Public Hospital Corrects Impermissible Disclosure of PHI in Response to a Subpoena
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 made reasonable efforts to secure a
qualified protective order. Among other corrective actions to remedy
this situation, OCR required that the hospital revise its subpoena
processing procedures. Under the revised process, if a subpoena is
received that does not meet the requirements of the Privacy Rule, the
information is not disclosed; instead, the hospital contacts the party
seeking the subpoena and the requirements of the Privacy Rule are
explained. The hospital also trained relevant staff members on the new
procedures.
| 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 |
| 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. ...read more |
| 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. ...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 |
|
April 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 |
|
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
PPP Fraud (1)
Telehealth (1)
BAA (4)
HIPAA Enforcement (3)
EHR Fraud (1)
Data Breach (1)
ePHI (2)
HIPAA (2)
Covered Entity (40)
|
