Saw this article today regarding a recent lawsuit filed against a group of doctors, Doctors for Medical Liability Reform, charging them with invasion of privacy and breach of confidentiality.
Doctors for Medical Liability Reform is a coalition of more than 230,000 medical specialists who support federal legislation to reform medical liability laws. Last July the group began an "aggressive, multimillion-dollar" public relations campaign including a 30-minute infomercial that aired on both network and cable television. The infomercial makes the case for medical liability reform through interviews with doctors who have left their practices -- or left Georgia -- and through interviews with the patients they've left behind.
Favorite HIPAA Web Links
Friday, 3 September 2004
Earlier this week I spoke at a Lorman Education Services Seminar on "Confidentiality & Privacy of Medical Information in West Virginia" in Charleston, West Virginia. Here is a copy of the brochure from the seminar, including the agenda.
The goal of the seminar was to provide health information specialists and other health care providers with a relatively comprehensive summary of privacy law in West Virginia. In addition we addressed the impact of the Privacy and Security Rules of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) on West Virginia privacy law.
A number of the participants asked for a list of website that I find useful for gaining knowledge about, interpreting and understanding the new HIPAA laws. Below are some of my favorite web resources on HIPAA.
1. A complete copy of the Privacy and Security Rules (unofficial version). This is a must for any privacy officer.
2. The Administrative Simplification website at DHHS.
3. The HIPAA Privacy section of the Office for Civil Rights website. The FAQ section of this website provides very practical information on the Privacy Rule. Also the OCR has posted various educational materials.
4. The State of West Virginia HIPAA website. This website includes a copy of the State of West Virginia's preemption analysis of various provisions of the West Virginia Code.
5. The Work Group for Electronic Data Interchange (WEDI) website. In particular I like the white papers section of the WEDI website.
The goal of the seminar was to provide health information specialists and other health care providers with a relatively comprehensive summary of privacy law in West Virginia. In addition we addressed the impact of the Privacy and Security Rules of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) on West Virginia privacy law.
A number of the participants asked for a list of website that I find useful for gaining knowledge about, interpreting and understanding the new HIPAA laws. Below are some of my favorite web resources on HIPAA.
1. A complete copy of the Privacy and Security Rules (unofficial version). This is a must for any privacy officer.
2. The Administrative Simplification website at DHHS.
3. The HIPAA Privacy section of the Office for Civil Rights website. The FAQ section of this website provides very practical information on the Privacy Rule. Also the OCR has posted various educational materials.
4. The State of West Virginia HIPAA website. This website includes a copy of the State of West Virginia's preemption analysis of various provisions of the West Virginia Code.
5. The Work Group for Electronic Data Interchange (WEDI) website. In particular I like the white papers section of the WEDI website.
St. Francis Hospital appeals Thomas Memorial Hospital cardiac catheterization lab certificate of need
Thursday, 2 September 2004
An article from today's Charleston Gazette discusses the filing of an appeal to the Circuit Court of Kanwaha County over the certificate of need decision issued by the West Virginia Health Care Authority to allow Thomas Memorial Hospital to construct and operate a $2.5M cath lab.
Below is a copy of the full article:
By John Heys
Staff writer
Administrators at St. Francis Hospital have taken their concerns about a new heart catheterization lab at Thomas Memorial Hospital to Kanawha County Circuit Court.
St. Francis filed an appeal Tuesday of a state Health Care Authority decision, which allowed Thomas Hospital to go forward with a $2.5 million lab to diagnose patient’s heart problems.
Bob Gray, a Thomas vice president, said the South Charleston hospital would continue with plans to open its catheterization lab, currently being built on the first floor of the facility’s new medical office building.
“This is all part of the appeal process,” Gray said. “I feel pretty confident we’ll prevail.”
State regulators approved Thomas’ proposal in February despite the concerns of St. Francis and Charleston Area Medical Center, which already have catheterization labs.
After the authority approved Thomas’ plan, the state’s Office of Judges upheld the decision following an earlier appeal by St. Francis. If the authority’s decision is upheld again, St. Francis can take their case to the state Supreme Court.
The hospital, which is owned by the Hospital Corporation of America, based in Nashville, Tenn., is also challenging the authority’s revised standards for heart catheterization labs.
The appeal calls the new rules “arbitrary and capricious,” saying the authority did not justify allowing larger hospitals like Thomas to apply for labs without taking into account existing providers when calculating the need for a new lab.
