I am seeking some guidance in the area of making corrections to PCRs (what we call MIRs) here in WA State. I am in a debate with my Ops Chief about making administrative corrections to our original MIRs. It was my understanding it is acceptable for myself as the QA Officer and billing staff to make corrections to any administrative/operational data, excluding the original author's narrative. My Ops Chief wants us to make all corrections on an amendment and not write on the original MIR. Can you please shed some light on this for me? Any words of wisdom are greatly appreciated.
Confidentiality Notice: The information contained within is confidential and privileged, and may be subject to protection under the law, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and RCW 70.02. The message is intended for the sole use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, distribution or copying of the message is strictly prohibited and may subject you to criminal or civil penalties. If you have received this information in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete/destroy every form of the information you may have.
I'd like to hear the discussions in regards to violations of HIPAA in regards to this:
An EMT accused of taking a cell-phone photo of a corpse at a crime scene and posting it on his Facebook page has pleaded not guilty to misconduct charges.
Mark Musarella was charged with one count of official misconduct in a Staten Island court and was released on his own recognizance today. Defense lawyer Edward J. Pavia said the photo was posted by accident, and Musarella is sorry about the incident.
A retired police officer, Musarella lost his job as an EMT this year when his superiors at Richmond University Medical Center on Staten Island learned about the photograph.
Musarella was working for Richmond University Medical Center on March 30 and responded to an emergency call on Staten Island. The victim, Caroline Wimmer, was found strangled with her hair dryer.
Musarella snapped a picture of Wimmer's body and posted the image on his Facebook page, prosecutors said.
Calvin Lawson, of Brooklyn, is accused of killing Wimmer in her West Brighton apartment because she told his girlfriend that Lawson and Wimmer were having an affair.
A lawyer for Wimmer's family says prosecuting Musarella will "keep society civil."
Musarella faces up to a year in jail if convicted.
--- In hipaaems@yahoogroups.com, "erin.sansone" <erin.sansone@...> wrote:
>
> HI everyone. My name is Erin and I am actually doing a report on HIPPA rules
and regulations. I am stuck with this question and hope you can help.....
>
> How will employees in the medical office have to be trained regarding
privacy(example who is training and keeping records)? What is reguired if an
employee doesn't follow the privacy policy? When and in what manner must
employees be trained?
>
> I REALLY appreciate any feedback. I am a college student studying to become a
medical biller.
>
> Thank you,
> ERin
>
Erin,
You have asked a large question here.
All employees of a covered entity exposed to, or involved in the handling or
processing of any patient information will be required to participate in a
Security Awareness Training program, as well as Privacy Protection training. It
must be provided prior to the time of initial assignment to tasks where the
employee may have access to such patient information and at least annually
thereafter.
Actions taken against a violator of the 'privacy policy', as you call it are
within the purview of the individual organization. However, any violation of
HIPAA regulations creating a breach of patient privacy triggers a reporting and
remedial process for the covered entity, and could result in civil or criminal
penalties.
This is a quick and dirty answer, but it does cover the major points. If you are
interested in further research, I refer you http://www.asctlive.com. Click on
'Training', then 'HIPAA'. You can do some research there, and it will refer you
to other sites for more information.
Good Luck,
B. Regan
Principal Consultant
Ambulance Service Consultants of TN
HI everyone. My name is Erin and I am actually doing a report on HIPPA rules and
regulations. I am stuck with this question and hope you can help.....
How will employees in the medical office have to be trained regarding
privacy(example who is training and keeping records)? What is reguired if an
employee doesn't follow the privacy policy? When and in what manner must
employees be trained?
I REALLY appreciate any feedback. I am a college student studying to become a
medical biller.
Thank you,
ERin
Our department is currently in the process of updating information on
our HIPAA Notice of Privacy Practices statement. During research on
the internet, I have noticed that some departments are emailing a copy
of the NPP to the patient, instead of physically handing a copy to the
patient. What are other departments doing? We are currently handing
out roughly 13,000 copies of NPP annually. I have been tasked with
reducing our budget for this allotted item. Is it acceptable to just
direct the patient to our website where the NPP is posted and to only
provide hardcopies to individuals who do not have internet access?
Thanks for you help
Sean Regan
--- In hipaaems@yahoogroups.com, "Sean Regan" <sean.regan@...> wrote: > > Hello, my name is Sean Regan,EMS Captain with the Lynchburg Fire > Department and by appointment our department's HIPAA officer. > > I have two questions that I believe someone on this board can answer. > > 1. Our department is implementing a FF Rehab program and our > department is attempting to establish a baseline and upper limit for > FF BPs. Our health and safety officer is soliciting Employee Name, > BP reading and any BP medication that is being taken by the employee > to be posted on spreadsheet that is stored on an unprotected network > drive that can be accessed by any employee within our department. > It appears that our H&S officer was told that this information was > not PHI and that if only our employees had access to the information > that it met the standards set forth by HIPAA. What are your > thoughts on this? > > 2. How do departments handle the release of PHI to family members > (especially when the patient is deceased). Any policies, processes > and forms would be appreciated. I saw the flowsheet that Jim posted > and have started to use that. Thanks Jim! > > Sean Regan,EMS Captain > sean.regan@... >
--- In hipaaems@yahoogroups.com, "Sean Regan" <sean.regan@...> wrote: > > Hello, my name is Sean Regan,EMS Captain with the Lynchburg Fire > Department and by appointment our department's HIPAA officer. > > I have two questions that I believe someone on this board can answer. > > 1. Our department is implementing a FF Rehab program and our > department is attempting to establish a baseline and upper limit for > FF BPs. Our health and safety officer is soliciting Employee Name, > BP reading and any BP medication that is being taken by the employee > to be posted on spreadsheet that is stored on an unprotected network > drive that can be accessed by any employee within our department. > It appears that our H&S officer was told that this information was > not PHI and that if only our employees had access to the information > that it met the standards set forth by HIPAA. What are your > thoughts on this? > > 2. How do departments handle the release of PHI to family members > (especially when the patient is deceased). Any policies, processes > and forms would be appreciated. I saw the flowsheet that Jim posted > and have started to use that. Thanks Jim! > > Sean Regan,EMS Captain > sean.regan@... >
Hi, Sean, from about 100 miles to your east. Welcome to the group.
