BILLING CODE: 4150-04M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Office of the Secretary

45 CFR Parts 160 through 164

Rin: 0991-AB08

Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation,
DHHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule includes standards to protect the privacy of
individually identifiable health information. The rules below, which
apply to health plans, health care clearinghouses, and certain health
care providers, present standards with respect to the rights of
individuals who are the subjects of this information, procedures for the
exercise of those rights, and the authorized and required uses and
disclosures of this information.

The use of these standards will improve the efficiency and effectiveness
of public and private health programs and health care services by
providing enhanced protections for individually identifiable health
information. These protections will begin to address growing public
concerns that advances in electronic technology and evolution in the
health care industry are resulting, or may result, in a substantial
erosion of the privacy surrounding individually identifiable health
information maintained by health care providers, health plans and their
administrative contractors. This rule implements the privacy
requirements of the Administrative Simplification subtitle of the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.

DATES: The final rule is effective on \[INSERT DATE 60 DAYS FOLLOWING
PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER\].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kimberly Coleman, 1-866-OCR-PRIV
(1-866-627-7748) or TTY 1-866-788-4989.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Availability of copies, and electronic
access.

Copies: To order copies of the [Federal Register]{.underline} containing
this document, send your request to: New Orders, Superintendent of
Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954. Specify the date
of the issue requested and enclose a check or money order payable to the
Superintendent of Documents, or enclose your Visa or Master Card number
and expiration date. Credit card orders can also be placed by calling
the order desk at (202) 512-1800 or by fax to (202) 512-2250. The cost
for each copy is \$8.00. As an alternative, you can view and photocopy
the [Federal Register]{.underline} document at most libraries designated
as Federal Depository Libraries and at many other public and academic
libraries throughout the country that receive the [Federal
Register]{.underline}.

Electronic Access: This document is available electronically at
http://aspe.hhs.gov/admnsimp/ as well as at the web site of the
Government Printing Office at
http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html.

**I. BACKGROUND**

**Table of Contents**

\' 160.101 Statutory basis and purpose.

\' 160.102 Applicability.

\' 160.103 Definitions.

\' 160.104 Modifications.

\' 160.201 Applicability

\' 160.202 Definitions.

\' 160.203 General rule and exceptions.

\' 160.204 Process for requesting exception determinations.

\' 160.205 Duration of effectiveness of exception determinations.

\' 160.300 Applicability.

\' 160.302 Definitions.

\' 160.304 Principles for achieving compliance.

\(a\) Cooperation.

\(b\) Assistance.

\' 160.306 Complaints to the Secretary.

\(a\) Right to file a complaint.

\(b\) Requirements for filing complaints.

\(c\) Investigation.

\' 160.308 Compliance reviews.

\' 160.310 Responsibilities of covered entities.

\(a\) Provide records and compliance reports.

\(b\) Cooperate with complaint investigations and compliance reviews.

\(c\) Permit access to information.

\' 160.312 Secretarial action regarding complaints and compliance
reviews.

\(a\) Resolution where noncompliance is indicated.

\(b\) Resolution when no violation is found.

\' 164.102 Statutory basis.

\' 164.104 Applicability.

\' 164.106 Relationship to other parts.

\' 164.500 Applicability.

\' 164.501 Definitions.

\' 164.502 Uses and disclosures of protected health information: general
rules.

\(a\) Standard.

\(b\) Standard: minimum necessary.

\(c\) Standard: uses and disclosures of protected health information
subject to an agreed upon restriction.

\(d\) Standard: uses and disclosures of de-identified protected health
information.

\(e\) Standard: disclosures to business associates.

\(f\) Standard: deceased individuals.

\(g\) Standard: personal representatives.

\(h\) Standard: confidential communications.

\(i\) Standard: uses and disclosures consistent with notice.

\(j\) Standard: disclosures by whistleblowers and workforce member crime
victims.

\' 164.504 Uses and disclosures: organizational requirements.

\(a\) Definitions.

\(b\) Standard: health care component.

\(c\) Implementation specification: application of other provisions.

\(d\) Standard: affiliated covered entities.

\(e\) Standard: business associate contracts.

(f)Standard: requirements for group health plans.

\(g\) Standard: requirements for a covered entity with multiple covered
functions.

\' 164.506 Consent for uses or disclosures to carry out treatment,
payment, or health care operations.

\(a\) Standard: consent requirement.

\(b\) Implementation specifications: general requirements.

\(c\) Implementation specifications: content requirements.

\(d\) Implementation specifications: defective consents.

\(e\) Standard: resolving conflicting consents and authorizations.

\(f\) Standard: joint consents.

\'164.508 Uses and disclosures for which an authorization is required.

\(a\) Standard: authorizations for uses and disclosures.

\(b\) Implementation specifications: general requirements.

\(c\) Implementation specifications: core elements and requirements.

\(d\) Implementation specifications: authorizations requested by a
covered entity for its own uses and disclosures.

\(e\) Implementation specifications: authorizations requested by a
covered entity for disclosures by others.

\(f\) Implementation specifications: authorizations for uses and
disclosures of protected health information created for research that
includes treatment of the individual.

\' 164.510 Uses and disclosures requiring an opportunity for the
individual to agree or to object.

\(a\) Standard: use and disclosure for facility directories.

\(b\) Standard: uses and disclosures for involvement in the individual=s
care and notification purposes.

\' 164.512 Uses and disclosures for which consent, an authorization, or
opportunity to agree or object is not required.

\(a\) Standard: uses and disclosures required by law.

\(b\) Standard: uses and disclosures for public health activities.

\(c\) Standard: disclosures about victims of abuse, neglect or domestic
violence.

\(d\) Standard: uses and disclosures for health oversight activities.

\(e\) Standard: disclosures for judicial and administrative proceedings.

\(f\) Standard: disclosures for law enforcement purposes.

\(g\) Standard: uses and disclosures about decedents.

\(h\) Standard: uses and disclosures for cadaveric organ, eye or tissue
donation purposes.

\(i\) Standard: uses and disclosures for research purposes.

\(j\) Standard: uses and disclosures to avert a serious threat to health
or safety.

\(k\) Standard: uses and disclosures for specialized government
functions.

\(l\) Standard: disclosures for workers= compensation.

\' 164.514 Other requirements relating to uses and disclosures of
protected health information.

\(a\) Standard: de-identification of protected health information.

\(b\) Implementation specifications: requirements for de-identification
of protected health information.

\(c\) Implementation specifications: re-identification.

\(d\) Standard: minimum necessary requirements.

\(e\) Standard: uses and disclosures of protected health information for
marketing.

\(f\) Standard: uses and disclosures for fundraising.

\(g\) Standard: uses and disclosures for underwriting and related
purposes.

\(h\) Standard: verification requirements

\' 164.520 Notice of privacy practices for protected health information.

\(a\) Standard: notice of privacy practices.

\(b\) Implementation specifications: content of notice.

\(c\) Implementation specifications: provision of notice.

\(d\) Implementation specifications: joint notice by separate covered
entities.

\(e\) Implementation specifications: documentation.

\' 164.522 Rights to request privacy protection for protected health
information.

\(a\) Standard: right of an individual to request restriction of uses
and disclosures.

\(b\) Standard: confidential communications requirements.

\' 164.524 Access of individuals to protected health information.

\(a\) Standard: access to protected health information.

\(b\) Implementation specifications: requests for access and timely
action.

\(c\) Implementation specifications: provision of access.

\(d\) Implementation specifications: denial of access.

\(e\) Implementation specification: documentation.

\' 164.526 Amendment of protected health information.

\(a\) Standard: right to amend.

\(b\) Implementation specifications: requests for amendment and timely
action.

\(c\) Implementation specifications: accepting the amendment.

\(d\) Implementation specifications: denying the amendment.

\(e\) Implementation specification: actions on notices of amendment.

\(f\) Implementation specification: documentation.

\' 164.528 Accounting of disclosures of protected health information.

\(a\) Standard: right to an accounting of disclosures of protected
health information.

\(b\) Implementation specifications: content of the accounting.

\(c\) Implementation specifications: provision of the accounting.

\(d\) Implementation specification: documentation.

\' 164.530 Administrative requirements.

\(a\) Standard: personnel designations.

\(b\) Standard: training.

\(c\) Standard: safeguards.

\(d\) Standard: complaints to the covered entity.

\(e\) Standard: sanctions

\(f\) Standard: mitigation.

\(g\) Standard: refraining from intimidating or retaliatory acts.

\(h\) Standard: waiver of rights.

\(i\) Standard: policies and procedures.

\(j\) Standard: documentation.

\(k\) Standard: group health plans.

\' 164.532 Transition provisions.

\(a\) Standard: effect of prior consents and authorizations.

\(b\) Implementation specification: requirements for retaining
effectiveness of prior consents and authorizations.

\' 164.534 Compliance dates for initial implementation of the privacy
standards.

\(a\) Health care providers.

\(b\) Health plans.

\(c\) Health care clearinghouses.

**Purpose of the Administrative Simplification Regulations**

This regulation has three major purposes: (1) to protect and enhance the
rights of consumers by providing them access to their health information
and controlling the inappropriate use of that information; (2) to
improve the quality of health care in the U.S. by restoring trust in the
health care system among consumers, health care professionals, and the
multitude of organizations and individuals committed to the delivery of
care; and (3) to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of health care
delivery by creating a national framework for health privacy protection
that builds on efforts by states, health systems, and individual
organizations and individuals.

