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? 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?
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
that has been disclosed pursuant to the individual’s right of access.
For instance, a covered entity is not permitted to deny an individual’s
right of access to their ePHI where the individual directs the
information to a third-party app because the app will share the
individual’s ePHI for research or because the app does not encrypt the
individual’s data when at rest. In addition, as discussed in a separate FAQ, the HIPAA Rules do not apply to entities that do not meet the definition of a HIPAA covered entity or business associate.
| 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 |
| Radiologist Revises Process for Workers Compensation Disclosures Covered Entity: Health Care Provider Issue: Impermissible Uses and Disclosures A radiology practice that interpreted a hospital patient’s imaging tests submitted a worker’s compensation claim to the patient’s employer. The claim included the patient’s test results. However, the patient was not covered by worker’s compensation and had not identified worker’s compensation as responsible for payment. OCR’s investigation revealed that the radiology practice had relied upon incorrect billing information from the treating hospital in submitting the claim. Among other corrective actions to resolve the specific issues in the case, the practice apologized to ...read more |
| Health Plan Corrects Computer Flaw that Caused Mailing of EOBs to Wrong Persons Covered Entity: Health Plans Issue: Safeguards A national health maintenance organization sent explanation of benefits (EOB) by mail to a complainant's unauthorized family member. OCR's investigation determined that a flaw in the health plan's computer system put the protected health information of approximately 2,000 families at risk of disclosure in violation of the Rule. Among the corrective actions required to resolve this case, OCR required the insurer to correct the flaw in its computer system, review all transactions for a six month period and correct all ...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
November 2022 (54)
January 2025 (1)
Blog Labels
PPP Fraud (1)
Telehealth (1)
HIPAA Enforcement (3)
Covered Entity (40)
EHR Fraud (1)
BAA (4)
Data Breach (1)
ePHI (2)
HIPAA (2)
|
