Seizure of personal records – a HIPAA violation?

« Back to Previous Page
4
0

A weird story. The article at least acknowledges there was no 'release of information'... https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-house-defends-seizure-trumps-medical-records-193429891--politics.html

Please to read the entire article.

Marked as spam
Posted by Allison Dolan (Discussions: 1, Comments: 2)
Replied on May 2, 2018 12:00 am
5 views
0
Private comment
You request your records under HIPAA but "seizing them" is not anywhere in the Rules! :)
Marked as spam
Posted by Carlos Leyva (Discussions: 1, Comments: 27)
Replied on May 1, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
Arguably couldn’t this fall under 164.512 k(3) protection of the president?
Marked as spam
Posted by Brenda K Manning JD CHC CHPC (Discussions: 0, Comments: 14)
Replied on May 1, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
Brenda K Manning JD CHC CHPC arguably, our current President does whatever he feels like...
Marked as spam
Posted by Allison Dolan (Discussions: 1, Comments: 2)
Replied on May 1, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
The president needs muscle to get his medical records when he can just request them expedited? That said, clear HIPAA violation for a doctor to reveal Trump's PHI. What was this doctor thinking?
Marked as spam
Posted by Carlos Leyva (Discussions: 1, Comments: 27)
Replied on May 2, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
I have serious concerns that the records are kept in a place so easily accessible. It certainly seems like the medical records could have easily been scanned into their EMR, encrypted, and access granted as needed. This begs the question of what kind of access control do they have in place to know who and when ANY of the records of ANY other patients would have been accessed
Marked as spam
Posted by Mike Nelson (Discussions: 0, Comments: 2)
Replied on May 4, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
Mike Nelson This doctor didn't an EMR. In fact, now that you reminded me, given he wasn't connected to the network and didn't do anything electronically, this doctor might not have been a CE.
Marked as spam
Posted by Allison Dolan (Discussions: 1, Comments: 2)
Replied on May 4, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
Brenda K Manning JD CHC CHPC Carlos Leyva Alan Davis, PMP, GSLC - Mike Nelson's comment triggered the following question ... back when Trump's doctor first made the news for his glowing health report, I think there was a question as to whether he was a CE, given he claimed he never connected the one office computer to a network, therefore didn't transmit any billing or prescriptions electronically. If true, would that exempt him from being a CE?
Marked as spam
Posted by Allison Dolan (Discussions: 1, Comments: 2)
Replied on May 4, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
Although possible, I don’t know how a modern physician wouldn’t have some kind of electronic signature of (e)PHI; scheduling, billing, etc. I also wonder how HHS would respond to any physician claim that they aren’t a Coveted Entity, definition aside?
Marked as spam
Posted by Alan Davis, PMP, GSLC (Discussions: 1, Comments: 1)
Replied on May 4, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
Alan Davis, PMP, GSLC - from what I could tell, Trump's physician wasn't 'modern'! He may have had only a handful of VIPs who wanted very low profiles...
Marked as spam
Posted by Allison Dolan (Discussions: 1, Comments: 2)
Replied on May 4, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
A lot of speculation about whether this physician was a CE. Perhaps, perhaps not. Regardless, the patient is entitled to the benefits of the Physician-Patient relationship and is the holder of that privilege. If the medical records were being illegally seized, i.e., stolen, then a call to 911 would be an appropriate response whereas whining publicly to the media about your former patient is both not appropriate and, likely, a violation of that physician-patient relationship regardless of whether PHI is transmitted electronically.
Marked as spam
Posted by Christopher Smith, J.D. (Discussions: 0, Comments: 1)
Replied on May 4, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
Christopher Smith, J.D. - given that the files were allegedly taken by Trump aides, presumably at his request, this might be considered a case of a patient seizing his own records.
Marked as spam
Posted by Allison Dolan (Discussions: 1, Comments: 2)
Replied on May 5, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
Correct me if I'm wrong but being on a network or not doesn't exclude you from being a covered entity. Access to physical records and lack of control could result in allowing somebody to steal PII. For instance written notes for Patient A could be accidentally left in an exam room for Patient B's inadvertent viewing.
Marked as spam
Posted by Mike Nelson (Discussions: 0, Comments: 2)
Replied on May 6, 2018 8:00 pm
« Back to Previous Page