This regulation is the second final regulation to be issued in the
package of rules mandated under Title II Subtitle F Section 261-264 of
the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA),
Public Law 104-191, titled AAdministrative Simplification.@ Congress
called for steps to improve Athe efficiency and effectiveness of the
health care system by encouraging the development of a health
information system through the establishment of standards and
requirements for the electronic transmission of certain health
information.@ To achieve that end, Congress required the Department to
promulgate a set of interlocking regulations establishing standards and
protections for health information systems. The first regulation in this
set, Standards for Electronic Transactions 65 FR 50312, was published on
August 17, 2000 (the ATransactions Rule@). This regulation establishing
Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information is
the second final rule in the package. A rule establishing a unique
identifier for employers to use in electronic health care transactions,
a rule establishing a unique identifier for providers for such
transactions, and a rule establishing standards for the security of
electronic information systems have been proposed. See 63 FR 25272 and
25320 (May 7, 1998); 63 FR 32784 (June 16, 1998); 63 FR 43242 (August
12, 1998). Still to be proposed are rules establishing a unique
identifier for health plans for electronic transactions, standards for
claims attachments, and standards for transferring among health plans
appropriate standard data elements needed for coordination of benefits.
(See section C, below, for a more detailed explanation of the statutory
mandate for these regulations.)

In enacting HIPAA, Congress recognized the fact that administrative
simplification cannot succeed if we do not also protect the privacy and
confidentiality of personal health information. The provision of
high-quality health care requires the exchange of personal,
often-sensitive information between an individual and a skilled
practitioner. Vital to that interaction is the patient=s ability to
trust that the information shared will be protected and kept
confidential. Yet many patients are concerned that their information is
not protected. Among the factors adding to this concern are the growth
of the number of organizations involved in the provision of care and the
processing of claims, the growing use of electronic information
technology, increased efforts to market health care and other products
to consumers, and the increasing ability to collect highly sensitive
information about a person=s current and future health status as a
result of advances in scientific research.

Rules requiring the protection of health privacy in the United States
have been enacted primarily by the states. While virtually every state
has enacted one or more laws to safeguard privacy, these laws vary
significantly from state to state and typically apply to only part of
the health care system. Many states have adopted laws that protect the
health information relating to certain health conditions such as mental
illness, communicable diseases, cancer, HIV/AIDS, and other stigmatized
conditions. An examination of state health privacy laws and regulations,
however, found that Astate laws, with a few notable exceptions, do not
extend comprehensive protections to people=s medical records.@ Many
state rules fail to provide such basic protections as ensuring a
patient=s legal right to see a copy of his or her medical record. See
Health Privacy Project, AThe State of Health Privacy: An Uneven
Terrain,@ Institute for Health Care Research and Policy, Georgetown
University (July 1999) (http://www.healthprivacy.org) (the AGeorgetown
Study@).

Until now, virtually no federal rules existed to protect the privacy of
health information and guarantee patient access to such information.
This final rule establishes, for the first time, a set of basic national
privacy standards and fair information practices that provides all
Americans with a basic level of protection and peace of mind that is
essential to their full participation in their care. The rule sets a
floor of ground rules for health care providers, health plans, and
health care clearinghouses to follow, in order to protect patients and
encourage them to seek needed care. The rule seeks to balance the needs
of the individual with the needs of the society. It creates a framework
of protection that can be strengthened by both the federal government
and by states as health information systems continue to evolve.

**Need for a National Health Privacy Framework**

***The Importance of Privacy***

Privacy is a fundamental right. As such, it must be viewed differently
than any ordinary economic good. The costs and benefits of a regulation
must, of course, be considered as a means of identifying and weighing
options. At the same time, it is important not to lose sight of the
inherent meaning of privacy: it speaks to our individual and collective
freedom.

A right to privacy in personal information has historically found
expression in American law. All fifty states today recognize in tort law
a common law or statutory right to privacy. Many states specifically
provide a remedy for public revelation of private facts. Some states,
such as California and Tennessee, have a right to privacy as a matter of
state constitutional law. The multiple historical sources for legal
rights to privacy are traced in many places, including Chapter 13 of
Alan Westin\'s *Privacy and Freedom* and in Ellen Alderman & Caroline
Kennedy, *The Right to Privacy* (1995).

Throughout our nation=s history, we have placed the rights of the
individual at the forefront of our democracy. In the Declaration of
Independence, we asserted the Aunalienable right@ to Alife, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness.@ Many of the most basic protections in the
Constitution of the United States are imbued with an attempt to protect
individual privacy while balancing it against the larger social purposes
of the nation.

To take but one example, the Fourth Amendment to the United States
Constitution guarantees that \"the right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches
and seizures, shall not be violated.\" By referring to the need for
security of \"persons\" as well as \"papers and effects\" the Fourth
Amendment suggests enduring values in American law that relate to
privacy. The need for security of \"persons\" is consistent with
obtaining patient consent before performing invasive medical procedures.
The need for security in \"papers and effects\" underscores the
importance of protecting information about the person, contained in
sources such as personal diaries, medical records, or elsewhere. As is
generally true for the right of privacy in information, the right is not
absolute. The test instead is what constitutes an \"unreasonable\"
search of the papers and effects.

The United States Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional protection
of personal health information. In *Whalen v. Roe*, 429 U.S. 589 (1977),
the Court analyzed a New York statute that created a database of persons
who obtained drugs for which there was both a lawful and unlawful
market. The Court, in upholding the statute, recognized at least two
different kinds of interests within the constitutionally protected
\"zone of privacy.\" \"One is the individual interest in avoiding
disclosure of personal matters,\" such as this regulation principally
addresses. This interest in avoiding disclosure, discussed in *Whalen*
in the context of medical information, was found to be distinct from a
different line of cases concerning \"the interest in independence in
making certain kinds of important decisions.\"

Individuals\' right to privacy in information about themselves is not
absolute. It does not, for instance, prevent reporting of public health
information on communicable diseases or stop law enforcement from
getting information when due process has been observed. But many people
believe that individuals should have some right to control personal and
sensitive information about themselves. Among different sorts of
personal information, health information is among the most sensitive.
Many people believe that details about their physical self should not
generally be put on display for neighbors, employers, and government
officials to see. Informed consent laws place limits on the ability of
other persons to intrude physically on a person\'s body. Similar
concerns apply to intrusions on information about the person.

Moving beyond these facts of physical treatment, there is also
significant intrusion when records reveal details about a person\'s
mental state, such as during treatment for mental health. If, in Justice
Brandeis\' words, the \"right to be let alone\" means anything, then it
likely applies to having outsiders have access to one\'s intimate
thoughts, words, and emotions. In the recent case of *Jaffee v.
Redmond*, 116 S.Ct. 1923 (1996), the Supreme Court held that statements
made to a therapist during a counseling session were protected against
civil discovery under the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Court noted
that all fifty states have adopted some form of the
psychotherapist-patient privilege. In upholding the federal privilege,
the Supreme Court stated that it \"serves the public interest by
facilitating the appropriate treatment for individuals suffering the
effects of a mental or emotional problem. The mental health of our
citizenry, no less than its physical health, is a public good of
transcendent importance.\"

Many writers have urged a philosophical or common-sense right to privacy
in one\'s personal information. Examples include Alan Westin, *Privacy
and Freedom* (1967) and Janna Malamud Smith, *Private Matters: In
Defense of the Personal Life* (1997). These writings emphasize the link
between privacy and freedom and privacy and the \"personal life,\" or
the ability to develop one\'s own personality and self-expression.
Smith, for instance, states:

> The bottom line is clear. If we continually, gratuitously, reveal
> other people\'s privacies, we harm them and ourselves, we undermine
> the richness of the personal life, and we fuel a social atmosphere of
> mutual exploitation. Let me put it another way: Little in life is as
> precious as the freedom to say and do things with people you love that
> you would not say or do if someone else were present. And few
> experiences are as fundamental to liberty and autonomy as maintaining
> control over when, how, to whom, and where you disclose personal
> material. Id. at 240-241.

In 1890, Louis D. Brandeis and Samuel D. Warren defined the right to
privacy as Athe right to be let alone.@ See L. Brandeis, S. Warren, AThe
Right To Privacy,@ 4 Harv.L.Rev. 193. More than a century later, privacy
continues to play an important role in Americans= lives. In their book,
*The Right to Privacy,* (Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1995) Ellen Alderman
and Caroline Kennedy describe the importance of privacy in this way:

> Privacy covers many things. It protects the solitude necessary for
> creative thought. It allows us the independence that is part of
> raising a family. It protects our right to be secure in our own homes
> and possessions, assured that the government cannot come barging in.
> Privacy also encompasses our right to self-determination and to define
> who we are. Although we live in a world of noisy self-confession,
> privacy allows us to keep certain facts to ourselves if we so choose.
> The right to privacy, it seems, is what makes us civilized.

Or, as Cavoukian and Tapscott observed the right of privacy is: Athe
claim of individuals, groups, or institutions to determine for
themselves when, how, and to what extent information about them is
communicated.@ See A. Cavoukian, D. Tapscott, AWho Knows: Safeguarding
Your Privacy in a Networked World,@ Random House (1995).

