HIPPA Is And What The Federal Law's Position On Patient Privacy Is.

Sample Solution

HIPAA: Protecting Patient Privacy

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) is a federal law that sets national standards for the protection of patient health information. The Privacy Rule, a key component of HIPAA, establishes safeguards that govern how healthcare providers, insurers, and other covered entities collect, use, and disclose patient information.

Two Key HIPAA Statutes

1. The Privacy Rule (45 CFR Parts 160 and 164): This rule establishes procedures for covered entities to protect patient health information, including requirements for obtaining patient consent for certain disclosures, implementing security measures to protect data from unauthorized access, and providing patients with access to their own records.

Full Answer Section

1. The Security Rule (45 CFR Part 160): This rule establishes standards for covered entities to protect electronic protected health information (ePHI) from unauthorized access, use, or disclosure. It requires covered entities to implement technical safeguards, such as encryption and access controls, to protect ePHI from unauthorized access.

2. State Laws on Patient Privacy in California

California has several laws that protect patient privacy, including:

1. California Civil Code § 1798.11 (Confidentiality of Medical Information): This statute prohibits healthcare providers from disclosing patient medical information without the patient's written consent, except in certain limited circumstances.

2. California Business and Professions Code §§ 6290-6298 (Medical Records): These statutes regulate the handling of patient medical records by healthcare providers, including requirements for maintaining records, providing patients with access to their records, and destroying records upon request.

3. California Health and Safety Code § 123125 (Disclosures to Law Enforcement): This statute allows healthcare providers to disclose patient medical information to law enforcement agencies without the patient's consent in certain situations, such as when reporting suspected child abuse or neglect.

3. Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California and the Balancing Act of Patient Confidentiality and Duty to Warn

In the landmark case of Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California (1976), the California Supreme Court addressed the question of a therapist's duty to warn third parties when a patient poses a danger to others. The court held that therapists have a duty to warn foreseeable victims of a patient's intent to harm them, even if doing so violates patient confidentiality.

The court's decision in Tarasoff was based on the principle that the right to privacy is not absolute and must be balanced against the public's interest in preventing harm. The court reasoned that when a therapist knows that a patient poses a serious threat to others, they have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect those individuals, even if it means breaching confidentiality.

Reflections on Tarasoff and Patient Privacy Laws

The Tarasoff decision has been influential in shaping the legal landscape around patient confidentiality and the duty to warn. While it is important to protect patient privacy, it is also crucial to take measures to prevent harm to others. The court's decision in Tarasoff struck a balance between these competing interests, recognizing that there are situations where the duty to warn must take precedence over patient confidentiality.

HIPAA and state patient privacy laws provide a framework for protecting patient information while also acknowledging the potential need to disclose information in certain circumstances. These laws aim to safeguard patient privacy while ensuring that healthcare professionals have the flexibility to take necessary steps to protect the public safety.