|
| |
|
RECENT HIPAA LITIGATION | |
Privacy Rule Does Not Violate Patient Rights On April 2, 2004, U.S. District Judge Mary McLaughlin dismissed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the HIPAA privacy rule. The suit was brought by 10 national and state organizations, including the American Association of Practicing Psychiatrists, the American Mental Health Alliance and the Citizens for Health, against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The suit alleged the privacy rule was unconstitutional because it provided insurance companies, employers and others with access to identifiable health information without patient consent. The plaintiffs argued that the Court must declare void the August 2002 amendments to the privacy rule that eliminated the requirement of patient consent for the use of identifiable information in the course of treatment, payment and health care operations. The Court ruled the privacy rule did not violate patients’ constitutional rights to privacy and due process and that Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson did not act arbitrarily in implementing the privacy rule. See Citizens for Health vs. Tommy Thompson2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5745 HIPAA Does Not Create a Federal Physician-Patient Privilege On March 26, 2004, the US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit ruled that the HIPAA Privacy Rule does not create a new federal physician-patient privilege. The Court determined that Northwestern Memorial Hospital was not required to comply with a subpoena from the Justice Department for abortion patients’ medical records. Approximately 45 subpoenaed records were sought for use in an upcoming trial in the Southern District of New York challenging the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Of significance, the Court stated that “Even if there were no possibility that a patient's identity might be learned from a redacted medical record, there would be an invasion of privacy. If Northwestern Memorial Hospital cannot shield its abortion patients' records from disclosure in judicial proceedings, moreover, the hospital will lose the confidence of its patients, and persons with sensitive medical conditions may be inclined to turn elsewhere for medical treatment.” See Northwestern Memorial Hospital vs. John Ashcroft 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 5724 Disclosure of Medical Records to Insurance Plan Attorneys May Violate HIPAA On March 15, 2004, the California Consumer Health Care Council (CCHCC) filed a suit against the Kaiser Foundation over alleged inappropriate disclosure of private medical records. In its suit, CCHCC contends Kaiser unlawfully discloses patients' private medical records to its health plan attorneys when there is a threat of litigation. The CCHCC claims that when Kaiser receives notice of a claim or a potential claim by a patient, its legal department accesses and reviews the patient's medical files without notifying the patient or the patient's representative. CCHCC also contends that privileged medical information irrelevant to the patient's claim is then disseminated to individuals with no role in the patient's health care in violation of HIPAA. This case is currently pending in Alame County, California Superior Court. See California Consumer Health Care Council vs. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. | |