OCR Request for Information: HIPAA Privacy Rule Accounting of Disclosures under HITECH

Monday, 3 May 2010
Today the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Department of Health and Human Services issued a Request for Information titled HIPAA Privacy Rule Accounting of Disclosures Under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (75 Fed Reg 23214 May 3, 2010). More information at the OCR website.

The Request for Information by OCR seeks comments from health consumers and health care providers/organizations. OCR seeks information on the following areas:
  • Understanding the interests of individuals (health consumers) with respect to learning of such disclosures; and
  • The administrative burden on covered entities (health care providers/organizations) and business associates of accounting for such disclosures.
The Request for Information states that Section 13405(c) of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act expands an individual’s right under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy Rule to receive an accounting of disclosures of protected health information made by HIPAA covered entities and their business associates. In particular, section 13405(c) of the HITECH Act requires that the HIPAA Privacy Rule be amended to require covered entities to account for disclosures of protected health information to carry out treatment, payment, and health care operations if such disclosures are through an electronic health record.

The Request for Information requests specific comments on the following nine questions:

1. What are the benefits to the individual of an accounting of disclosures, particularly of disclosures made for treatment, payment, and health care operations purposes?

2. Are individuals aware of their current right to receive an accounting of disclosures? On what do you base this assessment?

3. If you are a covered entity, how do you make clear to individuals their right to receive an accounting of disclosures? How many requests for an accounting have you received from individuals?

4. For individuals that have received an accounting of disclosures, did the accounting provide the individual with the information he or she was seeking? Are you aware of how individuals use this information once obtained?

5. With respect to treatment, payment, and health care operations disclosures, 45 CFR 170.210(e) currently provides the standard that an electronic health record system record the date, time, patient identification, user identification, and a description of the disclosure. In response to its interim final rule, the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology received comments on this standard and the corresponding certification criterion suggesting that the standard also include to whom a disclosure was made (i.e., recipient) and the reason or purpose for the disclosure. Should an accounting for treatment, payment, and health care operations disclosures include these or other elements and, if so, why? How important is it to individuals to know the specific purpose of a disclosure— i.e., would it be sufficient to describe the purpose generally (e.g., for ‘‘for treatment,’’ ‘‘for payment,’’ or ‘‘for health care operations purposes’’), or is more detail necessary for the accounting to be of value? To what extent are individuals familiar with the different activities that may constitute ‘‘health care operations?’’ On what do you base this assessment?

6. For existing electronic health record systems:
(a) Is the system able to distinguish between ‘‘uses’’ and ‘‘disclosures’’ as those terms are defined under the HIPAA Privacy Rule? Note that the term ‘‘disclosure’’ includes the sharing of information between a hospital and physicians who are on the hospital’s medical staff but who are not members of its workforce.
(b) If the system is limited to only recording access to information without regard to whether it is a use or disclosure, such as certain audit logs, what information is recorded? How long is such information retained? What would be the burden to retain the information for three years?
(c) If the system is able to distinguish between uses and disclosures of information, what data elements are automatically collected by the system for disclosures (i.e., collected without requiring any additional manual input by the person making the disclosure)? What information, if any, is manually entered by the person making the disclosure?
(d) If the system is able to distinguish between uses and disclosures of information, does it record a description of disclosures in a standardized manner (for example, does the system offer or require a user to select from a limited list of types of disclosures)? If yes, is such a feature being utilized and what are its benefits and drawbacks?
(e) Is there a single, centralized electronic health record system? Or is it a decentralized system (e.g., different
departments maintain different electronic health record systems and an accounting of disclosures for treatment,
payment, and health care operations would need to be tracked for each system)?
(f) Does the system automatically generate an accounting for disclosures under the current HIPAA Privacy Rule (i.e., does the system account for disclosures other than to carry out treatment, payment, and health care
operations)?
i. If yes, what would be the additional burden to also account for disclosures to carry out treatment, payment, and health care operations? Would there be additional hardware requirements (e.g., to store such accounting information)? Would such an accounting feature impact system performance?
ii. If not, is there a different automated system for accounting for disclosures, and does it interface with the electronic health record system?

7. The HITECH Act provides that a covered entity that has acquired an electronic health record after January 1, 2009 must comply with the new accounting requirement beginning January 1, 2011 (or anytime after that date when it acquires an electronic health record), unless we extend this compliance deadline to no later than 2013. Will covered entities be able to begin accounting for disclosures through an electronic health record to carry out treatment, payment, and health care operations by January 1, 2011? If not, how much time would it take vendors of electronic health record systems to design and implement such a feature? Once such a feature is available, how much time would it take for a covered entity to install an updated electronic health record system with this feature?

8. What is the feasibility of an electronic health record module that is exclusively dedicated to accounting for disclosures (both disclosures that must be tracked for the purpose of accounting under the current HIPAA Privacy Rule and disclosures to carry out treatment, payment, and health care operations)? Would such a module work with covered entities that maintain decentralized electronic health record systems?

9. Is there any other information that would be helpful to the Department regarding accounting for disclosures
through an electronic health record to carry out treatment, payment, and health care operations?

Written comments to OCR must be submitted on or before May 18, 2010.

Testing Google's New Search Story

Wednesday, 14 April 2010
Yesterday I saw a post on the Official Google Blog about making your own search story videos in minutes. The post announced Google's simple to use search story video creation tool. Google introduced these search stories during the Superbowl with this ad, Parisian Love. All you have to do is type in your searches, pick your music and transfer it over to Youtube. Try it out here.