***Increasing Public Concern About Loss of Privacy***

Today, it is virtually impossible for any person to be truly Alet
alone.@ The average American is inundated with requests for information
from potential employers, retail shops, telephone marketing firms,
electronic marketers, banks, insurance companies, hospitals, physicians,
health plans, and others. In a 1998 national survey, 88 percent of
consumers said they were Aconcerned@ by the amount of information being
requested, including 55 percent who said they were Avery concerned.@ See
Privacy and American Business*, 1998 Privacy Concerns & Consumer Choice
Survey* (http://www.pandab.org) These worries are not just theoretical.
Consumers who use the Internet to make purchases or request Afree@
information often are asked for personal and financial information.
Companies making such requests routinely promise to protect the
confidentiality of that information. Yet several firms have tried to
sell this information to other companies even after promising not to do
so.

Americans= concern about the privacy of their health information is part
of a broader anxiety about their lack of privacy in an array of areas. A
series of national public opinion polls conducted by Louis Harris &
Associates documents a rising level of public concern about privacy,
growing from 64 percent in 1978 to 82 percent in 1995. Over 80 percent
of persons surveyed in 1999 agreed with the statement that they had
\"lost all control over their personal information.\" See Harris
Equifax, *Health Information Privacy Study* (1993)
(http://www.epic.org/privacy/medical/polls.html). A Wall Street
Journal/ABC poll on September 16, 1999 asked Americans what concerned
them most in the coming century. ALoss of personal privacy@ was the
first or second concern of 29 percent of respondents. All other issues,
such a terrorism, world war, and global warming had scores of 23 percent
or less.

This growing concern stems from several trends, including the growing
use of interconnected electronic media for business and personal
activities, our increasing ability to know an individual=s genetic
make-up, and, in health care, the increasing complexity of the system.
Each of these trends brings the potential for tremendous benefits to
individuals and society generally. At the same time, each also brings
new potential for invasions of our privacy.

***Increasing Use of Interconnected Electronic Information Systems***

Until recently, health information was recorded and maintained on paper
and stored in the offices of community-based physicians, nurses,
hospitals, and other health care professionals and institutions. In some
ways, this imperfect system of record keeping created a false sense of
privacy among patients, providers, and others. Patients= health
information has never remained completely confidential. Until recently,
however, a breach of confidentiality involved a physical exchange of
paper records or a verbal exchange of information. Today, however, more
and more health care providers, plans, and others are utilizing
electronic means of storing and transmitting health information. In
1996, the health care industry invested an estimated \$10 billion to
\$15 billion on information technology. See National Research Council,
Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, AFor the Record:
Protecting Electronic Health Information,@ (1997). The electronic
information revolution is transforming the recording of health
information so that the disclosure of information may require only a
push of a button. In a matter of seconds, a person=s most profoundly
private information can be shared with hundreds, thousands, even
millions of individuals and organizations at a time. While the majority
of medical records still are in paper form, information from those
records is often copied and transmitted through electronic means.

This ease of information collection, organization, retention, and
exchange made possible by the advances in computer and other electronic
technology affords many benefits to individuals and to the health care
industry. Use of electronic information has helped to speed the delivery
of effective care and the processing of billions of dollars worth of
health care claims. Greater use of electronic data has also increased
our ability to identify and treat those who are at risk for disease,
conduct vital research, detect fraud and abuse, and measure and improve
the quality of care delivered in the U.S. The National Research Council
recently reported that Athe Internet has great potential to improve
Americans= health by enhancing communications and improving access to
information for care providers, patients, health plan administrators,
public health officials, biomedical researchers, and other health
professionals.@ See ANetworking Health: Prescriptions for the Internet,@
National Academy of Sciences (2000).

At the same time, these advances have reduced or eliminated many of the
financial and logistical obstacles that previously served to protect the
confidentiality of health information and the privacy interests of
individuals. And they have made our information available to many more
people. The shift from paper to electronic records, with the
accompanying greater flows of sensitive health information, thus
strengthens the arguments for giving legal protection to the right to
privacy in health information. In an earlier period where it was far
more expensive to access and use medical records, the risk of harm to
individuals was relatively low. In the potential near future, when
technology makes it almost free to send lifetime medical records over
the Internet, the risks may grow rapidly. It may become cost-effective,
for instance, for companies to offer services that allow purchasers to
obtain details of a person\'s physical and mental treatments. In
addition to legitimate possible uses for such services, malicious or
inquisitive persons may download medical records for purposes ranging
from identity theft to embarrassment to prurient interest in the life of
a celebrity or neighbor. The comments to the proposed privacy rule
indicate that many persons believe that they have a right to live in
society without having these details of their lives laid open to unknown
and possibly hostile eyes. These technological changes, in short, may
provide a reason for institutionalizing privacy protections in
situations where the risk of harm did not previously justify writing
such protections into law.

The growing level of trepidation about privacy in general, noted above,
has tracked the rise in electronic information technology. Americans
have embraced the use of the Internet and other forms of electronic
information as a way to provide greater access to information, save
time, and save money. For example, 60 percent of Americans surveyed in
1999 reported that they have a computer in their home; 82 percent
reported that they have used a computer; 64 percent say they have used
the Internet; and 58 percent have sent an e-mail. Among those who are
under the age of 60, these percentages are even higher. See ANational
Survey of Adults on Technology,@ Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation
(February, 2000). But 59 percent of Americans reported that they worry
that an unauthorized person will gain access to their information. A
recent survey suggests that 75 percent of consumers seeking health
information on the Internet are concerned or very concerned about the
health sites they visit sharing their personal health information with a
third party without their permission. Ethics Survey of Consumer
Attitudes about Health Web Sites, California Health Care Foundation, at
3 (January, 2000).

Unless public fears are allayed, we will be unable to obtain the full
benefits of electronic technologies. The absence of national standards
for the confidentiality of health information has made the health care
industry and the population in general uncomfortable about this
primarily financially-driven expansion in the use of electronic data.
Many plans, providers, and clearinghouses have taken steps to safeguard
the privacy of individually identifiable health information. Yet they
must currently rely on a patchwork of State laws and regulations that
are incomplete and, at times, inconsistent. States have, to varying
degrees, attempted to enhance confidentiality by establishing laws
governing at least some aspects of medical record privacy. This
approach, though a step in the right direction, is inadequate. These
laws fail to provide a consistent or comprehensive legal foundation of
health information privacy. For example, there is considerable variation
among the states in the type of information protected and the scope of
the protections provided. See Georgetown Study, at Executive Summary;
Lawrence O. Gostin, Zita Lazzarrini, Kathleen M. Flaherty, *Legislative
Survey of State Confidentiality Laws, with Specific Emphasis on HIV and
Immunization*, Report to Centers for Disease Control, Council of State
and Territorial Epidemiologists, and Task Force for Child Survival and
Development, Carter Presidential Center (1996) (Gostin Study).

Moreover, electronic health data is becoming increasingly Anational@; as
more information becomes available in electronic form, it can have value
far beyond the immediate community where the patient resides. Neither
private action nor state laws provide a sufficiently comprehensive and
rigorous legal structure to allay public concerns, protect the right to
privacy, and correct the market failures caused by the absence of
privacy protections (see discussion below of market failure under
section V.C). Hence, a national policy with consistent rules is
necessary to encourage the increased and proper use of electronic
information while also protecting the very real needs of patients to
safeguard their privacy.

***Advances in Genetic Sciences***

Recently, scientists completed nearly a decade of work unlocking the
mysteries of the human genome, creating tremendous new opportunities to
identify and prevent many of the leading causes of death and disability
in this country and around the world. Yet the absence of privacy
protections for health information endanger these efforts by creating a
barrier of distrust and suspicion among consumers. A 1995 national poll
found that more than 85 percent of those surveyed were either Avery
concerned@ or Asomewhat concerned@ that insurers and employers might
gain access to and use genetic information. See Harris Poll, 1995 #34.
Sixty-three percent of the 1,000 participants in a 1997 national survey
said they would not take genetic tests if insurers and employers could
gain access to the results. See AGenetic Information and the Workplace,@
Department of Labor, Department of Health and Human Services, Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, January 20, 1998. AIn genetic testing
studies at the National Institutes of Health, thirty-two percent of
eligible people who were offered a test for breast cancer risk declined
to take it, citing concerns about loss of privacy and the potential for
discrimination in health insurance.@ Sen. Leahy=s comments for March 10,
1999 Introduction of the Medical Information Privacy and Security Act.

***The Changing Health Care System***

The number of entities who are maintaining and transmitting individually
identifiable health information has increased significantly over the
last 10 years. In addition, the rapid growth of integrated health care
delivery systems requires greater use of integrated health information
systems. The health care industry has been transformed from one that
relied primarily on one-on-one interactions between patients and
clinicians to a system of integrated health care delivery networks and
managed care providers. Such a system requires the processing and
collection of information about patients and plan enrollees (for
example, in claims files or enrollment records), resulting in the
creation of databases that can be easily transmitted. This dramatic
change in the practice of medicine brings with it important prospects
for the improvement of the quality of care and reducing the cost of that
care. It also, however, means that increasing numbers of people have
access to health information. And, as health plan functions are
increasingly outsourced, a growing number of organizations not
affiliated with our physicians or health plans also have access to
health information.

