Hospital Revises Email Distribution as a Result of a Disclosure to Persons Without a "Need to Know"
Hospital Revises Email Distribution as a Result of a Disclosure to Persons Without a "Need to Know"
Covered Entity: General Hospital
Issue: Impermissible Use and Disclosure
A complainant, who was both a patient and an employee of the
hospital, alleged that her protected health information (PHI) was
impermissibly disclosed to her supervisor. OCR’s investigation revealed
that: the hospital distributed an Operating Room (OR) schedule to
employees via email; the hospital’s OR schedule contained information
about the complainant’s upcoming surgery. While the Privacy Rule may
permit the disclosure of an OR schedule containing PHI, in this case, a
hospital employee shared the OR scheduled with the complainant’s
supervisor, who was not part of the employee's treatment team, and did
not need the information for payment, health care operations, or other
permissible purposes. The hospital disciplined and retrained the
employee who made the impermissible disclosure. Additionally, in order
to prevent similar incidents, the hospital undertook a complete review
of the distribution of the OR schedule. As a result of this review, the
hospital revised the distribution of the OR schedule, limiting it to
those who have “a need to know.”
| Large Medicaid Plan Corrects Vulnerability that Resulted in Disclosure to Non-BA Vendors Covered Entity: Health Plans Issue: Impermissible Uses and Disclosures; Safeguards A municipal social service agency disclosed protected health information while processing Medicaid applications by sending consolidated data to computer vendors that were not business associates. Among other corrective actions to resolve the specific issues in the case, OCR required that the social service agency develop procedures for properly disclosing protected health information only to its valid business associates and to train its staff on the new processes. The new procedures were instituted in Medicaid offices and independent ...read more |
| No Business Associate Agreement? $31K Mistake The Center for Children’s Digestive Health (CCDH) has paid the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) $31,000 to settle potential violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy Rule and agreed to implement a corrective action plan. CCDH is a small, for-profit health care provider with a pediatric subspecialty practice that operates its practice in seven clinic locations in Illinois. In August 2015, the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) initiated a compliance review of the Center for Children’s Digestive Health (CCDH) following an initiation ...read more |
| Entity Rescinds Improper Charges for Medical Record Copies to Reflect Reasonable, Cost-Based Fees Covered Entity: Private Practice Issue: Access A patient alleged that a covered entity failed to provide him access to his medical records. After OCR notified the entity of the allegation, the entity released the complainant’s medical records but also billed him $100.00 for a “records review fee” as well as an administrative fee. The Privacy Rule permits the imposition of a reasonable cost-based fee that includes only the cost of copying and postage and preparing an explanation or summary if agreed to by the individual. To ...read more |
| Can a covered entity refuse to disclose ePHI to an app chosen by an individual because of concerns about how the app will use or disclose the ePHI it receives? No. The HIPAA Privacy Rule generally prohibits a covered entity from refusing to disclose ePHI to a third-party app designated by the individual if the ePHI is readily producible in the form and format used by the app. See 45 CFR 164.524(a)(1), (c)(2)(ii), (c)(3)(ii). The HIPAA Rules do not impose any restrictions on how an individual or the individual’s designee, such as an app, may use the health information ...read more |
|
August 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)
PPP Fraud (1)
HIPAA (2)
BAA (4)
EHR Fraud (1)
HIPAA Enforcement (3)
Telehealth (1)
Data Breach (1)
Covered Entity (40)
|