As for the first question, we (HIPAA covered entities) potentially wear two hats when it comes to employees. The usual hat is that of an employer. Once in a while, an employee becomes a patient, and then we wear the hat of a health care provider. We obtain certain medical information in both instances. But HIPAA makes a clear distinction between the two roles in deeming whether it is PHI and, therefore, protected by HIPAA. HIPAA specifically excludes employment-related information, which is how I would regard the information obtained by your H&S officer. On the other hand, if one of your firefighters suffers an injury, the information obtained by the crew that treats him/her will be considered PHI. It might be identical information to that obtained by the H&S officer -- history and meds aren't likely to change much, for example. But HIPAA makes it clear that it's not the nature of the employee's information that determines whether it's PHI; it is the role the covered entity was in when the information was obtained.
Having said that, if I was one of your people, I would protest loudly that my medical information is being stored in an insecure network location. It's still none of the business of my colleagues, except those who might be evaluating me in rehab or treating me for an illness or injury. Furthermore, you may be in violation of Virginia law here. The Code of Virginia doesn't make this same distinction. From the Code section on health records privacy, § 32.1-127.1:03, defining what records the section applies to:
"'Health record' means any written, printed or electronically recorded material maintained by a health care entity in the course of providing health services to an individual concerning the individual and the services provided...."
I think someone could make an argument that rehab is a health service, even if you're not a "patient" as HIPAA defines it.
As for question #2, HIPAA allows some leeway here. First, the best thing is to simply ask the patient's permission to disclose to whatever family member is involved. But if the patient is unconscious or not present and, therefore, has no opportunity to agree or object, then you may exercise some judgement. If a family member or friend is involved with the patient's care or payment for that care, then we can disclose certain information to them under certain conditions. Then HIPAA allows us to disclose only what is minimally necessary for that person's involvement in care or payment. But before we disclose, we use good judgement in asking ourselves if the disclosure is in the patient's best interest.
I try to do the right thing, and with that in mind I generally interpret"involved with the patient's care or payment" pretty broadly. Forexample, if a spouse has called 911, he/she is involved with thepatient's care. If they provide medical history to me, they areinvolved with the patient's care. If the patient is a young adult whostill is on his/her parents' health insurance and presents the parent'sinsurance card to me, then the parents are involved with payment.
Again, though, judgement must enter into it. If I think the spouse has assaulted the patient, I'll probably tell him nothing. If the adult child is having a miscarriage or has taken an overdose, it may not be in her best interest for me to tell her parents.
CMS recently published a guideline document on this very subject:
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/provider_ffg.pdf
Meanwhile, I will see if I can upload it into the Files section here for ease of access.
Now, as for deceased individuals: HIPAA defines who may be a "personal representative" for many patient categories, including deceased persons. Such representatives may be regarded the same as the patient insofar as disclosures are concerned. As for who that might be, HIPAA defers to state law in many cases, including decedents. Virginia defines a hierarchy of individuals who may receive a decedent's records. Records may be disclosed as follows (from the same Code section cited previously):
"24. If the health records are those of a deceased or mentally incapacitated
individual to the personal representative or executor of the deceased
individual or the legal guardian or committee of the incompetent or
incapacitated individual or if there is no personal representative, executor,
legal guardian or committee appointed, to the following persons in the
following order of priority: a spouse, an adult son or daughter, either
parent, an adult brother or sister, or any other relative of the deceased
individual in order of blood relationship;
"
--- In hipaaems@yahoogroups.com, "M" <marioswebname@...> wrote:
>
> Hello everybody!
> I'm new to this whole thing. I'm reading everything I can and want to
> express my thanks to you for starting this group.
>
Hello, and welcome! Glad someone out there is finding us. It's been
so quiet since our initial flurry of activity, I considered posting
just to say, "WAKE UP EVERYONE!" ;-)
Jim
Hello, my name is Sean Regan,EMS Captain with the Lynchburg Fire
Department and by appointment our department's HIPAA officer.
I have two questions that I believe someone on this board can answer.
1. Our department is implementing a FF Rehab program and our
department is attempting to establish a baseline and upper limit for
FF BPs. Our health and safety officer is soliciting Employee Name,
BP reading and any BP medication that is being taken by the employee
to be posted on spreadsheet that is stored on an unprotected network
drive that can be accessed by any employee within our department.
It appears that our H&S officer was told that this information was
not PHI and that if only our employees had access to the information
that it met the standards set forth by HIPAA. What are your
thoughts on this?