According to the American Health Information Management Association
(AHIMA), an average of 150 people Afrom nursing staff to x-ray
technicians, to billing clerks@ have access to a patient=s medical
records during the course of a typical hospitalization. While many of
these individuals have a legitimate need to see all or part of a
patient=s records, no laws govern who those people are, what information
they are able to see, and what they are and are not allowed to do with
that information once they have access to it. According to the National
Research Council, individually identifiable health information
frequently is shared with:

\$ Consulting physicians;

\$ Managed care organizations;

\$ Health insurance companies

\$ Life insurance companies;

\$ Self-insured employers;

\$ Pharmacies;

\$ Pharmacy benefit managers;

\$ Clinical laboratories;

\$ Accrediting organizations;

\$ State and Federal statistical agencies; and

\$ Medical information bureaus.

Much of this sharing of information is done without the knowledge of the
patient involved. While many of these functions are important for smooth
functioning of the health care system, there are no rules governing how
that information is used by secondary and tertiary users. For example, a
pharmacy benefit manager could receive information to determine whether
an insurance plan or HMO should cover a prescription, but then use the
information to market other products to the same patient. Similarly,
many of us obtain health insurance coverage though our employer and, in
some instances, the employer itself acts as the insurer. In these cases,
the employer will obtain identifiable health information about its
employees as part of the legitimate health insurance functions such as
claims processing, quality improvement, and fraud detection activities.
At the same time, there is no comprehensive protection prohibiting the
employer from using that information to make decisions about promotions
or job retention.

Public concerns reflect these developments. A 1993 Lou Harris poll found
that 75 percent of those surveyed worry that medical information from a
computerized national health information system will be used for many
non-health reasons, and 38 percent are very concerned. This poll, taken
during the health reform efforts of 1993, showed that 85 percent of
respondents believed that protecting the confidentiality of medical
records is Aabsolutely essential@ or Avery essential@ in health care
reform. An ACLU Poll in 1994 also found that 75 percent of those
surveyed are concerned a Agreat deal@ or a Afair amount@= about
insurance companies putting medical information about them into a
computer information bank to which others have access. Harris Equifax,
Health Information Privacy Study 2,33 (1993)
http://www.epic.org/privacy/medical/poll.html. Another survey found that
35 percent of Fortune 500 companies look at people=s medical records
before making hiring and promotion decisions. Starr, Paul. AHealth and
the Right to Privacy,@ American Journal of Law and Medicine, 1999. Vol
25, pp. 193-201.

Concerns about the lack of attention to information privacy in the
health care industry are not merely theoretical. In the absence of a
national legal framework of health privacy protections, consumers are
increasingly vulnerable to the exposure of their personal health
information. Disclosure of individually identifiable information can
occur deliberately or accidentally and can occur within an organization
or be the result of an external breach of security. Examples of recent
privacy breaches include:

\$ A Michigan-based health system accidentally posted the medical
records of thousands of patients on the Internet (The Ann Arbor News,
February 10, 1999).

\$ A Utah-based pharmaceutical benefits management firm used patient
data to solicit business for its owner, a drug store (Kiplingers,
February 2000).

\$ An employee of the Tampa, Florida, health department took a computer
disk containing the names of 4,000 people who had tested positive for
HIV, the virus that causes AIDS (USA Today, October 10, 1996).

\$ The health insurance claims forms of thousands of patients blew out
of a truck on its way to a recycling center in East Hartford,
Connecticut (The Hartford Courant, May 14, 1999).

\$ A patient in a Boston-area hospital discovered that her medical
record had been read by more than 200 of the hospital=s employees (The
Boston Globe, August 1, 2000).

\$ A Nevada woman who purchased a used computer discovered that the
computer still contained the prescription records of the customers of
the pharmacy that had previously owned the computer. The pharmacy data
base included names, addresses, social security numbers, and a list of
all the medicines the customers had purchased. (The New York Times,
April 4, 1997 and April 12, 1997).

\$ A speculator bid \$4000 for the patient records of a family practice
in South Carolina. Among the businessman=s uses of the purchased records
was selling them back to the former patients. (New York Times, August
14, 1991).

\$ In 1993, the Boston Globe reported that Johnson and Johnson marketed
a list of 5 million names and addresses of elderly incontinent women.
(ACLU Legislative Update, April 1998).

\$ A few weeks after an Orlando woman had her doctor perform some
routine tests, she received a letter from a drug company promoting a
treatment for her high cholesterol. (Orlando Sentinel, November 30,
1997).

No matter how or why a disclosure of personal information is made, the
harm to the individual is the same. In the face of industry evolution,
the potential benefits of our changing health care system, and the real
risks and occurrences of harm, protection of privacy must be built into
the routine operations of our health care system.

***Privacy is Necessary to Secure Effective, High Quality Health Care***

While privacy is one of the key values on which our society is built, it
is more than an end in itself. It is also necessary for the effective
delivery of health care, both to individuals and to populations. The
market failures caused by the lack of effective privacy protections for
health information are discussed below (see section V.C below). Here, we
discuss how privacy is a necessary foundation for delivery of high
quality health care. In short, the entire health care system is built
upon the willingness of individuals to share the most intimate details
of their lives with their health care providers.

The need for privacy of health information, in particular, has long been
recognized as critical to the delivery of needed medical care. More than
anything else, the relationship between a patient and a clinician is
based on trust. The clinician must trust the patient to give full and
truthful information about their health, symptoms, and medical history.
The patient must trust the clinician to use that information to improve
his or her health and to respect the need to keep such information
private. In order to receive accurate and reliable diagnosis and
treatment, patients must provide health care professionals with
accurate, detailed information about their personal health, behavior,
and other aspects of their lives. The provision of health information
assists in the diagnosis of an illness or condition, in the development
of a treatment plan, and in the evaluation of the effectiveness of that
treatment. In the absence of full and accurate information, there is a
serious risk that the treatment plan will be inappropriate to the
patient=s situation.

Patients also benefit from the disclosure of such information to the
health plans that pay for and can help them gain access to needed care.
Health plans and health care clearinghouses rely on the provision of
such information to accurately and promptly process claims for payment
and for other administrative functions that directly affect a patient=s
ability to receive needed care, the quality of that care, and the
efficiency with which it is delivered.

Accurate medical records assist communities in identifying troubling
public health trends and in evaluating the effectiveness of various
public health efforts. Accurate information helps public and private
payers make correct payments for care received and lower costs by
identifying fraud. Accurate information provides scientists with data
they need to conduct research. We cannot improve the quality of health
care without information about which treatments work, and which do not.

Individuals cannot be expected to share the most intimate details of
their lives unless they have confidence that such information will not
be used or shared inappropriately. Privacy violations reduce consumers=
trust in the health care system and institutions that serve them. Such a
loss of faith can impede the quality of the health care they receive,
and can harm the financial health of health care institutions.

Patients who are worried about the possible misuse of their information
often take steps to protect their privacy. Recent studies show that a
person who does not believe his privacy will be protected is much less
likely to participate fully in the diagnosis and treatment of his
medical condition. A national survey conducted in January 1999 found
that one in five Americans believe their health information is being
used inappropriately. See California HealthCare Foundation, ANational
Survey: Confidentiality of Medical Records@(January, 1999)
(http://www.chcf.org). More troubling is the fact that one in six
Americans reported that they have taken some sort of evasive action to
avoid the inappropriate use of their information by providing inaccurate
information to a health care provider, changing physicians, or avoiding
care altogether. Similarly, in its comments on our proposed rule, the
Association of American Physicians and Surgeons reported 78 percent of
its members reported withholding information from a patient=s record due
to privacy concerns and another 87 percent reported having had a patient
request to withhold information from their records. For an example of
this phenomenon in a particular demographic group, see Drs. Bearman,
Ford, and Moody, AForegone Health Care among Adolescents,@ *JAMA*, vol.
282, no. 23 (999); Cheng, T.L., et al., AConfidentiality in Health Care:
A Survey of Knowledge, Perceptions, and Attitudes among High School
Students,@ *JAMA*, vol. 269, no. 11 (1993), at 1404-1407.

The absence of strong national standards for medical privacy has
widespread consequences. Health care professionals who lose the trust of
their patients cannot deliver high-quality care. In 1999, a coalition of
organizations representing various stakeholders including health plans,
physicians, nurses, employers, disability and mental health advocates,
accreditation organizations as well as experts in public health, medical
ethics, information systems, and health policy adopted a set of Abest
principles@ for health care privacy that are consistent with the
standards we lay out here. (See the Health Privacy Working Group, ABest
Principles for Health Privacy@ (July, 1999) (Best Principles Study). The
Best Principles Study states that -

> To protect their privacy and avoid embarrassment, stigma, and
> discrimination, some people withhold information from their health
> care providers, provide inaccurate information, doctor-hop to avoid a
> consolidated medical record, pay out-of-pocket for care that is
> covered by insurance, and - in some cases - avoid care altogether.

Best Principles Study, at 9. In their comments on our proposed rule,
numerous organizations representing health plans, health providers,
employers, and others acknowledged the value of a set of national
privacy standards to the efficient operation of their practices and
businesses.

***Breaches of Health Privacy Harm More than Our Health Status***

A breach of a person=s health privacy can have significant implications
well beyond the physical health of that person, including the loss of a
job, alienation of family and friends, the loss of health insurance, and
public humiliation. For example:

\$ A banker who also sat on a county health board gained access to
patients= records and identified several people with cancer and called
in their mortgages. See the National Law Journal, May 30, 1994.

\$ A physician was diagnosed with AIDS at the hospital in which he
practiced medicine. His surgical privileges were suspended. See *Estate
of Behringer v. Medical Center at Princeton,* 249 N.J. Super. 597.

