While it is the responsibility of the health information management (HIM) department to cooperate with law enforcement in the event of a crime, this can still be achieved without a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) breach. HIM department managers must maintain protection of patient privacy when delivering reports to the public.
In the case involving Memorial Hermann Health System (MHHS), there were many causes of action the patient had against MHHS. Those include, but are not limited to, invasion of privacy, malpractice, defamation, negligence for improper disclosure and breach of confidentiality. However, the main cause of action was directly related to a breach of confidentiality. Breach of confidentiality points
When examining the case of the State of California against Dr Zhou, we can clearly conclude that the HIPAA law of which was convicted of violated is not just words written on paper to buy patients' confidence, it is meaningful law set in place to protect patient privacy and any ones violating this law, regardless of your position in the health care field can be persecuted punished for violating the law, even in the absence damages evidence resulting from the violation of the law. The purpose of this post is to discuss the case of the State of California against the physician, Dr Huping Zhou, in this post I will review the HIPAA law, penalties for violation of the law and why I felt that Doctor Zhou was very fortunate for his punishments four
The first article was a summary of the HIPAA Privacy Rule. In the article, there was an introduction on what HIPAA meant and its importance. First off, HIPAA stands for the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and it is a disclosure of patient information so that it is protected from unknown individuals and to assure that health providers abide by the privacy rule. Some key facts about HIPAA were, who was covered, what information is protected, and administrative requirements. Noncompliance and criminal penalties were some of the critical issues found in the article.
The HIPAA privacy rule was established to protect individual 's medical records and other personal health information (HHS.gov). It also gives the right to patients to obtain a copy of their medical records. Cignet Health was fined $4.3M after discovering that two of their hospitals violated the HIPAA privacy rule on 41 separate occasions (hipaajournal.com). They violated the privacy rule by refusing to provide patients with a copy of their own medical records. the privacy violations took place between December 2008 thru October 2009.
Hello Cat, Thank you for connecting with me on LinkedIn. I am a graduate accounting student from Indiana University the Kelley School of Business. My senior year in college, I had done researches about the costing issues in the healthcare sector and thus developed a strong interest in this industry. This past summer, I interned with a Pharmaceutical company in Louisville, KY. I learned about your organization from the school career website.
Under HIPAA, covered entities are under the obligation to follow the rules and regulations that the law enforces (Cleverly). Healthcare providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses, and business associates of the listed covered entities face fines and discipline if there is a HIPAA violation (Cleverly). The use or cause to be used of a unique health identifier, obtaining individually identifiable health information relating to an individual, or disclosing individually identifiable health information to another person are all criminal offenses under the HIPAA act (Cleverly). The consequences of violating HIPAA are stiff and severe. The violations are as follows after a conviction: the person will be fined no more than $50,000,and imprisonment will not be more than a year; however, if the violation is committed under false pretenses, the fine is no more than $100,000, imprisonment is no more than five years, or both; and if the violation is done with intent to sell, transfer, or use individually identifiable health information, for personal gain, commercial advantage, or malicious harm, the fine cannot be more than $250,000, imprisonment no more than ten years, or both (Cleverly).
The HIPAA Breach Notification Rule requires HIPAA covered entities and their business associates to provide notification following a breach of unsecured protected health information. Similar breach notification provisions implemented and enforced by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), apply to vendors of personal health records and their third party service providers, pursuant to section 13407 of the HITECH Act. . ("Privacy HHS.gov," n.d.) An example of this rule is a hospital disclosed protected health information to an employer about an employee without authorization. To correct the actions the Office for Civil Rights required the hospital to revise its procedures on patient authorization prior to release of protected health information
As a patient you know the rules but as a Medical Assistant or anything related to the medical field you should be more than experienced with what you can or cannot do related to the patient rights, privacy and obviously HIPPA rules. “The HIPAA Privacy Rule establishes national standards to protect individuals’ medical records and other personal health information and applies to health plans, health care clearinghouses, and those health care
Unfortunately HIPAA violations happen every year in our country. In fact, a situation happened in a New York-Presbyterian Hospital and Columbia University Medical Center on May 7th 2010. The HIPAA violation happened after the electronic health records of 6,800 patients ended up on Google for the world to see. The United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) who are responsible for HIPAA enforcement laws deeply investigated this case. It was discovered that a Columbia University physician who developed applications for New York-Presbyterian Hospital and Columbia University, attempted to deactivate a personally owned computer server on the network containing electronic protected health information (ePHI).
As records were shared electronically rules were implemented for clinicians to follow known as The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 (Summary of the HIPAA Security Rule ,2013). These rules were implemented for clinicians to protect the
Nurses and doctors take the oath to protect the privacy and the confidentiality of patients. Patients and their medical conditions should not be discussed with anyone who is not treating the patient. Electronic health records are held to the same standards as nurses in that information is to be kept between, and shared only with the immediate care team. HIPAA violations are not taken lightly nor are the violation fines cheap. Depending on the violation, a hospital can be fined from $100 to $50,000 per violation (National Nurse 2011 p 23).
Looking back at all the changes that our company Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee has gone through since I first started amazes me, especially when I hear the stories from those who have worked here longer than I have. One of my previous supervisors spoke about when she first started her job with our company and having to write everything using pen and paper with only two of them in the pre-authorization department. This department is where the doctor or hospital calls in and requests authorization for inpatient admission, twenty three hour observation, durable medical equipment or possibly home health visits from a nurse. When a call came in with multiple patients one would have to take all the other incoming calls until the other person
Joshua, I agree with Sara’s response. The solution is a cultural shift. Until the MHA program my impression of HIPAA was, I could not talk about patient in the elevator. I think most clinical staffs do not understand the purpose of HIPAA. The use of smart phones to sent images of rashes, radiology images, EKGs, surgical specimens, and clinical data is rampant.
Patient confidentiality in health care is expected. The ability of the healthcare provider to preserve patient confidentiality is an ethical responsibility and is essential in facilitating trust between the healthcare provider and the patient. Continuity of patient confidentiality is imperative so patients may discuss their medical and mental health concerns without any fear of scrutiny. The absence of patient confidentiality hinders the healthcare provider’s ability to successfully treat the patient’s health concern. This case study will review Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 1976 and provide an overview of the California Supreme Court’s ruling.