Officials from St. Francis and CAMC have argued the area does not need another heart catheterization lab. They said Thomas’ lab would siphon off some of their patients and revenue. CAMC has six such labs. St. Francis has two.
Doctors use catheterization to look at the extent of heart disease in a patient. A thin tube is inserted into the arteries of the heart. Using a television screen, doctors can then see how the heart and blood vessels are working.
Thomas’ 5,000-square-foot lab would only diagnose patients. People will still be sent to labs at CAMC and St. Francis for stents and angioplasties.
Thomas administrators tried three times in the past 16 years to get regulatory approval for their lab. The nonprofit hospital’s fourth request, submitted in January 2003, was helped by the change in state standards.
Sonia Chambers, chairwoman of the Health Care Authority, said on Wednesday the agency’s board members stand behind their decision on both Thomas’s proposal and the revised standards.
Below is a copy of the full article:
By John Heys
Staff writer
Administrators at St. Francis Hospital have taken their concerns about a new heart catheterization lab at Thomas Memorial Hospital to Kanawha County Circuit Court.
St. Francis filed an appeal Tuesday of a state Health Care Authority decision, which allowed Thomas Hospital to go forward with a $2.5 million lab to diagnose patient’s heart problems.
Bob Gray, a Thomas vice president, said the South Charleston hospital would continue with plans to open its catheterization lab, currently being built on the first floor of the facility’s new medical office building.
“This is all part of the appeal process,” Gray said. “I feel pretty confident we’ll prevail.”
State regulators approved Thomas’ proposal in February despite the concerns of St. Francis and Charleston Area Medical Center, which already have catheterization labs.
After the authority approved Thomas’ plan, the state’s Office of Judges upheld the decision following an earlier appeal by St. Francis. If the authority’s decision is upheld again, St. Francis can take their case to the state Supreme Court.
The hospital, which is owned by the Hospital Corporation of America, based in Nashville, Tenn., is also challenging the authority’s revised standards for heart catheterization labs.
The appeal calls the new rules “arbitrary and capricious,” saying the authority did not justify allowing larger hospitals like Thomas to apply for labs without taking into account existing providers when calculating the need for a new lab.
Officials from St. Francis and CAMC have argued the area does not need another heart catheterization lab. They said Thomas’ lab would siphon off some of their patients and revenue. CAMC has six such labs. St. Francis has two.
Doctors use catheterization to look at the extent of heart disease in a patient. A thin tube is inserted into the arteries of the heart. Using a television screen, doctors can then see how the heart and blood vessels are working.
Thomas’ 5,000-square-foot lab would only diagnose patients. People will still be sent to labs at CAMC and St. Francis for stents and angioplasties.
Thomas administrators tried three times in the past 16 years to get regulatory approval for their lab. The nonprofit hospital’s fourth request, submitted in January 2003, was helped by the change in state standards.
Sonia Chambers, chairwoman of the Health Care Authority, said on Wednesday the agency’s board members stand behind their decision on both Thomas’s proposal and the revised standards.
Department of Labor FairPay Rules Go Into Effect on August 23, 2004
Sunday, 22 August 2004
Tomorrow the U.S. Department of Labor's new FairPay Rules go into effect regarding the Fair Labor Standards Act. Employers should seek to learn more about the regulations and the impact on their employees and business. For more information go to the FairPay Web site created by the Wage and Hour Division of the U.S. Department of Labor.
According to the website the new regulations strengthen overtime protections for workers. Under the new FairPay rules, workers earning less than $23,660 per year — or $455 per week — are guaranteed overtime protection. This will strengthen overtime rights for 6.7 million American workers, including 1.3 million low-wage workers who were denied overtime under the old rules.
The regulations contain new guidance on the "white collar" overtime exemptions under the regulation. Here is a FairPay Fact Sheet on the exemptions for exective, administrative, professional, computer and outside sales employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the website the new regulations strengthen overtime protections for workers. Under the new FairPay rules, workers earning less than $23,660 per year — or $455 per week — are guaranteed overtime protection. This will strengthen overtime rights for 6.7 million American workers, including 1.3 million low-wage workers who were denied overtime under the old rules.
The regulations contain new guidance on the "white collar" overtime exemptions under the regulation. Here is a FairPay Fact Sheet on the exemptions for exective, administrative, professional, computer and outside sales employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Justice Department Opens Broad Investigation of Hospital Purchasing Activities
Saturday, 21 August 2004
According to various news reports the Department of Justice (DOJ) has opened a national investigation of the medical-supply industry to assess whether hospitals and other providers are fraudulently overcharging Medicare and other federal and state health care programs for various goods.