2. How do departments handle the release of PHI to family members
(especially when the patient is deceased). Any policies, processes
and forms would be appreciated. I saw the flowsheet that Jim posted
and have started to use that. Thanks Jim!
Sean Regan,EMS Captain
sean.regan@...
My ride along program here in OC Ca doesn't allow under age kids. I'm
in the local Community Collage program and we have two company's we
ride with. I only had to sign a waver and that was it. Also one of the
company's lets you do as many as you want.
Bumped yet again. I'm sure someone out there in HIPAA-land has an
opinion, right?? :-)
--- In hipaaems@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Kelly" <cfems@...> wrote:
>
> [Bump]
>
> Anyone care to comment?
>
>
> --- In hipaaems@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Kelly" <cfems@> wrote:
> >
> > Many of you may have seen this from JEMS.com:
> >
> >
>
http://www.jems.com/news_and_articles/articles/Anatomy_of_Florida_Photo_\
> > Controversy.html
> >
> > I am interested in hearing views on this, first on the subject of the
> > taking of the pictures (forget the e-mailing of them for a moment).
> > Let's accept his premise that the purpose was as an "investigative and
> > educational tool." Was it appropriate to take them? Do you have a
> > policy on the taking of digital pictures on EMS calls? Are members
> > allowed to take them with their personal cameras? Department-issued
> > cameras only? If pics are allowed, how do you manage their
privacy and
> > security from a HIPAA perspective?
> >
> > More clear-cut (presumably) is that he shouldn't have e-mailed them.
> > This case demonstrates one reason: After you e-mail something you have
> > no control over it; there is no way to restrict who and to how many
> > others the intended recipients forward it to. In addition, you can't
> > control the security of the servers it resides on, for years perhaps.
> > Our philosophy of e-mail is that it is inherently insecure, and we
> > forbid the e-mailing of PHI except in a password-protected or
encrypted
> > form.
> >
> > Others?
> >
> > Jim
> >
>
[Bump]
Anyone care to comment?
--- In hipaaems@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Kelly" <cfems@...> wrote:
>
> Many of you may have seen this from JEMS.com:
>
>
http://www.jems.com/news_and_articles/articles/Anatomy_of_Florida_Photo_\
> Controversy.html
>
> I am interested in hearing views on this, first on the subject of the
> taking of the pictures (forget the e-mailing of them for a moment).
> Let's accept his premise that the purpose was as an "investigative and
> educational tool." Was it appropriate to take them? Do you have a
> policy on the taking of digital pictures on EMS calls? Are members
> allowed to take them with their personal cameras? Department-issued
> cameras only? If pics are allowed, how do you manage their privacy and
> security from a HIPAA perspective?
>
> More clear-cut (presumably) is that he shouldn't have e-mailed them.
> This case demonstrates one reason: After you e-mail something you have
> no control over it; there is no way to restrict who and to how many
> others the intended recipients forward it to. In addition, you can't
> control the security of the servers it resides on, for years perhaps.
> Our philosophy of e-mail is that it is inherently insecure, and we
> forbid the e-mailing of PHI except in a password-protected or encrypted
> form.
>
> Others?
>
> Jim
>
Many of you may have seen this from JEMS.com:
http://www.jems.com/news_and_articles/articles/Anatomy_of_Florida_Photo_\
Controversy.html
I am interested in hearing views on this, first on the subject of the
taking of the pictures (forget the e-mailing of them for a moment).
Let's accept his premise that the purpose was as an "investigative and
educational tool." Was it appropriate to take them? Do you have a
policy on the taking of digital pictures on EMS calls? Are members
allowed to take them with their personal cameras? Department-issued
cameras only? If pics are allowed, how do you manage their privacy and
security from a HIPAA perspective?
More clear-cut (presumably) is that he shouldn't have e-mailed them.
This case demonstrates one reason: After you e-mail something you have
no control over it; there is no way to restrict who and to how many
others the intended recipients forward it to. In addition, you can't
control the security of the servers it resides on, for years perhaps.
Our philosophy of e-mail is that it is inherently insecure, and we
forbid the e-mailing of PHI except in a password-protected or encrypted
form.
Others?
Jim
> Will, > > If your agency has executed a valid "business associates" contract > with the hospital in question, it is legal and advisable to leave a > PCR with them, after all HIPAA never intended that patient care should > be compromised by a lack of communication. The reality is that your > agency should execute such an agreement with every facility they > transport to and keep them on file. > -BR >
Hmm, this brings up another issue. The clear consensus among attorneys who have addressed the issue with us, as well as folks (attorneys and others) in the mainstream HIPAA lists and groups, is that a BAA between covered entities is unnecessary if the only service the two CEs are performing is treatment.
§ 160.103 of the Privacy Rule defines a business associate as follows (with references to "organized health care arrangement" omitted for the sake of brevity and because most EMS agencies presumably are not part of an OHCA):
"(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this definition, business associate means, with respect to a covered entity, a person who:
(i) On behalf of such covered entity ..., but other than in the capacity of a member of the workforce of such covered entity ..., performs, or assists in the performance of:
(A) A function or activity involving the use or disclosure of individually identifiable health information, including claims processing or administration, data analysis, processing or administration, utilization review, quality assurance, billing, benefit management, practice management, and repricing; or
(B) Any other function or activity regulated by this subchapter; or
(ii) Provides, other than in the capacity of a member of the workforce of such covered entity, legal, actuarial, accounting, consulting, data aggregation (as defined in § 164.501 of this subchapter), management, administrative, accreditation, or financial servicesto or for such covered entity ..., where the provision of the service involves the disclosure of individually identifiable health information from such covered entity or arrangement, or from another business associate of such covered entity or arrangement, to the person."
