it transmits an individual’s PHI to a third party designated by the individual in an access request, and the entity discovers the information was breached in transit?

This guidance remains in effect only to the extent that it is consistent with the court’s order in Ciox Health, LLC v. Azar, No. 18-cv-0040 (D.D.C. January 23, 2020), which may be found at https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2018cv0040-51. More information about the order is available at https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/court-order-right-of-access/index.html. Any provision within this guidance that has been vacated by the Ciox Health decision is rescinded.

If a covered entity discovers that the PHI was breached in transit to the designated third party, and the PHI was “unsecured PHI” as defined at 45 CFR 164.402, the covered entity generally is obligated to notify the individual and HHS of the breach and otherwise comply with the HIPAA Breach Notification Rule at 45 CFR 164, Subpart D. However, if the individual requested that the covered entity transmit the PHI in an unsecure manner (e.g., unencrypted), and, after being warned of the security risks to the PHI associated with the unsecure transmission, maintained her preference to have the PHI sent in that manner, the covered entity is not responsible for a disclosure of PHI while in transmission to the designated third party, including any breach notification obligations that would otherwise be required. Further, a covered entity is not liable for what happens to the PHI once the designated third party receives the information as directed by the individual in the access request.

Where the PHI that was breached is “secured” as provided for in the HHS Guidance Specifying the Technologies and Methodologies that Render Protected Health Information Unusable, Unreadable, or Indecipherable to Unauthorized Individuals (available at http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/administrative/breachnotificationrule/index.html), the covered entity does not have reporting obligations under the Breach Notification Rule.



Wednesday, November 9, 2022 A federal grand jury in Newark, New Jersey, returned an indictment today charging an Indian national for fraudulently obtaining millions of dollars in Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans guaranteed by the Small Business Administration (SBA) under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. According to court documents, Abhishek Krishnan, 40, previously resided in Wake County, North Carolina, before returning to his home country of India. After returning to India, Krishnan allegedly submitted numerous fraudulent PPP loan applications to federally insured banks, including on behalf of purported companies that were not registered business entities. ...read more



Private Practice Revises Process to Provide Access to Records Regardless of Payment Source Covered Entity: Private Practices Issue: Access At the direction of an insurance company that had requested an independent medical exam of an individual, a private medical practice denied the individual a copy of the medical records. OCR determined that the private practice denied the individual access to records to which she was entitled by the Privacy Rule. Among other corrective actions to resolve the specific issues in the case, OCR required that the private practice revise its policies and procedures regarding access requests to reflect the ...read more



Mental Health Center Provides Access after Denial Covered Entity: Mental Health Center Issue: Access, Authorization The complainant alleged that a mental health center (the "Center") improperly provided her records to her auto insurance company and refused to provide her with a copy of her medical records.  The Center provided OCR with a valid authorization, signed by the complainant, permitting the release of information to the auto insurance company.  OCR also determined that the Center denied the complainant's request for access because her therapists believed providing the records to her would likely cause her substantial harm. The Center did not, ...read more



...read more

December 2025
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031

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
ePHI (2)
BAA (4)
PPP Fraud (1)
HIPAA Enforcement (3)
Covered Entity (40)
Telehealth (1)
EHR Fraud (1)
Data Breach (1)
HIPAA (2)