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.
| 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 |
| 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 |
| Direct Liability of Business Associates In 2009, Congress enacted the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act,1 making business associates of covered entities directly liable for compliance with certain requirements of the HIPAA Rules. Consistent with the HITECH Act, the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued a final rule in 2013 to modify the HIPAA Privacy, Security, Breach Notification, and Enforcement Rules.2 Among other things, the final rule identifies provisions of the HIPAA Rules that apply directly to business associates and for which business associates are directly liable.3 As set forth in the HITECH ...read more |
| Private Practice Ceases Conditioning of Compliance with the Privacy Rule Covered Entity: Private Practice Issue: Conditioning Compliance with the Privacy Rule A physician practice requested that patients sign an agreement entitled “Consent and Mutual Agreement to Maintain Privacy.” The agreement prohibited the patient from directly or indirectly publishing or airing commentary about the physician, his expertise, and/or treatment in exchange for the physician’s compliance with the Privacy Rule. A patient’s rights under the Privacy Rule are not contingent on the patient’s agreement with a covered entity. A covered entity’s obligation to comply with all requirements of the Privacy Rule ...read more |
|
December 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
HIPAA (2)
Covered Entity (40)
ePHI (2)
EHR Fraud (1)
BAA (4)
Data Breach (1)
HIPAA Enforcement (3)
PPP Fraud (1)
Telehealth (1)
|