\$ A candidate for Congress nearly saw her campaign derailed when
newspapers published the fact that she had sought psychiatric treatment
after a suicide attempt. See *New York Times*, October 10, 1992, Section
1, page 25.

\$ A 30-year FBI veteran was put on administrative leave when, without
his permission, his pharmacy released information about his treatment
for depression. (Los Angeles Times, September 1, 1998)

Consumer Reports found that 40 percent of insurers disclose personal
health information to lenders, employers, or marketers without customer
permission. AWho=s reading your Medical Records,@ Consumer Reports,
October 1994, at 628, paraphrasing Sweeny, Latanya, AWeaving Technology
and Policy Together to Maintain Confidentiality,@ The Journal Of Law
Medicine and Ethics (Summer & Fall 1997) Vol. 25, Numbers 2,3.

The answer to these concerns is not for consumers to withdraw from
society and the health care system, but for society to establish a clear
national legal framework for privacy. By spelling out what is and what
is not an allowable use of a person=s identifiable health information,
such standards can help to restore and preserve trust in the health care
system and the individuals and institutions that comprise that system.
As medical historian Paul Starr wrote: APatients have a strong interest
in preserving the privacy of their personal health information but they
also have an interest in medical research and other efforts by health
care organizations to improve the medical care they receive. As members
of the wider community, they have an interest in public health measures
that require the collection of personal data.@ (P. Starr, AHealth and
the Right to Privacy,@ American Journal of Law & Medicine, 25, nos. 2&3
(1999) 193-201). The task of society and its government is to create a
balance in which the individual=s needs and rights are balanced against
the needs and rights of society as a whole.

National standards for medical privacy must recognize the sometimes
competing goals of improving individual and public health, advancing
scientific knowledge, enforcing the laws of the land, and processing and
paying claims for health care services. This need for balance has been
recognized by many of the experts in this field. Cavoukian and Tapscott
described it this way: AAn individual=s right to privacy may conflict
with the collective rights of the public. . .We do not suggest that
privacy is an absolute right that reigns supreme over all other rights.
It does not. However, the case for privacy will depend on a number of
factors that can influence the balance B the level of harm to the
individual involved versus the needs of the public.@

***The Federal Response***

There have been numerous federal initiatives aimed at protecting the
privacy of especially sensitive personal information over the past
several years \-- and several decades. While the rules below are likely
the largest single federal initiative to protect privacy, they are by no
means alone in the field. Rather, the rules arrive in the context of
recent legislative activity to grapple with advances in technology, in
addition to an already established body of law granting federal
protections for personal privacy.

In 1965, the House of Representatives created a Special Subcommittee on
Invasion of Privacy. In 1973, this Department=s predecessor agency, the
Department of Health, Education and Welfare issued *The Code of Fair
Information Practice Principles* establishing an important baseline for
information privacy in the U.S. These principles formed the basis for
the federal Privacy Act of 1974, which regulates the government=s use of
personal information by limiting the disclosure of
personally-identifiable information, allows consumers access to
information about them, requires federal agencies to specify the
purposes for collecting personal information, and provides civil and
criminal penalties for misuse of information.

In the last several years, with the rapid expansion in electronic
technology \-- and accompanying concerns about individual privacy \--
laws, regulations, and legislative proposals have been developed in
areas ranging from financial privacy to genetic privacy to the
safeguarding of children on-line. For example, the Children=s Online
Privacy Protection Act was enacted in 1998, providing protection for
children when interacting at web-sites. In February, 2000, President
Clinton signed Executive Order 13145, banning the use of genetic
information in federal hiring and promotion decisions. The landmark
financial modernization bill, signed by the President in November, 1999,
likewise contained financial privacy protections for consumers. There
also has been recent legislative activity on establishing legal
safeguards for the privacy of individuals= Social Security numbers, and
calls for regulation of on-line privacy in general.

These most recent laws, regulations, and legislative proposals come
against the backdrop of decades of privacy-enhancing statutes passed at
the federal level to enact safeguards in fields ranging from government
data files to video rental records. In the 1970s, individual privacy was
paramount in the passage of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (1970), the
Privacy Act (1974), the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
(1974), and the Right to Financial Privacy Act (1978). These key laws
were followed in the next decade by another series of statutes,
including the Privacy Protection Act (1980), the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act (1986), the Video Privacy Protection Act
(1988), and the Employee Polygraph Protection Act (1988). In the last
ten years, Congress and the President have passed additional legal
privacy protection through, among others, the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (1991), the Driver=s Privacy Protection Act (1994), the
Telecommunications Act (1996), the Children\'s Online Privacy Protection
Act (1998), the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act (1998), and
Title V of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (1999) governing financial
privacy.

In 1997, a Presidential advisory commission, the Advisory Commission on
Consumer Protection and Quality in the Health Care Industry, recognized
the need for patient privacy protection in its recommendations for a
Consumer Bill of Rights and Responsibilities (November 1997). In 1997,
Congress enacted the Balanced Budget Act (Public Law 105-34), which
added language to the Social Security Act (18 U.S.C. 1852) to require
Medicare+Choice organizations to establish safeguards for the privacy of
individually identifiable patient information. Similarly, the Veterans
Benefits section of the U.S. Code provides for confidentiality of
medical records in cases involving drug abuse, alcoholism or alcohol
abuse, HIV infection, or sickle cell anemia (38 U.S.C. 7332).

As described in more detail in the next section, Congress recognized the
importance of protecting the privacy of health information by enacting
the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. The Act
called on Congress to enact a medical privacy statute and asked the
Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide Congress with
recommendations for protecting the confidentiality of health care
information. The Congress further recognized the importance of such
standards by providing the Secretary with authority to promulgate
regulations on health care privacy in the event that lawmakers were
unable to act within the allotted three years.

Finally, it also is important for the U.S. to join the rest of the
developed world in establishing basic medical privacy protections. In
1995, the European Union (EU) adopted a Data Privacy Directive requiring
its 15 member states to adopt consistent privacy laws by October 1998.
The EU urged all other nations to do the same or face the potential loss
of access to information from EU countries.

**Statutory Background**

***History of the Privacy Component of the Administrative Simplification
Provisions***

The Congress addressed the opportunities and challenges presented by the
rapid evolution of health information systems in the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), Public Law 104-191,
which was enacted on August 21, 1996. Sections 261 through 264 of HIPAA
are known as the Administrative Simplification provisions. The major
part of these Administrative Simplification provisions are found at
section 262 of HIPAA, which enacted a new part C of title XI of the
Social Security Act (hereinafter we refer to the Social Security Act as
the AAct@ and we refer to all other laws cited in this document by their
names).

In section 262, Congress primarily sought to facilitate the efficiencies
and cost savings for the health care industry that the increasing use of
electronic technology affords. Thus, section 262 directs HHS to issue
standards to facilitate the electronic exchange of information with
respect to financial and administrative transactions carried out by
health plans, health care clearinghouses, and health care providers who
transmit information electronically in connection with such
transactions.

At the same time, Congress recognized the challenges to the
confidentiality of health information presented by the increasing
complexity of the health care industry, and by advances in health
information systems technology and communications. Section 262 thus also
directs HHS to develop standards to protect the security, including the
confidentiality and integrity, of health information.

Congress has long recognized the need for protection of health
information privacy generally, as well as the privacy implications of
electronic data interchange and the increased ease of transmitting and
sharing individually identifiable health information. Congress has been
working on broad health privacy legislation for many years and, as
evidenced by the self-imposed three year deadline included in the HIPAA,
discussed below, believes it can and should enact such legislation. A
significant portion of the first Administrative Simplification section
debated on the floor of the Senate in 1994 (as part of the Health
Security Act) consisted of privacy provisions. In the version of the
HIPAA passed by the House of Representatives in 1996, the requirement
for the issuance of privacy standards was located in the same section of
the bill (section 1173) as the requirements for issuance of the other
HIPAA Administrative Simplification standards. In conference, the
requirement for privacy standards was moved to a separate section in the
same part of HIPAA, section 264, so that Congress could link the Privacy
standards to Congressional action.

Section 264(b) requires the Secretary of HHS to develop and submit to
the Congress recommendations for:

\$ The rights that an individual who is a subject of individually
identifiable health information should have.

\$ The procedures that should be established for the exercise of such
rights.

\$ The uses and disclosures of such information that should be
authorized or required.

The Secretary=s Recommendations were submitted to the Congress on
September 11, 1997. Section 264(c)(1) provides that:

> If legislation governing standards with respect to the privacy of
> individually identifiable health information transmitted in connection
> with the transactions described in section 1173(a) of the Social
> Security Act (as added by section 262) is not enacted by \[August 21,
> 1999\], the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall promulgate
> final regulations containing such standards not later than \[February
> 21, 2000\]. Such regulations shall address at least the subjects
> described in subsection (b).

As the Congress did not enact legislation regarding the privacy of
individually identifiable health information prior to August 21, 1999,
HHS published proposed rules setting forth such standards on November 3,
1999, 64 FR 59918, and is now publishing the mandated final regulation.

These privacy standards have been, and continue to be, an integral part
of the suite of Administrative Simplification standards intended to
simplify and improve the efficiency of the administration of our health
care system.

***The Administrative Simplification Provisions, and Regulatory Actions
To Date***

Part C of title XI consists of sections 1171 through 1179 of the Act.
These sections define various terms and impose several requirements on
HHS, health plans, health care clearinghouses, and health care providers
who conduct the identified transactions electronically.