So it clearly states that, in order to be deemed a business associate, an entity must be performing one of these (non-treatment) services on behalf of a CE. Multiple CEs treating the same patient are providing their service directly to the patient, and nothing (listed or otherwise) on behalf of a CE.
An example as we have applied it: We have a volunteer EMS agency in our county that uses our billing company. They also use us as the go-between for sending PCR data to the company, receiving EOBs and other related documents and reports from the company, customer service, collection efforts, etc. We have a BAA with that agency where we are considered their business associate. We don't have BAAs with other EMS agencies in the area, nor (back to the point) with the area hospitals.
Therefore, Barton, it seems clear that BAAs with receiving hospitals are not required by the Privacy Rule. Nor do I believe (back to Will's original question) that that should be a factor in whether his agency should leave PCRs with them. As some of us have said, their potential role in treatment seems to be justification enough.
Now, a question for the masses: If Barton and others still choose to execute them, is there any downside?
I can only speak of WA State law, but it is required in our state to leave a copy of the PCR at the receiving facility. Our protocols allow us to fax the PCR at a later time if our staffing renders us to return to service sooner. Leaving the PCR pertains to the patient's treatment, which is an area permissible by the privacy rule to disclose without the patient's consent. Treatment uses also do not exercise the "minimum necessary" rule. We are to disclose all of the patient's healthcare information to provide continuity of care. Your situation may very well be a misinterpretation or misunderstanding of the rule. I would encourage you to review the privacy and security rules with them. I hope this helps.
Confidentiality Notice: The information contained within is confidential and privileged, and may be subject to protection under the law, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and RCW 70.02. The message is intended for the sole use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, distribution or copying of the message is strictly prohibited and may subject you to criminal or civil penalties. If you have received this information in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete/destroy every form of the information you may have.
From: hipaaems@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hipaaems@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Barton Regan Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 8:34 AM To: hipaaems@yahoogroups.com Subject: [HIPAA & EMS] Re: PCRs at the hospital
--- In hipaaems@yahoogroups.com, "Will Dunn" <dunnww@...> wrote: > > Hello everyone. > > I am (relatively) new to an agency that does not leave field patient > care reports at the hospital once care has been handed over. I > complained about this for a variety of reasons. > > I am told that there was an instance in the past where following a > formal records release from the hospital for purposes of litigation, > our PCR turned up--a surprise since there had been no formal records > request from us. > > I have been under the impression that once we left that PCR with the > hospital it's part of the medical record. > > The management here, after an opinion from our legal counsel, supports > the practice of not leaving PCRs with the hospital since we know they > could release it without patient consent, a HIPAA violation, except in > the instances where it is required by law. > > I believe that this practice isn't doing the patient any favors, and, > perhaps, contributing to worse patient care downstream. > > Anyone have any thoughts? > > Thanks very much. > > --wwd > Will,
If your agency has executed a valid "business associates" contract with the hospital in question, it is legal and advisable to leave a PCR with them, after all HIPAA never intended that patient care should be compromised by a lack of communication. The reality is that your agency should execute such an agreement with every facility they transport to and keep them on file. -BR
--- In hipaaems@yahoogroups.com, "Will Dunn" <dunnww@...> wrote:
>
> Hello everyone.
>
> I am (relatively) new to an agency that does not leave field patient
> care reports at the hospital once care has been handed over. I
> complained about this for a variety of reasons.
>
> I am told that there was an instance in the past where following a
> formal records release from the hospital for purposes of litigation,
> our PCR turned up--a surprise since there had been no formal records
> request from us.
>
> I have been under the impression that once we left that PCR with the
> hospital it's part of the medical record.
>
> The management here, after an opinion from our legal counsel, supports
> the practice of not leaving PCRs with the hospital since we know they
> could release it without patient consent, a HIPAA violation, except in
> the instances where it is required by law.
>
> I believe that this practice isn't doing the patient any favors, and,
> perhaps, contributing to worse patient care downstream.
>
> Anyone have any thoughts?
>
> Thanks very much.
>
> --wwd
>
Will,
If your agency has executed a valid "business associates" contract
with the hospital in question, it is legal and advisable to leave a
PCR with them, after all HIPAA never intended that patient care should
be compromised by a lack of communication. The reality is that your
agency should execute such an agreement with every facility they
transport to and keep them on file.
-BR
--- In hipaaems@yahoogroups.com, "emtpkelly" <cfems@...> wrote:
>
> I am interested in hearing how others handle ride-alongs who are not
> members of the agency: EMT or paramedic students, prospective members,
> citizen observers, even members of the news media. Do you allow them?
> If so, who do you allow and what HIPAA provisions do you have in
place?
>
> Thanks,
> Jim
>
In the back of my mind when I started this thread was a particular case
from 2005.
First, some background for those unfamiliar with the case. After a
complaint to the US Department of Health & Human Services Office of
Civil Rights (OCR), Washington, DC Fire & EMS was told by OCR that they
effectively had to discontinue their ride-along program. OCR's stance
was that patient authorization was required prior to any disclosure to
non-member ride-alongs. But, as OCR observed, DCFEMS would have no
opportunity (nor would any 911 responder) to identify patients in
advance to seek authorization. So, therefore, the only conclusion OCR
could make is that the program must be discontinued.
