Hospital Implements New Minimum Necessary Polices for Telephone Messages
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. One
addressed the issue of minimum necessary information in telephone
message content. Employees were trained to provide only the minimum
necessary information in messages, and were given specific direction as
to what information could be left in a message. Employees also were
trained to review registration information for patient contact
directives regarding leaving messages. The new procedures were
incorporated into the standard staff privacy training, both as part of a
refresher series and mandatory yearly compliance training.
| Health Plan Corrects Impermissible Disclosure of PHI through Training, Mitigation, and Sanctions Covered Entity: Health Plans Issue: Impermissible Uses and Disclosures An employee of a major health insurer impermissibly disclosed the protected health information of one of its members without following the insurer's authorization and verification procedures. Among other corrective actions to resolve the specific issues in the case, OCR required the health insurer to train its staff on the applicable policies and procedures and to mitigate the harm to the individual. In addition, the employee who made the disclosure was counseled and given a written warning. ...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 |
| Enforcement Results as of September 30, 2022 Since the compliance date of the Privacy Rule in April 2003, OCR has received over 309,475 HIPAA complaints and has initiated over 1,053 compliance reviews. We have resolved ninety-seven percent of these cases (300,427). OCR has investigated and resolved over 29,779 cases by requiring changes in privacy practices and corrective actions by, or providing technical assistance to, HIPAA covered entities and their business associates. Corrective actions obtained by OCR from these entities have resulted in change that is systemic and that affects all the individuals they serve. OCR has successfully enforced the ...read more |
| Must a covered entity inform individuals in advance of any fees that may be charged when the individuals request a copy of their PHI? 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. Yes. When an individual requests access to her PHI and the covered entity intends to charge the ...read more |
|
May 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 | 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)
Telehealth (1)
PPP Fraud (1)
BAA (4)
EHR Fraud (1)
HIPAA Enforcement (3)
Covered Entity (40)
HIPAA (2)
Data Breach (1)
|