I thought I would test out the tool by creating a quick sample video marketing my health care legal practice featuring my Health Care Law Blog.

Also thinking about how marketing staffs for physicians, hospitals and health care organizations might creatively use this tool to create great marketing and public informational pieces. For example, a search story that reminds people to do a self examination, promotes a public service announcement, recommend certain preventative health measures or make healthier micro decisions.


NCAA Final Four: It's a great day to be a Mountaineer wherever you may be!

Saturday, 3 April 2010
Today the WVU Mountaineers take on the Duke Blue Devils in the NCAA Final Four. Good luck to the Mountaineers as they try to move on to the Championship Game on Monday night against the winner of the Bulter vs. Michigan State contest.

West Virginians everywhere are excited about the game and proud of the hard work and dedication put in by the Mountaineer players, coaches and staff. It is a great day to be a Mountaineer!

All week it has been exciting to watch the buzz and excitement grow throughout the state. I loved this picture of some Mountaineers leaving Morgantown headed to Indianapolis with their cooler and couch strapped to back. I had to share it with everyone. Thanks to Lisa Simmons for the photo. You have to be a Mountaineer to understand the couch burning tradition (some history on the tradition and one of my favorite videos below).

Go Mountaineers!



DEA Interim Final Rule on Electronic Prescribing of Controlled Substances

Friday, 26 March 2010
On March 24, 2010, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) released the Interim Final Rule with Request for Comments on Electronic Prescribing of Controlled Substances.

The Interim Final Rule outlines the procedures for health care providers to electronically prescribe controlled substances. The DEA has revised its regulations to provide practitioners with the option of writing prescriptions for controlled substances electronically and permit pharmacies to receive, dispense and archive these electronic prescriptions.

The Interim Final Rule will be officially published in the Federal Register on Wednesday, March 31, 2010 and will include a 60 day comment period.

AHLA Teleconference: The Intersection of Social Media and Human Subjects Research

Tuesday, 23 March 2010
On May 4, 2010, I will be participating in a teleconference on The Intersection of Social Media and Human Subjects Research. The teleconference is co-sponsored by the American Health Lawyers Association Health Information Technology, Life Sciences and Teaching Hospitals and Academic Medical Centers Practice Groups.

The moderator for the teleconference will be Karl A. Thallner, Jr., Esquire, Partner, Reed Smith LLP, in Philadelphia, PA. The other panel presenters will be:
Naomi Halpern, Esquire
Partner
Frommer Lawrence & Haug, Washington, DC

Laura Odwazny, Esquire
Senior Attorney, Public Health Division
Office for Human Research Protections
Office of the General Counsel
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD
More information, including a description of the program and how to register, is available through the AHLA website.

OCR Update on Issuance of HIPAA HITECH Rulemaking

Thursday, 18 March 2010
Update from Office for Civil Rights (OCR) on issuance of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) implementing changes to HIPAA under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH). Health care organizations and health lawyers have been anxiously awaiting rules implementing and interpreting the changes because the effective date for many of the HITECH requirements was February 17, 2010. Of particular interest has been whether or not health care organizations are required to amend business associate agreement.

The notice seems to indicate that the the date for compliance and enforcement may be delayed since it states that the NPRM "will provide specific information regarding the expected date of compliance and enforcement." However, covered entities and business associates need to weigh the risks of not complying with the new requirements while waiting for further clarification from OCR.

The notice states:
OCR will implement important privacy and security provisions of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act through notice and comment rulemaking, as required by the Administrative Procedure Act. These provisions include: business associate liability; new limitations on the sale of protected health information, marketing, and fundraising communications; and stronger individual rights to access electronic medical records and restrict the disclosure of certain information. OCR continues work on a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding these provisions. Although the effective date (February 17, 2010) for many of these HITECH Act provisions has passed, the NPRM and the final rule that follows will provide specific information regarding the expected date of compliance and enforcement of these new requirements.

However, interim final rules implementing HITECH Act provisions in two areas have already been issued and are currently in effect: enforcement and breach notification. New civil money penalty amounts apply to HIPAA Privacy and Security Rule violations occurring after February 17, 2009. Covered entities and business associates must comply now with breach notification obligations for breaches that are discovered on or after September 23, 2009. OCR announced previously that it would use its enforcement discretion not to impose fiscal sanctions with regard to breaches discovered before February 22, 2010. Since that date has passed, OCR will enforce the Breach Notification Interim Final Rule, including with the possible imposition of sanctions, as it does with the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rule requirements.

West Virginia State Bar Issues Advisory Opinion 10-001 Clarifying Rule 8 Pro Hac Vice Admission

Tuesday, 16 March 2010
Today the West Virginia State Bar announced that the West Virginia State Bar's Unlawful Practice of Law Committee has released Advisory Opinion 10-001, relating to questions from attorneys regarding its interpretation of Rule 8 of the West Virginia Rules of Admission to the Practice of Law, relating to admissions pro hac vice.

Advisory Opinion 10-001 addresses the following issues:

1. Whether the requirement in Rule 8 of of admission pro hac vice extends to matters in which no action, suit or proceeding is pending;

2. To what extent is the responsible local attorney required to participate in proceedings involving the attorney admitted pro hac vice;

3. Whether presiding judicial officers can "excuse" local counsel form participation or "waive" the requirement of participating; and

4. What limitations exist for attorneys seeking to be admitted pro hac vice, particularly their ability to be admitted on a frequent basis, or in multiple or consolidated actions.