3 ms·
>More stringent, as in, for example, its still a crime to disclose information to someone with a completely valid subpoena for it, unless you have also been iss
by i_am_jl 4y ago
>More stringent, as in, for example, its still a crime to disclose information to someone with a completely valid subpoena for it, unless you have also been issued a special disclosure-authorizing court order in addition to the subpoena.
Can you elaborate? Does this mean that a subpoena that purports to allow seizure of HIPAA-protected data is only valid for seizure of that data if it's accompanied by a court order saying "Yes, this subpoena includes HIPAA-protected information"? Sort of a safeguard against HIPAA data being included unknowingly in subpoenaed materials?
- dragonwriter 4y agoThis is for federally-involved substance use disorder patient info, which is protected beyond HIPAA, but, yes, it means information related to them that is subpoenaed or subject to similar otherwise-compulsory disclosure cannot be disclosed (or even responded to in a way which would confirm that a person is a patient, if the form of the compulsory demand is, e. g., fot records of a particular person) without a separate court order specifically authorizing disclosure of federal substance use disorder patient records. (Note that a judge has to issue the order here, whereas the lawyer for a party — the biggest concern here being the government — can issue a subpoena, and there are also legislative and administrative subpoenas.) > Sort of a safeguard against HIPAA data being included unknowingly in subpoenaed materials? It’s more a prevention against otherwise-valid subpoenas being used to end-run the protection of SUD patient data, especially for the ultimate use of law enforcement.