Notice of Privacy Practices

Contributed by Elizabeth R. Larkin and Jessica Forbes Olson

Health care providers know about and have worked with HIPAA privacy and security rules for well over a decade. They have diligently applied it to their covered entity health care provider practices and to their patients and think they have HIPAA covered.

What providers may not

(Part III continues Part I and Part II of this series on privacy of health information in the domestic relations context, which may be found here and here. Capitalized words not defined in this Part III shall have the meanings assigned in Part I or Part II.)

6. The situation can be further complicated

(Part I of this series on privacy of health information in the domestic relations context may be found here. Capitalized words not defined in this Part II shall have the meanings assigned in Part I.)

Tips on dealing with IHI Issues in the Domestic Relations Context

1. Whether an individual is in a stable

The November 2014 ruling in the Connecticut Supreme Court in the case of Byrne v. Avery Center for Obstetrics and Gynecology, P.C., — A.3d —-, 2014, WL 5507439 (2014) (the “Byrne case”) has been discussed in a number of posts on this blog, including those here and here. The main focus of such

The recent United States Supreme Court decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. has  attorneys, pundits, policy-makers and businesses (yes, corporations are people, too) pondering big, quintessentially American issues like the free exercise of religion, compelling government interests, and our fundamental right to make money (and, as a corollary issue, what distinguishes for-profit

Who you are makes a big difference in how and whether you must protect individually identifiable health information under HIPAA.   As we near the end of 2013, I look back at the events of the past year and am struck by the breadth and complexity of the issues we have written about on this blog

Unless the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) makes another last-minute, litigation-inspired decision to delay the September 23, 2013 compliance date, we’re well into the 10-day countdown for compliance with most of the Omnibus Rule requirements.  Here’s “TIP TWO” (however, since I’ve listed 6 specific tips here, I may need to count these as

Unless the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) makes another last-minute, litigation-inspired decision to delay the September 23, 2013 compliance date, we’re on a 10-day countdown for compliance with most of the Omnibus Rule requirements.  In a motion filed jointly with the plaintiff in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on