Mount Sinai St. Luke’s sued following HIPPA ViolationThey’re being sued for faxing patient PHI to his employer, a reported HIPPA violation that has already resulted in an OCR HIPPA settlement. St. Luke’s impermissibly disclosed PHI of two identified patients when Spencer Cox staff members faxed one individual’s PHI to his workplace and the other individual’s PHI to an office at which he volunteered. The type of PHI involved was specifically information about HIV, AIDS, and mental health. They say the impermissible disclosures was breached. Despite admitting its wrongdoing and paying the government $387,000, they’re also getting sued for negligence and negligence infliction of emotional distress. Because the individual had not told the majority
When confidential patient information is disclosed without consent it is a violation of the HIPAA Title II Security Rule. This rule was enacted in response to private information being leaked to the news and emails containing privileged information were read by unauthorized people. Identity theft is a real concern so patient privacy should be taken seriously. This is a rule can easily be broken without the offender feeling any malice towards the victim for example gossip and curiosity. Gossip in a medical office can have devastating effects on a health care facility’s reputation. Employees engaging in idle chatter to pass the time can inadvertently be overheard by patients or family members. Simply not using the patient’s name may not be enough if the person overhearing the conversation sees the resemblance. Professional behavior should be exercised at all times and juvenile behavior such as spreading gossip, has no place in a business that relies on its credibility. This rule will impact the way patient medical records are handled because we know the seriousness of it. Hospitals that don’t enforce HIPAA rules will have negative repercussions. The patient can have irreversible damage done to their view on the medical field and that hospital if their information is not treated with care. They may even feel so violated that they bring litigation against the hospital.
It is our conclusion that there is today no factual justification for immunity in a case such as this, and that the principles of law, logic and intrinsic justice demand that the mantle of humanity must be withdrawn.” (Parker v. Port Huron Hospital, Michigan)
Schmeida, M. (2005). HIPAA of 1996: Just an Incremental Step in Reshaping Government. Retrieved January 25, 2011, from American Nursing Association Web Site: http://www.nursingworld.org
In the case of Tomcik v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehabilitation & Correction, the main issue present was the medical negligence demonstrated by the staff of the medical clinic at the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction towards the inmate Tomcik. Specifically, nonfeasance, or the “failure to act, when there is a duty to act as a reasonably prudent person would in similar circumstances” (Pozgar, 2016, p. 192), was displayed when the employees at the medical clinic failed to give immediate medical attention to Tomcik when she continually signed the clinic list and “provided the reason she was requesting
The flip side of the signing a confidentiality document under HIPAA policy healthcare officials many times has been frustrated because bounds they can’t cross. Many times family or friends who aren’t authorizes obtains valuable medical information are coming all hours of the day to ask for critical medical reason, the nurses, physicians and others officials bid my law not to get out information on the telephone, or in personal if the individual or individuals name aren’t on the privacy document. Having a ...
“The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 made it illegal to gain access to personal medical information for any reasons other than health care delivery, operations, and reimbursements” (Shi & Singh, 2008, p. 166). “HIPAA legislation mandated strict controls on the transfer of personally identifiable health data between two entities, provisions for disclosure of protected information, and criminal penalties for violation” (Clayton 2001). “HIPAA also has privacy requirements that govern disclosure of patient protected health information (PHI) placed in the medical record by physicians, nurses, and other health care providers” (Buck, 2011). Always remember conversations about a patient’s health care or treatment is a violation of HIPAA. “All PHI is included in the privacy requirements for example: the patient’s past, present or future physical or mental health or condition; the provision of health care to the individual, or the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to the individual, and that identifies the individual or for which there is a reasonable basis to believe it can be used to identify the individual” (Buck, 2011). Other identifiable health information would be the patient’s name, address, birth date and Social Security Number (Keomouangchanh, 2011). (Word count 197)
I am in full agreement with the case law. Once Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital sought after and received government funding. They are to be held to the same standards as any other business or organization, public or private. It is fair to say that Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital benefited from grants comprised of tax funds. These tax funds were paid by all citizens, and the hospital used the facilities built with these funds to impose its own doctrines upon patients and physicians who did not share them.
Identity theft has always been in the back of my mind whenever I use my debit card but I wasn’t too concerned about my health information until I learned about HIPAA. It is a very important set of rules and standards that protects our privacy.
1. What is the difference between Introduction Today, you have more reason than ever to care about the privacy of your medical information. This information was once stored in locked file cabinets and on dusty shelves in the medical records department. Your doctor(s) are the sole keeper of your physical and mental health information.
HIPAA is the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. The primary goal of the law is to make it easier for people to keep health insurance, protect the confidentiality and security of healthcare information ad help the healthcare industry control administrative costs. HIPAA stands for the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. HIPAA was first introduced in 1996. It was made a law by the United States Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton. The HIPAA Privacy Rule protects an individual’s medical records and other personal health information.
In this topic I will be explaining the laws of HIPPA, I’ll be explaining the definition, the history of HIPPA, when HIPPA was founded, and which types of environments follow the HIPPA law. HIPPA stands for the (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act). The U.S. HIPPA law was made in order the protect patients, coworkers, and other staff members private information such as, health insurance, social security information, health information, and other things of such. Each facility that follows the HIPPA law must sign a letter as proof that everyone that is a staff member of that facility made an agreement to follow the HIPPA law. HIPPA also protects the release of any documentation that may be given out when not supposed to. When following
Doctor Benny Waxman was a found to be an AIDS victim in 1991, he was a surgeon who practiced medicine but did not tell his patients he had AIDS. He died in 2012. After his death some people argue that his patient’s hold be told and others say that the surgeons AIDS status should not be disclosed to those he gave medical care. Should a patient disclose his/her AIDS status to the treating phasician, should the provider disclose his AIDS status to his patients? HIPPA privacy
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act (PSQIA), Confidential Information and Statistical Efficiency Act (CIPSEA), and the Freedom of Information Act all provide legal protection under many laws. It also involves ethical protection. The patient must be able to completely trust the healthcare provider by having confidence that their information is kept safe and not disclosed without their consent. Disclosing any information to the public could be humiliating for them. Patient information that is protected includes all medical and personal information related to their medical records, medical treatments, payment records, date of birth, gender, and
The sixth ethical issue arises when the client is denied access to his medical chart. Currently, HIPPA (2006) grants clients access to their medical records. An exception to this is if the information contained within the medical records is “reasonably likely” to cause harm to the client (HIPPA, 2006; APA, 2002). The records were unlikely to cause harm to the patient and, therefore, the client should have had access to them.
This case involves a corporate response to AIDS in the workplace. The return to work of Paul Cronan, a person with AIDS, after a much publicized law suit, led to a walkout of his coworkers. This case documents the circumstances which preceded the work stoppage. Analyzing this case from Paul Cronan’s supervisors point of view there are three main ethical issues to be considered: duty to protect the interests of the company, New England Telephone (NET); obligation to maintain the rights of the other employees; and duty to provide for the safety and privacy of Paul Cronan.