After we heard about this case, we conducted our own internal review of
our ride-along program. From the beginning of our Privacy Rule
compliance we have treated ride-alongs as members of our workforce, as
defined by the Privacy Rule. And as members of our workforce, they
received training appropriate to their ride-along experience. We
concluded our policy and practices were acceptable.
A subsequent JEMS article by Doug Wolfberg and Steve Wirth (January
2006) questioned the OCR ruling and effectively affirmed our position.
Doug and Steve concluded that OCR had overreached with its response.
They concluded that "ride-along programs ... are permissible if done
properly." And a critical component of doing them properly is assuring
that ride-alongs receive appropriate training, as Joe and Dwayne's
agencies do.
So I and at least one other group member who responded to me privately
are curious: What is the status of this particular case? Did OCR ever
back down? What is DCFEMS doing now? Have others heard of similar
complaints and similar (attempted) actions by OCR, or for that matter,
any more general guidance to the industry?
Thanks,
Jim
We conduct an "orientation" for all riders - it's a class offered 1-2 times per
month and is required before riding is allowed - addresses safety, bloodborne
pathogens, and HIPAA as well as a dress code. The class is good for one year at
which point they are required to retake if they wish to ride again.
Dwayne
Guilord County
________________________________
From: hipaaems@yahoogroups.com on behalf of emtpkelly
Sent: Wed 4/2/2008 2:23 PM
To: hipaaems@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HIPAA & EMS] Ride-alongs
I am interested in hearing how others handle ride-alongs who are not
members of the agency: EMT or paramedic students, prospective members,
citizen observers, even members of the news media. Do you allow them?
If so, who do you allow and what HIPAA provisions do you have in place?
Thanks,
Jim
We have a contract with the local Training
Center and a High School Program,
All students must complete a HIPAA training
course and sign a verification
We also will allow hospital ED nurses
and doctors to ride along after a brief HIPAA discussion and verification
signature
New e-Mail Address:
joe.kanzler@...
Captain Joe Kanzler
Manatee County EMS
(941) 749-3500 x1645
2101 47th Terrace East
Bradenton, FL 34203
"emtpkelly" <cfems@...> Sent by: hipaaems@yahoogroups.com
04/02/2008 02:23 PM
Please respond to
hipaaems@yahoogroups.com
To
hipaaems@yahoogroups.com
cc
Subject
[HIPAA & EMS] Ride-alongs
I am interested in hearing how others handle ride-alongs
who are not
members of the agency: EMT or paramedic students, prospective members,
citizen observers, even members of the news media. Do you allow them?
If so, who do you allow and what HIPAA provisions do you have in place?
I am interested in hearing how others handle ride-alongs who are not
members of the agency: EMT or paramedic students, prospective members,
citizen observers, even members of the news media. Do you allow them?
If so, who do you allow and what HIPAA provisions do you have in place?
Thanks,
Jim
Hello, Dwayne. First I'll start with a hearty "welcome." And then a
"thanks" for such a thorough response, including the actual Privacy Rule
citations. I was at home when I first responded to Will, and I didn't
have the Rule with me. I often bring things home from the office, but
HIPAA stuff usually is not among them. ;-) It is helpful to me, and to
others, I'm sure, to revisit the wording of the Rule periodically.
I have a couple of specific comments plugged in below. I also will be
pretty wordy for now, in part to provide background to the HIPAA newbies
and in part because I sometimes don't know when to shut up. :-)
--- In hipaaems@yahoogroups.com, "Dwayne Young" <dwayne.young@...>
wrote:
>
> Hello Everyone - I'll start with a long post and then tone in down a
little!
>
> This group should be a big help to folks and everyone should remember
the different interpretations and opinions the entire healthcare
industry now has on HIPAA and its impact when reading and discussing the
standards - some of these issues have only been discussed but not tested
by an actual event...
>
> Below are our stances on the issues discussed - I welcome comments and
criticism...
>
> Our agency practices leaving the records at the hospital; in fact, the
trauma legislation in NC has a requirement in the trauma system program
that prehospital care be a part of the evaluation; during a trauma
center site visit by the state office of EMS, the pre-hospital record is
on their check list of items to review in the hospital medical record.
You have to keep in mind that state privacy laws may be more stringent
and require more that the federal laws - they just can't be less...
>
> Also, the standard has an area that may address disclosure of
information not "owned" by the covered entity:
>
> (e) Implementation specification: documentation. A covered entity must
document the following and retain the documentation as required by §
164.530(j):
> (1) The designated record sets that are subject to access by
individuals; and
> (2) The titles of the persons or offices responsible for receiving and
processing requests for access by individuals.
>
> Everyone needs to have a designated record set - when a request is
then made, we have a defined record that everyone can
>follow. If the hospital does not have the EMS record as part of their
Designated Record Set, one could argue it was disclosed
>inappropriately. It's all going to come back to local policy and
interpretation.
I agree that one could make that argument. But to tie back into Will's
original question, I contend that it is the hospital's violation, not
the EMS agency's. We certainly can't be held responsible for
inappropriate redisclosure by those to whom we have made allowable
disclosures. If his counsel took that practice to its extreme, he would
disallow ANY disclosure.
I can't see why a hospital would not include their copy of the PCR as
part of the DRS. The DRS includes, among other things, PHI with which
the covered entity makes treatment decisions about the patient. I will
assume the hospitals in Will's area, like those in mine, might
occasionally find the information important for treatment.
