OCR Settles Three Cases with Dental Practices for Patient Right of Access under HIPAA
Enforcement Actions Ensure Patients Receive Timely Access to their Records, at a Reasonable Cost
Today, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office
for Civil Rights (OCR) announced the resolution of three investigations
concerning potential violations of the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule's patient right of access
provision. These cases are part of a collective effort, bringing the
total 41 cases, to drive compliance on right of access under the law.
“These three right of access actions send an important message to
dental practices of all sizes that are covered by the HIPAA Rules to
ensure they are following the law,” said OCR Director Melanie Fontes
Rainer. “Patients have a fundamental right under HIPAA to receive their
requested medical records, in most cases, within 30 days. I hope that
these actions send the message of compliance so that patients do not
have to file a complaint with OCR to have their medical records requests
fulfilled.”
OCR has taken the following enforcement actions that underscore the
importance and necessity of compliance with the HIPAA Rules, including
the foundational right of access provision:
- Family Dental Care, P.C.
(“FDC”), is a dental practice located in Chicago, Illinois. OCR
received a complaint on August 8, 2020, alleging that FDC failed to
provide a former patient with timely access to her complete medical
records. The former patient requested her entire medical records in May
2020, but received only portions. The former patient filed a complaint
with OCR, and during OCR’s investigation, FDC provided her with the
remainder of her records in October 2020. Thus, FDC did not provide a
complete copy of the records until more than five months after the
request was made. OCR's investigation determined that FDC’s failure to
provide timely access to the requested medical records was a potential
violation of the HIPAA right of access provision. FDC agreed to pay
$30,000 and implement a corrective action plan.
- Great Expressions Dental Center of Georgia, P.C.
(“GEDC-GA”), is a dental and orthodontics provider with multiple
locations throughout the state of Georgia. In November 2020, OCR
received a complaint alleging that GEDC-GA would not provide an
individual with copies of her medical records because she would not pay
GEDC-GA’s $170 copying fee. The individual first requested her records
in November 2019, but did not receive them until February 2021, over a
year later. OCR's investigation determined that GEDC-GA’s failure to
provide timely access to the requested medical records, and its practice
of assessing copying fees that were not reasonable and cost-based, were
potential violations of the HIPAA right of access provision. GEDC-GA
agreed to pay $80,000 and implement a corrective action plan.
- B. Steven L. Hardy, D.D.S., LTD,
doing business as Paradise Family Dental (“Paradise”) is a dental
practice in Las Vegas, Nevada. On October 26, 2020, OCR received a
complaint alleging that Paradise had failed to provide a mother with
copies of her and her minor child’s protected health information. The
mother submitted multiple record requests between April 11, 2020, and
December 4, 2020, but Paradise did not send the records until December
31, 2020, more than eight months after her initial request. OCR's
investigation determined that Paradise’s failure to provide timely
access to the requested medical records was a potential violation of the
HIPAA right of access provision. Paradise agreed to pay $25,000 and
implement a corrective action plan.
| 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 |
| 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 ...read more |
| Private Practice Revises Access Procedure to Provide Access Despite an Outstanding Balance Covered Entity: Private Practice Issue: Access A complainant alleged that a private practice physician denied her access to her medical records, because the complainant had an outstanding balance for services the physician had provided. During OCR’s investigation, the physician confirmed that the complainant was not given access to her medical record because of the outstanding balance. OCR provided technical assistance to the physician, explaining that, in general, the Privacy Rule requires that a covered entity provide an individual access to their medical record within 30 days of ...read more |
| National Pharmacy Chain Extends Protections for PHI on Insurance Cards Covered Entity: Pharmacies Issue: Impermissible Uses and Disclosures; Safeguards A pharmacy employee placed a customer's insurance card in another customer's prescription bag. The pharmacy did not consider the customer's insurance card to be protected health information (PHI). OCR clarified that an individual's health insurance card meets the statutory definition of PHI and, as such, needs to be safeguarded. Among other corrective actions to resolve the specific issues in the case, the pharmacy revised its policies regarding PHI and retrained its staff. The revised policies are applicable to all individual ...read more |
|
June 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
January 2025 (1)
November 2022 (54)
Blog Labels
ePHI (2)
Telehealth (1)
HIPAA Enforcement (3)
PPP Fraud (1)
Data Breach (1)
EHR Fraud (1)
Covered Entity (40)
HIPAA (2)
BAA (4)
|
