Upon review of HIPAA privacy rules, MDH concludes that HIPAA permits providers to disclose immunization data to MDH and enter it into MIIC, which is allowed under Minnesota's Data Sharing Law (Minn. Stat. 144.3351), without the patient's authorization.
In summary, since MIIC is a public health service operated by a public health authority that is authorized by law to collect immunization data,3 disclosing immunization data to MIIC is allowed without patient authorization.
The HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) Eligibility Transaction System (HETS) allows you to check Medicare beneficiary eligibility data in real-time. Use HETS to prepare accurate Medicare claims, determine beneficiary liability, or check eligibility for specific services.
HHS Office for Civil Rights updates an Enforcement Highlights webpage on which it lists the compliance issues most often alleged in complaints in order of frequency. Because a single data breach can affect many thousands of individuals, it is not surprising to see impermissible uses and disclosures at the top of the list. However, the next four items imply a lack of understanding about what is considered Protected Health Information under HIPAA:
Indeed, Emotional Support Animals are a good example of when non-health information can be both protected and non-protected depending on how information is maintained. If information relating to a patients Emotional Support Animal is maintained in a record set, it assumes the same protections as the patients health information. However, if it is maintained in a separate database that does not contain health information (i.e., to accommodate transport requirements) it is not protected.
Any disclosure of HIPAA data (that qualifies as Protected Health Information) that is not permitted by the Privacy Rule or that is not authorized by the individual to whom the data relates is a violation of HIPAA. A HIPAA violation of this nature is usually considered to be a data breach; and, depending on the consequences of the violation, may have to be reported to HHS Office for Civil Rights.
HIPAA Journal provides the most comprehensive coverage of HIPAA news anywhere online, in addition to independent advice about HIPAA compliance and the best practices to adopt to avoid data breaches, HIPAA violations and regulatory fines. HIPAA Journal's goal is to assist HIPAA-covered entities achieve and maintain compliance with state and federal regulations governing the use, storage and disclosure of PHI and PII.
Along with increasing the use of electronic medical records, HIPAA includes provisions to protect the security and privacy of protected health information (PHI). PHI includes a very wide set of personally identifiable health and health-related data, including insurance and billing information, diagnosis data, clinical care data, and lab results such as images and test results. The HIPAA rules apply to covered entities, which include hospitals, medical services providers, employer sponsored health plans, research facilities, and insurance companies that deal directly with patients and patient data. The HIPAA requirement to protect PHI also extends to business associates.
The rise in the use of mobile devices, such as smartphones, tablet personal computers, and wireless medical devices, as well as the wireless networks that enable their use, has raised new concerns for data security and integrity. Standardized Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA)-compliant electronic data security that will allow ubiquitous use of mobile health technologies is needed. The lack of standardized data security to assure privacy, to allow interoperability, and to maximize the full capabilities of mobile devices presents a significant barrier to care. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the issue and to encourage discussion of this important topic. Current security needs, standards, limitations, and recommendations for how to address this barrier to care are discussed.
Researchers who wish to use the SEER-Medicare data are required to obtain IRB determination prior to SEER-Medicare data being released to them. A full IRB review is not required. Many IRBs, including NIH's Office of Human Subjects Research, have determined that the SEER-Medicare data are exempt (CFR 46.104(4)).
Researchers who wish to use the SEER-Medicare data may have concerns about complying with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) regulations. The SEER-Medicare data contain information about geographic location at the county level as well as dates of receiving health care services. Because of these variables, the SEER-Medicare data are considered by HIPAA requirements as a limited data set, which requires that investigators sign a Data Use Agreement prior to receiving the data. This exception allows for the release of the SEER-Medicare data without obtaining authorization from individual patients (see Federal Register, August 14, 2002, pg 53235). However, because the SEER-Medicare data are a limited data set, investigators who have the data may not share these files with other investigators. Investigators who are contacted by colleagues who wish to use their data should ask their colleagues to contact SEER-Medicare.
The EDI rule is very technical and based on the X12N EDI data transmission protocol standard. Although rare allowances are made, the rule requires that any covered entity who electronically transmits data must use this, and only this format in doing so. The EDI rule is a set of data transmission specifications that strictly govern the way data is electronically transferred from one computer to another. The rule specifically defines the different types of transactions that are covered under HIPAA and stipulates the exact format for each transaction record. Electronic transactions such as health care claims, claims status and remittance advices (RA), eligibility verifications and responses, referrals and authorizations, and coordination of benefits (COB) among others are included in the rule. Its intent is to reduce the hundreds of health care data formats to just one that is universally implemented throughout the health care industry. The objective is to greatly increase the portability and accessibility of this information and to decrease the administrative overhead associated with the management of the process.
Although it does not necessarily require the use of a consultant, the electronic data interchange (EDI) standards of HIPAA do necessitate a relatively sophisticated understanding of data transmission protocols. Key determinants of whether a consultant is needed to achieve compliance with the EDI standards are:
Providers can submit claims directly to third party insurers if their software systems have been upgraded to comply with the EDI standards. This approach helps the provider to maintain the maximum amount of control over the claims submission and payment review process, but also necessitates the maintenance of a more sophisticated information system. The management of this direct data exchange is just one element of the claims process within the practice. Additional operations such as scheduling, eligibility verification, coding, payment review, accounts receivables, re-submissions and others should all be well integrated with the mechanics of data exchange and managed through one of the many HIPAA compliant office management software packages. While there are many advantages to automating the exchange of claim information directly with the payer, it also requires an additional degree of integration into the overall office management process to assure the highest possible level of accuracy. Establishment of these operational processes and the training needed to integrate the automated system with office management procedures can sometimes be facilitated with the help of a consultant.
Need to manage HIPAA-regulated data? Working with PII or CUI? No problem. Globus supports management of Protected Health Information (PHI) data regulated by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), Personally Identifiable Information (PII), and Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI).
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) sets the standard for sensitive patient data protection. Companies that deal with protected health information (PHI) must have physical, network, and process security measures in place and follow them to ensure HIPAA Compliance. Covered entities (anyone providing treatment, payment, and operations in healthcare) and business associates (anyone who has access to patient information and provides support in treatment, payment, or operations) must meet HIPAA Compliance. Other entities, such as subcontractors and any other related business associates must also be in compliance.
HHS points out that as health care providers and other entities dealing with PHI move to computerized operations, including computerized physician order entry (CPOE) systems, electronic health records (EHR), and radiology, pharmacy, and laboratory systems, HIPAA compliance is more important than ever. Similarly, health plans provide access to claims as well as care management and self-service applications. While all of these electronic methods provide increased efficiency and mobility, they also drastically increase the security risks facing healthcare data.
Other technical policies for HIPAA compliance need to cover integrity controls, or measures put in place to confirm that ePHI is not altered or destroyed. IT disaster recovery and offsite backup are key components that ensure that electronic media errors and failures are quickly remedied so that patient health information is recovered accurately and intact. One final technical safeguard is network, or transmission security that ensures HIPAA compliant hosts protect against unauthorized access to ePHI. This safeguard addresses all methods of data transmission, including email, internet, or private networks, such as a private cloud. 041b061a72