But that may be somewhat beside the point. As your citation suggests,
the DRS includes "official" records that must be retained for access by
the patient if requested, among other things. But the protection of PHI
is not limited to what is in the DRS. Any and all PHI must be protected
by the covered entity, regardless of its form and location.
>
> As to subpoenas, be careful when responding as there are specific
criteria for proper disclosure even in the presence of a subpoena. The
patient still has to be notified of the closure... see the standard
below:
>
> (e) Standard: disclosures for judicial and administrative proceedings.
>
> (1) Permitted disclosures. A covered entity may disclose protected
health information in the course of any judicial or administrative
proceeding:
> (i) In response to an order of a court or administrative tribunal,
provided that the covered entity discloses only the protected health
information expressly authorized by such order; or
> (ii) In response to a subpoena, discovery request, or other lawful
process, that is not accompanied by an order of a court or
administrative tribunal, if:
> (A) The covered entity receives satisfactory assurance, as described
in paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of this section, from the party seeking the
information that reasonable efforts have been made by such party to
ensure that the individual who is the subject of the protected health
information that has been requested has been given notice of the
request; or
> (B) The covered entity receives satisfactory assurance, as described
in paragraph (e)(1)(iv) of this section, from the party seeking the
information that reasonable efforts have been made by such party to
secure a qualified protective order that meets the requirements of
paragraph (e)(1)(v) of this section.
No question, which is why I said earlier, "assuming the subpoena meets
HIPAA requirements for patient notification and applicable state laws. "
It is interesting to me how many lawyers don't know (or try to
circumvent) their own state laws for medical record subpoenas. Virginia
law has a very precise process -- that dovetails with HIPAA well -- that
mandates certain exact wording in the subpoena. The statements tell the
recipient that the patient or his counsel have received notice of the
subpoena, and the recipient MUST not (not just MAY not) release the
record until 15 days have passed, and has received notice from the
issuing attorney that: 1) the patient's attorney has elected not file a
motion to quash (the usual case given that most subpoenas are from
defendants in personal injury claims), 2) the patient has filed a motion
to quash and the court has resolved it, or 3) a motion to quash is
pending, in which case we are to seal the record and submit it to the
Circuit Court Clerk to hold until the motion is resolved. It gives
this non-lawyer a certain perverse pleasure to be able to call an
attorney's office to tell them their subpoena is invalid.
>
> You have to read the entire standard to see how it all interconnects
based on the "what if" scenarios.
>
> Hope this helps in the discussions...
>
> Dwayne R. Young, BS, REMTP
> ES Manager Planning and Research
> Guilford County Emergency Services
> 1002 Meadowood Street
> Greensboro, NC 27409
> (336) 641-4980 (Office)
> (336) 641-6538 (Fax)
>
> Confidentiality Notice
>
>
> The information contained in this message contains personally
identifiable health information and must be treated with strict
confidence. The information contained herein is intended only for the
addressee listed above and should be used only for the purposes of
health treatment, payment, or other healthcare operations as defined by
Guilford County Emergency Services, or, for other means previously
agreed upon by both parties. Please contact the sender at the
designated number as soon as possible to ensure corrective actions are
taken so that the intended recipient is contacted. If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communications is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error, please notify
us by telephone and delete the message immediately. Thank You
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: hipaaems@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hipaaems@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of emtpkelly
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 10:00 PM
> To: hipaaems@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [HIPAA & EMS] Re: PCRs at the hospital
>
>
>
> --- In hipaaems@yahoogroups.com <mailto:hipaaems%40yahoogroups.com> ,
"Will Dunn" dunnww@ wrote:
> >
> > Hello everyone.
> >
> > I am (relatively) new to an agency that does not leave field patient
> > care reports at the hospital once care has been handed over. I
> > complained about this for a variety of reasons.
> >
> > I am told that there was an instance in the past where following a
> > formal records release from the hospital for purposes of litigation,
> > our PCR turned up--a surprise since there had been no formal records
> > request from us.
> >
> > I have been under the impression that once we left that PCR with the
> > hospital it's part of the medical record.
> >
> > The management here, after an opinion from our legal counsel,
supports
> > the practice of not leaving PCRs with the hospital since we know
they
> > could release it without patient consent, a HIPAA violation, except
in
> > the instances where it is required by law.
> >
> > I believe that this practice isn't doing the patient any favors,
and,
> > perhaps, contributing to worse patient care downstream.
> >
> > Anyone have any thoughts?
> >
> > Thanks very much.
> >
> > --wwd
> >
> Hi, Will. Welcome to the group!
>
> I agree that not leaving the PCR at the hospital could work to the
> detriment of the patient. Docs in my area probably don't use the PCR
> much, but they do use them. We get an occasional call from the
> hospital when the PCR doesn't show up, especially from inpatient units
> like ICU.
>
> Where is your medical director in this discussion? Maybe he/she can
> bring some weight to bear.
>
> I probably should add this next statement to the group's home page. I
> am not a lawyer, and I suspect most list members won't be either.
> Even the lawyers that might choose to join here probably will tell you
> their response is not legal advice for a specific situation. So your
> own legal counsel's guidance is what you should follow. They have to
> defend you if they're wrong, so presumably they will have researched
> and considered the issue thoroughly before rendering an opinion.
