3 ms·
I would say its' a gray area. HIPAA exceptions in recent years have focused on both identifying information and medical condition together. For example, the N
by true_religion 9y ago
I would say its' a gray area.
HIPAA exceptions in recent years have focused on both identifying information and medical condition together.
For example, the NCIS exception allowing mental health staff to disclose to NCIS if an individual should not be permitted to own a firearm due to their mental state. That's a revelation of both the name and their medical information.
Or the finance exception, that allows payment processors to know the names of patients without requiring them to have a business agreement with the medical agency and subject themselves to HIPAA rules. They have no access to medical records and aren't sufficiently entangled with the medical practices so it's been ruled that they are except.
Or the media exception, in which you can disclose that a patient is in 'stable' or otherwise condition in the ER if a member of the media calls for them by name. In this case, the media already knew the name, and the disclosure is deemed for the public good.
Now.... sharing a name with Google to receive completely public information about a patient? That's not something that's specifically prohibited or denied. It could be argued that Google had a 'need to know' just to deliver the search result, and as others have argued, Google cannot connect an arbitrary name search to a patient's medical history.
If it were to come up, the deciding factor would be was the search for the patient's benefit? Name disclosures have historically been deemed to be minimal if there's no other information attached, and HIPAA provides wide latitude to doctors to use a patient's name in the ordinary course of business or to further treatment goals by contacting people or organizations not directly related to the patient.
> Well, that doesn't seem like a particularly convincing argument to me.
Keep in mind all of my examples are simply that... examples. They're not arguments into themselves.