The first section, section 1171 of the Act, establishes definitions for
purposes of part C of title XI for the following terms: code set, health
care clearinghouse, health care provider, health information, health
plan, individually identifiable health information, standard, and
standard setting organization.

Section 1172 of the Act makes the standard adopted under part C
applicable to: (1) health plans, (2) health care clearinghouses, and (3)
health care providers who transmit health information in electronic form
in connection with transactions referred to in section 1173(a)(1) of the
Act (hereinafter referred to as the Acovered entities@). Section 1172
also contains procedural requirements concerning the adoption of
standards, including the role of standard setting organizations and
required consultations, summarized in subsection F and section VI,
below.

Section 1173 of the Act requires the Secretary to adopt standards for
transactions, and data elements for such transactions, to enable health
information to be exchanged electronically. Section 1173(a)(1) describes
the transactions to be promulgated, which include the nine transactions
listed in section 1173(a)(2) and other transactions determined
appropriate by the Secretary. The remainder of section 1173 sets out
requirements for the specific standards the Secretary is to adopt:
unique health identifiers, code sets, security standards, electronic
signatures, and transfer of information among health plans. Of
particular relevance to this proposed rule is section 1173(d), the
security standard provision. The security standard authority applies to
both the transmission and the maintenance of health information, and
requires the entities described in section 1172(a) to maintain
reasonable and appropriate safeguards to ensure the integrity and
confidentiality of the information, protect against reasonably
anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of the
information or unauthorized uses or disclosures of the information, and
to ensure compliance with part C by the entity=s officers and employees.

In section 1174 of the Act, the Secretary is required to establish
standards for all of the above transactions, except claims attachments,
by February 21, 1998. The statutory deadline for the claims attachment
standard is February 21, 1999.

As noted above, a proposed rule for most of the transactions was
published on May 7, 1998, and the final Transactions Rule was
promulgated on August 17, 2000. The delay was caused by the deliberate
consensus building process, working with industry, and the large number
of comments received (about 17,000). In addition, in a series of Notices
of Proposed Rulemakings, HHS published other proposed standards, as
described above. Each of these steps was taken in concert with the
affected professions and industries, to ensure rapid adoption and
compliance.

Generally, after a standard is established, it may not be changed during
the first year after adoption except for changes that are necessary to
permit compliance with the standard. Modifications to any of these
standards may be made after the first year, but not more frequently than
once every 12 months. The Secretary also must ensure that procedures
exist for the routine maintenance, testing, enhancement, and expansion
of code sets and that there are crosswalks from prior versions.

Section 1175 of the Act prohibits health plans from refusing to process,
or from delaying processing of, a transaction that is presented in
standard format. It also establishes a timetable for compliance: each
person to whom a standard or implementation specification applies is
required to comply with the standard within 24 months (or 36 months for
small health plans) of its adoption. A health plan or other entity may,
of course, comply voluntarily before the effective date. The section
also provides that compliance with modifications to standards or
implementation specifications must be accomplished by a date designated
by the Secretary, which date may not be earlier than 180 days from the
notice of change.

Section 1176 of the Act establishes civil monetary penalties for
violation of the provisions in part C of title XI of the Act, subject to
several limitations. Penalties may not be more than \$100 per person per
violation and not more than \$25,000 per person for violations of a
single standard for a calendar year. The procedural provisions of
section 1128A of the Act apply to actions taken to obtain civil monetary
penalties under this section.

Section 1177 establishes penalties for any person that knowingly uses a
unique health identifier, or obtains or discloses individually
identifiable health information in violation of the part. The penalties
include: (1) a fine of not more than \$50,000 and/or imprisonment of not
more than 1 year; (2) if the offense is Aunder false pretenses,@ a fine
of not more than \$100,000 and/or imprisonment of not more than 5 years;
and (3) if the offense is with intent to sell, transfer, or use
individually identifiable health information for commercial advantage,
personal gain, or malicious harm, a fine of not more than \$250,000
and/or imprisonment of not more than 10 years.

Under section 1178 of the Act, the requirements of part C, as well as
any standards or implementation specifications adopted thereunder,
preempt contrary state law. There are three exceptions to this general
rule of preemption: state laws that the Secretary determines are
necessary for certain purposes set forth in the statute; state laws that
the Secretary determines address controlled substances; and state laws
relating to the privacy of individually identifiable health information
that are contrary to and more stringent than the federal requirements.
There also are certain areas of state law (generally relating to public
health and oversight of health plans) that are explicitly carved out of
the general rule of preemption and addressed separately.

Section 1179 of the Act makes the above provisions inapplicable to
financial institutions (as defined by section 1101 of the Right to
Financial Privacy Act of 1978) or anyone acting on behalf of a financial
institution when Aauthorizing, processing, clearing, settling, billing,
transferring, reconciling, or collecting payments for a financial
institution.@

Finally, as explained above, section 264 requires the Secretary to issue
standards with respect to the privacy of individually identifiable
health information. Section 264 also contains a preemption provision
that provides that contrary provisions of state laws that are more
stringent than the federal standards, requirements, or implementation
specifications will not be preempted.

**Our Approach to This Regulation**

***Balance***

A number of facts informed our approach to this regulation. Determining
the best approach to protecting privacy depends on where we start, both
with respect to existing legal expectations and also with respect to the
expectations of individuals, health care providers, payers and other
stakeholders. From the comments we received on the proposed rule, and
from the extensive fact finding in which we engaged, a confused picture
developed. We learned that stakeholders in the system have very
different ideas about the extent and nature of the privacy protections
that exist today, and very different ideas about appropriate uses of
health information. This leads us to seek to balance the views of the
different stakeholders, weighing the varying interests on each
particular issue with a view to creating balance in the regulation as a
whole.

For example, we received hundreds of comments explaining the legitimacy
of various uses and disclosure of health information. We agree that many
uses and disclosures of health information are Alegitimate,@ but that is
not the end of the inquiry. Neither privacy, nor the important social
goals described by the commenters, are absolutes. In this regulation, we
are asking health providers and institutions to add privacy into the
balance, and we are asking individuals to add social goals into the
balance.

The vast difference among regulated entities also informed our approach
in significant ways. This regulation applies to solo practitioners, and
multi-national health plans. It applies to pharmacies and information
clearinghouses. These entities differ not only in the nature and scope
of their businesses, but also in the degree of sophistication of their
information systems and information needs. We therefore designed the
core requirements of this regulation to be flexible and Ascalable.@ This
is reflected throughout the rule, particularly in the implementation
specifications for making the \>minimum necessary= uses and disclosures,
and in the administrative policies and procedures requirements.

We also are informed by the rapid evolution in industry organization and
practice. Our goal is to enhance privacy protections in ways that do not
impede this evolution. For example, we received many comments asking us
to assign a status under this regulation based on a label or title. For
example, many commenters asked whether Adisease management@ is a Ahealth
care operation,@ or whether a Apharmacy benefits manager@ is a covered
entity. From the comments and our fact-finding, however, we learned that
these terms do not have consistent meanings today; rather, they
encompass diverse activities and information practices. Further, the
statutory definitions of key terms such as \>health care provider= and
\>health care clearinghouse= describe functions, not specific types of
persons or entities. To respect both the Congressional approach and
industry evolution, we design the rule to follow activities and
functions, not titles and labels.

Similarly, many comments asked whether a particular person would be a
Abusiness associate@ under the rule, based on the nature of the person=s
business. Whether a business associate arrangement must exist under the
rule, however, depends on the relationship between the entities and the
services being performed, not on the type of persons or companies
involved.

Our approach is also significantly informed by the limited jurisdiction
conferred by HIPAA. In large part, we have the authority to regulate
those who create and disclose health information, but not many key
stakeholders who receive that health information from a covered entity.
Again, this led us to look to the balance between the burden on covered
entities and need to protect privacy in determining our approach to such
disclosures. In some instances, we approach this dilemma by requiring
covered entities to obtain a representation or documentation of purpose
from the person requesting information. While there would be advantages
to legislation regulating such third persons directly, we cannot justify
abandoning any effort to enhance privacy.

It also became clear from the comments and our fact-finding that we have
expectations as a society that conflict with individuals= views about
the privacy of health information. We expect the health care industry to
develop treatment protocols for the delivery of high quality health
care. We expect insurers and the government to reduce fraud in the
health care system. We expect to be protected from epidemics, and we
expect medical research to produce miracles. We expect the police to
apprehend suspects, and we expect to pay for our care by credit card.
All of these activities involve disclosure of health information to
someone other than our physician.

While most commenters support the concept of health privacy in general,
many go on to describe activities that depend on the disclosure of
health information and urge us to protect those information flows.
Section III, in which we respond to the comments, describes our approach
to balancing these conflicting expectations.

Finally, we note that many commenters were concerned that this
regulation would lessen current privacy protections. It is important to
understand this regulation as a new federal floor of privacy protections
that does not disturb more protective rules or practices. Nor do we
intend this regulation to describe a set of a Abest practices.@ Rather,
this regulation describes a set of basic consumer protections and a
series of regulatory permissions for use and disclosure of health
information. The protections are a mandatory floor, which other
governments and any covered entity may exceed. The permissions are just
that, permissive \-- the only disclosures of health information required
under this rule are to the individual who is the subject of the
information or to the Secretary for enforcement of this rule. We expect
covered entities to rely on their professional ethics and use their own
best judgements in deciding which of these permissions they will use.