>
> Having said that, I don't see a HIPAA issue with leaving a PCR at the
> hospital. It serves a legitimate treatment purpose, and we never want
> to let HIPAA stand in the way of treatment. Once we turn it over it
> becomes part of the hospital's medical record. If the hospital gets a
> subpoena for the record, then they must comply, assuming the subpoena
> meets HIPAA requirements for patient notification and applicable state
> laws. That is one of several occasions where HIPAA allows release of
> PHI without patient authorization. (FYI, there is a subtle but
> significant difference between the terms "authorization" and "consent"
> in HIPAA. But that's for another day.) If the hospital follows all
> laws in the process, obviously everyone is OK legally. If they're
> not, it's their record and their HIPAA violation, not yours, IMHO.
>
> What do your state EMS regulations and state law have to say? I would
> hope your attorney considered them. If your state's laws are more
> stringent in restricting disclosure, then they prevail over HIPAA.
> (HIPAA prevails if it is more restrictive.) EMS regulations may have
> a say in whether you leave a PCR. In Virginia, the regulations
> require a PCR copy to be delivered to the ER within 24 hours of the
> patient's delivery.
>
> Hope that helps. Others?
>
> Jim
>
Hello Everyone - I'll start with a long post and then tone in down a little!
This group should be a big help to folks and everyone should remember the different interpretations and opinions the entire healthcare industry now has on HIPAA and its impact when reading and discussing the standards - some of these issues have only been discussed but not tested by an actual event...
Below are our stances on the issues discussed - I welcome comments and criticism...
Our agency practices leaving the records at the hospital; in fact, the trauma legislation in NC has a requirement in the trauma system program that prehospital care be a part of the evaluation; during a trauma center site visit by the state office of EMS, the pre-hospital record is on their check list of items to review in the hospital medical record. You have to keep in mind that state privacy laws may be more stringent and require more that the federal laws - they just can't be less…
Also, the standard has an area that may address disclosure of information not "owned" by the covered entity:
(e) Implementation specification: documentation. A covered entity must document the following and retain the documentation as required by § 164.530(j):
(1) The designated record sets that are subject to access by individuals; and (2) The titles of the persons or offices responsible for receiving and processing requests for access by individuals.
Everyone needs to have a designated record set - when a request is then made, we have a defined record that everyone can follow. If the hospital does not have the EMS record as part of their Designated Record Set, one could argue it was disclosed inappropriately. It's all going to come back to local policy and interpretation.
As to subpoenas, be careful when responding as there are specific criteria for proper disclosure even in the presence of a subpoena. The patient still has to be notified of the closure... see the standard below:
(e) Standard: disclosures for judicial and administrative proceedings.
(1) Permitted disclosures. A covered entity may disclose protected health information in the course of any judicial or administrative proceeding:
(i) In response to an order of a court or administrative tribunal, provided that the covered entity discloses only the protected health information expressly authorized by such order; or
(ii) In response to a subpoena, discovery request, or other lawful process, that is not accompanied by an order of a court or administrative tribunal,if:
(A) The covered entity receives satisfactory assurance, as described in paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of this section, from the party seeking the information that reasonable efforts have been made by such party to ensure that the individual who is the subject of the protected health information that has been requested has been given notice of the request; or
(B) The covered entity receives satisfactory assurance, as described in paragraph (e)(1)(iv) of this section, from the party seeking the information that reasonable efforts have been made by such party to secure a qualified protective order that meets the requirements of paragraph (e)(1)(v) of this section.
You have to read the entire standard to see how it all interconnects based on the "what if" scenarios.
Hope this helps in the discussions…
Dwayne R. Young, BS, REMTP ES Manager Planning and Research Guilford County Emergency Services 1002 Meadowood Street Greensboro, NC 27409 (336) 641-4980 (Office) (336) 641-6538 (Fax) Confidentiality Notice
The information contained in this message contains personally identifiable health information and must be treated with strict confidence. The information contained herein is intended only for the addressee listed above and should be used only for the purposes of health treatment, payment, or other healthcare operations as defined by Guilford County Emergency Services, or, for other means previously agreed upon by both parties. Please contact the sender at the designated number as soon as possible to ensure corrective actions are taken so that the intended recipient is contacted. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communications is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error, please notify us by telephone and delete the message immediately. Thank You
________________________________
From: hipaaems@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hipaaems@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of emtpkelly Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 10:00 PM To: hipaaems@yahoogroups.com Subject: [HIPAA & EMS] Re: PCRs at the hospital
--- In hipaaems@yahoogroups.com <mailto:hipaaems%40yahoogroups.com> , "Will Dunn" <dunnww@...> wrote: > > Hello everyone. > > I am (relatively) new to an agency that does not leave field patient > care reports at the hospital once care has been handed over. I > complained about this for a variety of reasons. > > I am told that there was an instance in the past where following a > formal records release from the hospital for purposes of litigation, > our PCR turned up--a surprise since there had been no formal records > request from us. > > I have been under the impression that once we left that PCR with the > hospital it's part of the medical record. > > The management here, after an opinion from our legal counsel, supports > the practice of not leaving PCRs with the hospital since we know they > could release it without patient consent, a HIPAA violation, except in > the instances where it is required by law. > > I believe that this practice isn't doing the patient any favors, and, > perhaps, contributing to worse patient care downstream. > > Anyone have any thoughts? > > Thanks very much. > > --wwd > Hi, Will. Welcome to the group!
