in an offical capacity they may not have been able to announce the death. HIPAA is somewhat unclear and misunderstood by many so to be safe no information is given.
companies have a duty to protect their assets and due to the proliferation of litigation in america who can blame them for being over cautious with possible violations of privacy issues.
if they announced it and it was wrong to do so someone would be on YA asking if they should sue. HIPAA relates to medical records and insurance billing and insurance refusals to pay but has grown into a huge mess of misunderstandings about all privacy issues. the following is pasted from the axtual code and is definition as you can see the company probably falls under this definition since the employee passed away and that was communicated to them by a medical provider.
"(4) HEALTH INFORMATION.--The term 'health information' means any information, whether oral or recorded in any form or medium, that--
"(A) is created or received by a health care provider, health plan, public health authority, employer, life insurer, school or university, or health care clearinghouse; and
"(B) relates to the past, present, or future physical or mental health or condition of an individual, the provision of health care to an individual, or the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to an individual.
2007-12-12 08:36:27
·
answer #1
·
answered by michr 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
No, it would not have violated HIPPA in any way.
The problem is that when HIPPA came out there were so many overblown horror stories about what it meant that a lot of employers got "gun shy" and decided to clam up about anything that might even possibly have to do with the subject. It's sad, but you can't really blame your employer - chances are they don;t have a lawyer on staff to ask this sort of stuff so they just played it safe.
Richard
2007-12-12 08:33:38
·
answer #2
·
answered by rickinnocal 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
There's no way that would be a HIPAA violation. Anything you can find out through the public would not be violating HIPAA. I'm sure the car accident may have made it to the news and the only time the news doesn't release names is when next-of-kin has not been notified. I think your employer was very inconsiderate and I think your employer needs some training on HIPAA.
Maybe they just didn't want anyone to know and used HIPAA as a scapegoat?
2007-12-12 08:27:38
·
answer #3
·
answered by Red Sunshine 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
Yes, it ABSOLUTELY is a violation of HIPAA. The doctor's office/staff has no right to share your mother's health/billing information with a non-covered entity. Your mother should make a formal complaint. WHY is the Doctor telling his wife about his patients issues....and why is his wife calling your mother's employer?! This is unacceptable. Violation of HIPAA can bring a fine of over $25000 and time in prison. Perhaps your mother's provider needs a reminder. On that note, when your mother goes to make the complaint, I advise that she be very aware of her temper or she will make her complaint seem less valid. Good luck!! **Edit** BTW, it IS a violation for a covered entity to discuss billing issues with a non-covered entity. This is a violation because it discloses the fact that your mother is a patient and receiving treatment from them. Just thought this would help to correct some of the statements above.
2016-04-08 23:15:32
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
i just completed my HIPPA training and that is a tough one. HIPPA is very complicated. Maybe they considered it an invasion of privacy. As with anything dealing with the law or HIPPA it is better to be safe than sorry, that may have been what they were thinking.
2007-12-12 08:32:17
·
answer #5
·
answered by Silk 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Based on my understanding of HIPPA, I don't think your employer would have violated it by letting their employees know. It would be nice if they consulted with the family first though to get their approval.
2007-12-12 08:29:18
·
answer #6
·
answered by Unsub29 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
HIPPA is very complex and I expect only a lawyer could definitively answer that question.I suspect they took the "better safe than sorry" approach to the law.
2007-12-12 08:26:52
·
answer #7
·
answered by davidmi711 7
·
2⤊
0⤋