***Combining Workability with New Protections***

This rule establishes national minimum standards to protect the privacy
of individually identifiable health information in prescribed settings.
The standards address the many varied uses and disclosures of
individually identifiable health information by health plans, certain
health care providers and health care clearinghouses. The complexity of
the standards reflects the complexity of the health care marketplace to
which they apply and the variety of subjects that must be addressed. The
rule applies not only to the core health care functions relating to
treating patients and reimbursing health care providers, but also to
activities that range from when individually identifiable health
information should be available for research without authorization to
whether a health care provider may release protected health information
about a patient for law enforcement purposes. The number of discrete
provisions, and the number of commenters requesting that the rule
recognize particular activities, is evidence of the significant role
that individually identifiable health information plays in many vital
public and private concerns.

At the same time, the large number of comments from individuals and
groups representing individuals demonstrate the deep public concern
about the need to protect the privacy of individually identifiable
health information. The discussion above is rich with evidence about the
importance of protecting privacy and the potential adverse consequences
to individuals and their health if such protections are not extended.

The need to balance these competing interests B the necessity of
protecting privacy and the public interest in using identifiable health
information for vital public and private purposes B in a way that is
also workable for the varied stakeholders causes much of the complexity
in the rule. Achieving workability without sacrificing protection means
some level of complexity, because the rule must track current practices
and current practices are complex. We believe that the complexity
entailed in reflecting those practices is better public policy than a
perhaps simpler rule that disturbed important information flows.

Although the rule taken as a whole is complicated, we believe that the
standards are much less complex as they apply to particular actors. What
a health plan or covered health care provider must do to comply with the
rule is clear, and the two-year delayed implementation provides a
substantial period for trade and professional associations, working with
their members, to assess the effects of the standards and develop
policies and procedures to come into compliance with them. For
individuals, the system may look substantially more complicated because,
for the first time, we are ensuring that individuals will receive
detailed information about how their individually identifiable health
information may be used and disclosed. We also provide individuals with
additional tools to exercise some control over those uses and
disclosures. The additional complexity for individuals is the price of
expanding their understanding and their rights.

The Department will work actively with members of the health care
industry, representatives of individuals and others during the
implementation of this rule. As stated elsewhere, our focus is to
develop broader understanding of how the standards work and to
facilitate compliance. We intend to provide guidance and check lists as
appropriate, particularly to small businesses affected by the rule. We
also will work with trade and professional associations to develop
guidance and provide technical assistance so that they can help their
members understand and comply with these new standards. If this effort
is to succeed, the various public and private participants inside and
outside of the health care system will need to work together to assure
that the competing interests described above remain in balance and that
an ethic that recognizes their importance is established.

***Enforcement***

The Secretary has decided to delegate her responsibility under this
regulation to the Department\'s Office for Civil Rights (OCR). OCR will
be responsible for enforcement of this regulation. Enforcement
activities will include working with covered entities to secure
voluntary compliance through the provision of technical assistance and
other means; responding to questions regarding the regulation and
providing interpretations and guidance; responding to state requests for
exception determinations; investigating complaints and conducting
compliance reviews; and, where voluntary compliance cannot be achieved,
seeking civil monetary penalties and making referrals for criminal
prosecution.

***Consent***

*Current law and practice*

The issue that drew the most comments overall is the question of when
individuals= permission should be obtained prior to use or disclosure of
their health information. We learned that individuals= views and the
legal view of \>consent= for use and disclosure of health information
are different and in many ways incompatible. Comments from individuals
revealed a common belief that, today, people must be asked permission
for each and every release of their health information. Many believe
that they Aown@ the health records about them. However, current law and
practice do not support this view.

Current privacy protection practices are determined in part by the
standards and practices that the professional associations have adopted
for their members. Professional codes of conduct for ethical behavior
generally can be found as opinions and guidelines developed by
organizations such as the American Medical Association, American Nurses=
Association, the American Hospital Association, the American Psychiatric
Association, and the American Dental Association. These are generally
issued though an organization=s governing body. The codes do not have
the force of law, but providers often recognize them as binding rules.

Our review of professional codes of ethics revealed partial, but loose,
support for individuals= expectations of privacy. For example, the
American Medical Association=s Code of Ethics recognizes both the right
to privacy and the need to balance it against societal needs. It reads
in part: Aconflicts between a patient\'s right to privacy and a third
party\'s need to know should be resolved in favor of the patient, except
where that would result in serious health hazard or harm to the patient
or others.@ AMA Policy No 140.989. See also, Mass. Med. Society,
*Patient Privacy and Confidentiality* (1996), at 14:

> Patients enter treatment with the expectation that the information
> they share will be used exclusively for their clinical care.
> Protection of our patients= confidences is an integral part of our
> ethical training.

These codes, however, do not apply to many who obtain information from
providers. For example, the National Association of Insurance
Commissioners model code, AHealth Information Privacy Model Act@(1998),
applies to insurers but has not been widely adopted. Codes of ethics are
also often written in general terms that do not provide guidance to
providers and plans confronted with specific questions about protecting
health information.

State laws are a crucial means of protecting health information, and
today state laws vary dramatically. Some states defer to the
professional codes of conduct, others provide general guidelines for
privacy protection, and others provide detailed requirements relating to
the protection of information relating to specific diseases or to entire
classes of information. Cf., D.C. Code Ann. \'2-3305.14(16) and Haw.
Rev. Stat. 323C, et seq. In general, state statutes and case law
addressing consent to use of health information do not support the
public=s strong expectations regarding consent for use and disclosure of
health information. Only about half of the states have a general law
that prohibits disclosure of health information without patient
authorization and some of these are limited to hospital medical records.

Even when a state has a law limiting disclosure of health information,
the law typically exempts many types of disclosure from the
authorization requirement. Georgetown Study, Key Findings; Lisa Dahm,
A50-State Survey on Patient Health Care Record Confidentiality,@
American Health Lawyers Association (1999). One of the most common
exemptions from a consent requirement is disclosure of health
information for treatment and related purposes. See, e.g., Wis.Stat. \'
164.82; Cal. Civ. Code 56:10; National Conference of Commissioners on
Uniform State Laws, [Uniform Health-Care Information Act, Minneapolis,
MN, August 9, 1985]{.underline}. Some states include utilization review
and similar activities in the exemption. See, e.g., Ariz. Rev. Stat. \'
12-2294. Another common exemption from consent is disclosure of health
information for purposes of obtaining payment. See, e.g., Fla. Stat.
Ann. \' 455.667; Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Art. 4495, \' 5.08(h); 410 Ill.
Comp. Stat. 50/3(d). Other common exemptions include disclosures for
emergency care, and for disclosures to government authorities (such as a
department of public health). See Gostin Study, at 1-2; 48-51. Some
states also exempt disclosure to law enforcement officials (e.g.,
Massachusetts, Ch. 254 of the Acts of 2000), coroners (Wis. Stat. \'
146.82), and for such purposes as business operations, oversight,
research, and for directory information. Under these exceptions,
providers can disclose health information without any consent or
authorization from the patient. When states require specific, written
authorization for disclosure of health information, the authorizations
are usually only required for certain types of disclosures or certain
types of information, and one authorization can suffice for multiple
disclosures over time.

The states that do not have laws prohibiting disclosure of health
information impose no specific requirements for consent or authorization
prior to release of health information. There may, however, be other
controls on release of health information. For instance, most health
care professional licensure laws include general prohibitions against
\>breaches of confidentiality.= In some states, patients can hold
providers accountable for some unauthorized disclosures of health
information about them under various tort theories, such as invasion of
privacy and breach of a confidential relationship. While these controls
may affect certain disclosure practices, they do not amount to a
requirement that a provider obtain authorization for each and every
disclosure of health information.

Further, patients are typically not given a choice; they must sign the
Aconsent@ in order to receive care. As the Georgetown Study points out,
AIn effect, the authorization may function more as a waiver of consent
\-- the patient may not have an opportunity to object to any
disclosures.@ Georgetown Study, Key Findings.

In the many cases where neither state law nor professional ethical
standards exist, the only privacy protection individuals have is limited
to the policies and procedures that the health care entity adopts.
Corporate privacy policies are often proprietary. While several
professional associations attached their privacy principles to their
comments, health care entities did not. One study we found indicates
that these policies are not adequate to provide appropriate privacy
protections and alleviate public concern. The Committee on Maintaining
Privacy and Security in Health Care Applications of the National
Information Infrastructure made multiple findings highlighting the need
for heightened privacy and security, including:

> Finding 5: The greatest concerns regarding the privacy of health
> information derives from widespread sharing of patient information
> throughout the health care industry and the inadequate federal and
> state regulatory framework for systematic protection of health
> information.

[For the Record: Protecting Electronic Health Information]{.underline},
National Academy Press, Washington DC, 1997.

*Consent under this rule*

In the NPRM, we expressed concern about the coercive nature of consents
currently obtained by providers and plans relating to the use and
disclosure of health information. We also expressed concern about the
lack of information available to the patient during the process, and the
fact that patients often were not even presented with a copy of the
consent that they have signed. These and other concerns led us to
propose that covered entities be permitted to use and disclose protected
health information for treatment, payment and health care operations
without the express consent of the subject individual.