I agree that not leaving the PCR at the hospital could work to the detriment of the patient. Docs in my area probably don't use the PCR much, but they do use them. We get an occasional call from the hospital when the PCR doesn't show up, especially from inpatient units like ICU.
Where is your medical director in this discussion? Maybe he/she can bring some weight to bear.
I probably should add this next statement to the group's home page. I am not a lawyer, and I suspect most list members won't be either. Even the lawyers that might choose to join here probably will tell you their response is not legal advice for a specific situation. So your own legal counsel's guidance is what you should follow. They have to defend you if they're wrong, so presumably they will have researched and considered the issue thoroughly before rendering an opinion.
Having said that, I don't see a HIPAA issue with leaving a PCR at the hospital. It serves a legitimate treatment purpose, and we never want to let HIPAA stand in the way of treatment. Once we turn it over it becomes part of the hospital's medical record. If the hospital gets a subpoena for the record, then they must comply, assuming the subpoena meets HIPAA requirements for patient notification and applicable state laws. That is one of several occasions where HIPAA allows release of PHI without patient authorization. (FYI, there is a subtle but significant difference between the terms "authorization" and "consent" in HIPAA. But that's for another day.) If the hospital follows all laws in the process, obviously everyone is OK legally. If they're not, it's their record and their HIPAA violation, not yours, IMHO.
What do your state EMS regulations and state law have to say? I would hope your attorney considered them. If your state's laws are more stringent in restricting disclosure, then they prevail over HIPAA. (HIPAA prevails if it is more restrictive.) EMS regulations may have a say in whether you leave a PCR. In Virginia, the regulations require a PCR copy to be delivered to the ER within 24 hours of the patient's delivery.
--- In hipaaems@yahoogroups.com, "Will Dunn" <dunnww@...> wrote:
>
> Hello everyone.
>
> I am (relatively) new to an agency that does not leave field patient
> care reports at the hospital once care has been handed over. I
> complained about this for a variety of reasons.
>
> I am told that there was an instance in the past where following a
> formal records release from the hospital for purposes of litigation,
> our PCR turned up--a surprise since there had been no formal records
> request from us.
>
> I have been under the impression that once we left that PCR with the
> hospital it's part of the medical record.
>
> The management here, after an opinion from our legal counsel, supports
> the practice of not leaving PCRs with the hospital since we know they
> could release it without patient consent, a HIPAA violation, except in
> the instances where it is required by law.
>
> I believe that this practice isn't doing the patient any favors, and,
> perhaps, contributing to worse patient care downstream.
>
> Anyone have any thoughts?
>
> Thanks very much.
>
> --wwd
>
Hi, Will. Welcome to the group!
I agree that not leaving the PCR at the hospital could work to the
detriment of the patient. Docs in my area probably don't use the PCR
much, but they do use them. We get an occasional call from the
hospital when the PCR doesn't show up, especially from inpatient units
like ICU.
Where is your medical director in this discussion? Maybe he/she can
bring some weight to bear.
I probably should add this next statement to the group's home page. I
am not a lawyer, and I suspect most list members won't be either.
Even the lawyers that might choose to join here probably will tell you
their response is not legal advice for a specific situation. So your
own legal counsel's guidance is what you should follow. They have to
defend you if they're wrong, so presumably they will have researched
and considered the issue thoroughly before rendering an opinion.
Having said that, I don't see a HIPAA issue with leaving a PCR at the
hospital. It serves a legitimate treatment purpose, and we never want
to let HIPAA stand in the way of treatment. Once we turn it over it
becomes part of the hospital's medical record. If the hospital gets a
subpoena for the record, then they must comply, assuming the subpoena
meets HIPAA requirements for patient notification and applicable state
laws. That is one of several occasions where HIPAA allows release of
PHI without patient authorization. (FYI, there is a subtle but
significant difference between the terms "authorization" and "consent"
in HIPAA. But that's for another day.) If the hospital follows all
laws in the process, obviously everyone is OK legally. If they're
not, it's their record and their HIPAA violation, not yours, IMHO.
What do your state EMS regulations and state law have to say? I would
hope your attorney considered them. If your state's laws are more
stringent in restricting disclosure, then they prevail over HIPAA.
(HIPAA prevails if it is more restrictive.) EMS regulations may have
a say in whether you leave a PCR. In Virginia, the regulations
require a PCR copy to be delivered to the ER within 24 hours of the
patient's delivery.
Hope that helps. Others?
Jim
Hello everyone.
I am (relatively) new to an agency that does not leave field patient
care reports at the hospital once care has been handed over. I
complained about this for a variety of reasons.
I am told that there was an instance in the past where following a
formal records release from the hospital for purposes of litigation,
our PCR turned up--a surprise since there had been no formal records
request from us.
I have been under the impression that once we left that PCR with the
hospital it's part of the medical record.
The management here, after an opinion from our legal counsel, supports
the practice of not leaving PCRs with the hospital since we know they
could release it without patient consent, a HIPAA violation, except in
the instances where it is required by law.
I believe that this practice isn't doing the patient any favors, and,
perhaps, contributing to worse patient care downstream.
Anyone have any thoughts?
Thanks very much.
--wwd
Thought I'd share this with the group; it's in the Files section.
Law enforcement disclosures, as presumably most know, can be tricky.
We don't expect field providers who are confronted with requests for
PHI from police to remember every allowable disclosure. For quick
reference, we developed this flow chart and had it copied and
laminated for every EMS vehicle in the department.
Thanks,
Jim