Can a covered entity use existing aspects of the HIPAA Privacy Rule to give individuals the right to decide whether sensitive information about them may be disclosed to or through a health information organization (HIO)? Can a covered entity use existing aspects of the HIPAA Privacy Rule to give individuals the right to decide whether sensitive information about them may be disclosed to or through a health information organization (HIO)?
Can
a covered entity use existing aspects of the HIPAA Privacy Rule to give
individuals the right to decide whether sensitive information about
them may be disclosed to or through a health information organization
(HIO)?
Yes.
To the extent a covered entity is using a process either to obtain
consent or act on an individual’s right to request restrictions under
the Privacy Rule as a method for effectuating individual choice,
policies can be developed for obtaining consent or honoring restrictions
on a granular level, based on the type of information involved. For
example, specific consent and restriction policies could be developed,
either on an organization level or HIO level, for HIV/AIDS, mental
health, genetic, and/or substance abuse information. In addition, there
may be other Federal and State laws that will affect a covered entity’s
exchange of this sensitive information to or through a HIO, and covered
entities should consider these other laws when developing individual
choice policies. For example, such laws may prescribe the form of
consent that is required or create other requirements for the disclosure
of information based on the type of information or the intended
recipient.
| Pharmacy Chain Enters into Business Associate Agreement with Law Firm Covered Entity: Pharmacy Chain Issue: Impermissible Uses and Disclosures; Business Associates A complaint alleged that a law firm working on behalf of a pharmacy chain in an administrative proceeding impermissibly disclosed the PHI of a customer of the pharmacy chain. OCR investigated the allegation and found no evidence that the law firm had impermissibly disclosed the customer’s PHI. However, the investigation revealed that the pharmacy chain and the law firm had not entered into a Business Associate Agreement, as required by the Privacy Rule to ensure that PHI is ...read more |
| Large Provider Revises Patient Contact Process to Reflect Requests for Confidential Communications Covered Entity: General Hospital Issue: Impermissible Disclosure; Confidential Communications A patient alleged that a general hospital disclosed protected health information when a hospital staff person left a message on the patient’s home phone answering machine, thereby failing to accommodate the patient’s request that communications of PHI be made only through her mobile or work phones. In response, the hospital instituted a number of actions to achieve compliance with the Privacy Rule. To resolve this matter to the satisfaction of OCR, the hospital: retrained an entire Department with ...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 |
| 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 |
|
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
HIPAA Enforcement (3)
Telehealth (1)
EHR Fraud (1)
Data Breach (1)
BAA (4)
HIPAA (2)
Covered Entity (40)
ePHI (2)
PPP Fraud (1)
|
