RHIO Regulatory Challenges (Part II)

June 24, 2011
Another common obstacle faced by RHIOs arises from the patchwork nature of state and federal privacy regulations. While the HIPAA Privacy Rule

Another common obstacle faced by RHIOs arises from the patchwork nature of state and federal privacy regulations. While the HIPAA Privacy Rule generally permits the use and disclosure of protected health information ("PHI") for a covered entity's treatment, payment and health care operations purposes, there are state and federal laws that impose additional restrictions on certain categories of especially sensitive information. For example, in California, there are state and federal laws that require patient authorization with respect to disclosures of:

(1) information relating to a patient's participation in outpatient treatment with a psychotherapist (Cal. Civil Code Seciton 56.104);

(2) psychotherapy notes, as defined by HIPAA;

(3) records of the identity, diagnosis, prognosis or treatment of any patient maintained in connection with any program or activity relating to alcoholism or alcohol abuse education, training, treatment, rehabilitation or reseach (42 CFR Section 2.2 and Cal. Health & Safety Code Section 11977);

(4) public health records relating to AIDS (Cal. Health & Safety Code Section 121025(a); and

(5) genetic test results (Cal. Civil Code Section 56.17).

Given that disclosures of these categories of information require patient authorization, some RHIO participating provider agreements simply require that this type of information not be transmitted using the RHIO. Can providers effectively scrub their data to exclude these categories of information? And what if a hospital, medical group or other provider slips up and discloses sensitive medical information through the RHIO without authorization?

Providers must live with these restrictions on a day-to-day basis, regardless of whether they engage in treatment disclosures through a RHIO or more traditional means. However, one difference is that a RHIO's facilitation of electronic exchange of data arguably raises the stakes when providers mistakenly disclose these sensitive categories of information without authorization. Another difference is that participation in a RHIO means (depending upon the RHIO structure) that a provider may have to concern itself not only with its own mistakes in permitting disclosures of sensitive medical information, but also the mistakes of the RHIO entity or RHIO technology vendor.

Sponsored Recommendations

A Cyber Shield for Healthcare: Exploring HHS's $1.3 Billion Security Initiative

Unlock the Future of Healthcare Cybersecurity with Erik Decker, Co-Chair of the HHS 405(d) workgroup! Don't miss this opportunity to gain invaluable knowledge from a seasoned ...

Enhancing Remote Radiology: How Zero Trust Access Revolutionizes Healthcare Connectivity

This content details how a cloud-enabled zero trust architecture ensures high performance, compliance, and scalability, overcoming the limitations of traditional VPN solutions...

Spotlight on Artificial Intelligence

Unlock the potential of AI in our latest series. Discover how AI is revolutionizing clinical decision support, improving workflow efficiency, and transforming medical documentation...

Beyond the VPN: Zero Trust Access for a Healthcare Hybrid Work Environment

This whitepaper explores how a cloud-enabled zero trust architecture ensures secure, least privileged access to applications, meeting regulatory requirements and enhancing user...