A New York Times article reports that, federal subpoenas have been sent out by the DOJ to a substantial number of medical-supply companies relating to the way that suppliers market products to hospitals, nursing homes, clinics, etc. that serve Medicare and Medicaid patients. The article also indicates that the investigation is likely to expand and will include the investigation of specific hospitals and other health care providers.
A New York Times article reports that, federal subpoenas have been sent out by the DOJ to a substantial number of medical-supply companies relating to the way that suppliers market products to hospitals, nursing homes, clinics, etc. that serve Medicare and Medicaid patients. The article also indicates that the investigation is likely to expand and will include the investigation of specific hospitals and other health care providers.
First Criminal Conviction under the HIPAA Privacy Rule
A press release issued by the United States Attorney's Office for the
Western District of Washington announced the first criminal convication in the U.S. under the health information privacy provisions of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountablity Act of 1996 (HIPAA).
In US v. Gibson, W.D. Wash. No.CR04-0374RFM, Mr. Gibson admitted that he obtained a cancer patient's name, date of birth and social security number while Gibson was employed at the Seatle Cancer Care Alliance, and that he disclosed that information to get credit cards in the patient's name. He racked up more than $9,000 in debt in the patient's name. The terms of the plea agreement include that Gibson should be sentenced to a term of 16 months in federal prison or nome confinement.
The press release stated: "Too many Americans have experienced identity theft and the nightmare of dealing with bills they never incurred. To be a vulnerable cancer patient, fighting for your life, and having to cope with identity theft is just unconscionable," stated United States Attorney John McKay. "This case should serve as a reminder that misuse of patient information may result in criminal prosecution."
Western District of Washington announced the first criminal convication in the U.S. under the health information privacy provisions of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountablity Act of 1996 (HIPAA).
In US v. Gibson, W.D. Wash. No.CR04-0374RFM, Mr. Gibson admitted that he obtained a cancer patient's name, date of birth and social security number while Gibson was employed at the Seatle Cancer Care Alliance, and that he disclosed that information to get credit cards in the patient's name. He racked up more than $9,000 in debt in the patient's name. The terms of the plea agreement include that Gibson should be sentenced to a term of 16 months in federal prison or nome confinement.
The press release stated: "Too many Americans have experienced identity theft and the nightmare of dealing with bills they never incurred. To be a vulnerable cancer patient, fighting for your life, and having to cope with identity theft is just unconscionable," stated United States Attorney John McKay. "This case should serve as a reminder that misuse of patient information may result in criminal prosecution."
OCR Issues Two New Fact Sheets on the HIPAA Privacy Rule
Wednesday, 18 August 2004
Today the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in the US Department of Health and Human Services issued two new Fact Sheets discussing the impact of the HIPAA Privacy Rule on health care consumers.
According to the OCR the Fact Sheets are designed to provide an easy-to-understand overview of what the Privacy Rule means to consumers. The Fact Sheets can be accessed from the "What's New" column on the OCR website.
The OCR states that, "[t]he first Fact Sheet, entitled, "Privacy and Your Health Information" is a general overview of the Rule, explaining that the Privacy Rule gives individuals rights over their health information, sets rules and limits on how information can be used and disclosed, and requires covered entities to take steps to protect health information. The second Fact Sheet, entitled, "Your Health Information Privacy Rights," focuses on each of the privacy rights individuals have under the Privacy Rule."
Health care providers who are required to comply with HIPAA should read these Fact Sheets to better understand OCR's perspective on what the HIPAA Privacy Rule requires.
According to the OCR the Fact Sheets are designed to provide an easy-to-understand overview of what the Privacy Rule means to consumers. The Fact Sheets can be accessed from the "What's New" column on the OCR website.
The OCR states that, "[t]he first Fact Sheet, entitled, "Privacy and Your Health Information" is a general overview of the Rule, explaining that the Privacy Rule gives individuals rights over their health information, sets rules and limits on how information can be used and disclosed, and requires covered entities to take steps to protect health information. The second Fact Sheet, entitled, "Your Health Information Privacy Rights," focuses on each of the privacy rights individuals have under the Privacy Rule."
Health care providers who are required to comply with HIPAA should read these Fact Sheets to better understand OCR's perspective on what the HIPAA Privacy Rule requires.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)