In the final rule, we alter our proposed approach and require, in most
instances, that health care providers who have a direct treatment
relationship with their patients obtain the consent of their patients to
use and disclose protected health information for treatment, payment and
health care operations. While our concern about the coerced nature of
these consents remains, many comments that we received from individuals,
health care professionals, and organizations that represent them
indicated that both patients and practitioners believe that patient
consent is an important part of the current health care system and
should be retained.

Providing and obtaining consent clearly has meaning for patients and
practitioners. Patient advocates argued that the act of signing focuses
the patient=s attention on the substance of the transaction and provides
an opportunity for the patient to ask questions about or seek
modifications in the provider=s practices. Many health care
practitioners and their representatives argued that seeking a patient=s
consent to disclose confidential information is an ethical requirement
that strengthens the physician-patient relationship. Both practitioners
and patients argued that the approach proposed in the NPRM actually
reduced patient protections by eliminating the opportunity for patients
to agree to how their confidential information would be used and
disclosed.

While we believe that the provisions in the NPRM that provided for
detailed notice to the patient and the right to request restrictions
would have provided an opportunity for patients and providers to discuss
and negotiate over information practices, it is clear from the comments
that many practitioners and patients believe the approach proposed in
the NPRM is not an acceptable replacement for the patient providing
consent. To encourage a more informed interaction between the patient
and the provider during the consent process, the final rule requires
that the consent form that is presented to the patient be accompanied by
a notice that contains a detailed discussion of the provider=s health
information practices. The consent form must reference the notice and
also must inform the patient that he or she has the right to ask the
health care provider to request certain restrictions as to how the
information of the patient will be used or disclosed. Our goal is to
provide an opportunity for and to encourage more informed discussions
between patients and providers about how protected health information
will be used and disclosed within the health care system.

We considered and rejected other approaches to consent, including those
that involved individuals providing a global consent to uses and
disclosures when they sign up for insurance. While such approaches do
require the patient to provide consent, it is not really an informed one
or a voluntary one. It is also unclear how a consent obtained at the
enrollment stage would be meaningfully communicated to the many
providers who create the health information in the first instance. The
ability to negotiate restrictions or otherwise have a meaningful
discussion with the front-line provider would be independent of, and
potentially in conflict with, the consent obtained at the enrollment
stage. In addition, employers today are moving toward simplified
enrollment forms, using check-off boxes and similar devices. The
opportunity for any meaningful consideration or interaction at that
point is slight. For these and other reasons, we decided that, to the
extent a consent can accomplish the goal sought by individuals and
providers, it must be focused on the direct interaction between an
individual and provider.

The comments and fact-finding indicate that our approach will not
significantly change the administrative aspect of consent as it exists
today. Most direct treatment providers today obtain some type of consent
for some uses and disclosures of health information. Our regulation will
ensure that those consents cover the routine uses and disclosures of
health information, and provide an opportunity for individuals to obtain
further information and have further discussion, should they so desire.

***Administrative Costs***

Section 1172(b) of the Act provides that \"\[a\]ny standard adopted
under this part \[part C of title XI of the Act\] shall be consistent
with the objective of reducing the administrative costs of providing and
paying for health care.\" The privacy and security standards are the
platform on which the remaining standards rest; indeed, the design of
part C of title XI makes clear that the various standards are intended
to function together. Thus, the costs of privacy and security are
properly attributable to the suite of administrative simplification
regulations as a whole, and the cost savings realized should likewise be
calculated on an aggregated basis, as is done below. Because the privacy
standards are an integral and necessary part of the suite of
Administrative Simplification standards, and because that suite of
standards will result in substantial administrative cost savings, the
privacy standards are Aconsistent with the objective of reducing the
administrative costs of providing and paying for health care.\"

As more fully discussed in the Regulatory Impact and Regulatory
Flexibility analyses below, we recognize that these privacy standards
will entail substantial initial and ongoing administrative costs for
entities subject to the rules. It is also the case that the privacy
standards, like the security standards authorized by section 1173(d) of
the Act, are necessitated by the technological advances in information
exchange that the remaining Administrative Simplification standards
facilitate for the health care industry. The same technological advances
that make possible enormous administrative cost savings for the industry
as a whole have also made it possible to breach the security and privacy
of health information on a scale that was previously inconceivable. The
Congress recognized that adequate protection of the security and privacy
of health information is a [sine qua non]{.underline} of the increased
efficiency of information exchange brought about by the electronic
revolution, by enacting the security and privacy provisions of the law.
Thus, as a matter of policy as well as law, the administrative standards
should be viewed as a whole in determining whether they are \"consistent
with\" the objective of reducing administrative costs.

***Consultations***

The Congress required the Secretary to consult with specified groups in
developing the standards under sections 262 and 264. Section 264(d) of
HIPAA specifically requires the Secretary to consult with the National
Committee on Vital and Health Statistics (NCVHS) and the Attorney
General in carrying out her responsibilities under the section. Section
1172(b)(3) of the Act, which was enacted by section 262, requires that,
in developing a standard under section 1172 for which no standard
setting organization has already developed a standard, the Secretary
must, before adopting the standard, consult with the National Uniform
Billing Committee (NUBC), the National Uniform Claim Committee (NUCC),
the Workgroup for Electronic Data Interchange (WEDI), and the American
Dental Association (ADA). Section 1172(f) also requires the Secretary to
rely on the recommendations of the NCVHS and consult with other
appropriate federal and state agencies and private organizations.

We engaged in the required consultations including the Attorney General,
NUBC, NUCC, WEDI and the ADA. We consulted with the NCVHS in developing
the Recommendations, upon which this proposed rule is based. We
continued to consult with this committee by requesting the committee to
review the proposed rule and provide comments prior to its publication,
and by reviewing transcripts of its public meeting on privacy and
related topics. We consulted with representatives of the National
Congress of American Indians, the National Indian Health Board, and the
self governance tribes. We also met with representatives of the National
Governors= Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures,
the National Association of Public Health Statistics and Information
Systems, and a number of other state organizations to discuss the
framework for the proposed rule, issues of special interests to the
states, and the process for providing comments on the proposed rule.

Many of these groups submitted comments to the proposed rule, and those
were taken into account in developing the final regulation.

In addition to the required consultations, we met with numerous
individuals, entities, and agencies regarding the regulation, with the
goal of making these standards as compatible as possible with current
business practices, while still enhancing privacy protection. During the
open comment period, we met with dozens of groups.

Relevant federal agencies participated in the interagency working groups
that developed the NPRM and the final regulation, with additional
representatives from all operating divisions and many staff offices of
HHS. The following federal agencies and offices were represented on the
interagency working groups: the Department of Justice, the Department of
Commerce, the Social Security Administration, the Department of Defense,
the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Labor, the Office
of Personnel Management, and the Office of Management and Budget.

1.  SECTION-BY-SECTION DESCRIPTION OF RULE PROVISIONS

**PART 160 B SUBPART A B GENERAL PROVISIONS**

Part 160 applies to all the administrative simplification regulations.
We include the entire regulation text in this rule, not just those
provisions relevant to this Privacy regulation. For example, the term
Atrading partner@ is defined here, for use in the Health Insurance
Reform: Standards for Electronic Transactions regulation, published at
65 FR 50312, August 17, 2000 (the ATransactions Rule@). It does not
appear in the remainder of this Privacy rule.

Sections 160.101 and 160.104 of Subpart A of part 160 were promulgated
in the Transactions Rule, and we do not change them here. We do,
however, make changes and additions to \' 160.103, the definitions
section of Subpart A. The definitions that were promulgated in the
Transactions Rule and that remain unchanged here are: Act, ANSI, covered
entity, compliance date, group health plan, HCFA, HHS, health care
provider, health information, health insurance issuer, health
maintenance organization, modify or modification, Secretary, small
health plan, standard setting organization, and trading partner
agreement. Of these terms, we discuss further in this preamble only
covered entity and health care provider.

**SECTION 160.102 - APPLICABILITY**

The proposed rule stated that the subchapter (Parts 160, 162, and 164)
applies to the entities set out at section 1172(a) of the Act: health
plans, health care clearinghouses, and health care providers who
transmit any health information in electronic form in connection with a
transaction covered by the subchapter. The final rule adds a provision
(\' 160.102(b)) clarifying that to the extent required under section
201(a)(5) of HIPAA, nothing in the subchapter is to be construed to
diminish the authority of any Inspector General. This was done in
response to comment, to clarify that the administrative simplification
rules, including the rules below, do not conflict with the cited
provision of HIPAA.

**SECTION 160.103 - DEFINITIONS**

***Business Associate.***

We proposed to define the term Abusiness partner@ to mean, with respect
to a covered entity, a person to whom the covered entity discloses
protected health information so that the person can carry out, assist
with the performance of, or perform on behalf of, a function or activity
for the covered entity. ABusiness partner@ would have included
contractors or other persons who receive protected health information
from the covered entity (or from another business partner of the covered
entity) for the purposes described in the previous sentence, including
lawyers, auditors, consultants, third-party administrators, health care
clearinghouses, data processing firms, billing firms, and other covered
entities. ABusiness partner@ would have excluded persons who are within
the covered entity=s workforce, as defined in this section.

This rule reflects the change in the name from Abusiness partner@ to
Abusiness associate,@ included in the Transactions Rule.

In the final rule, we change the definition of Abusiness associate@ to
clarify the circumstances in which a person is acting as a business
associate of a covered entity. The changes clarify that the business
association occurs when the right to use or disclose the protected
health information belongs to the covered entity, and another person is
using or disclosing the protected health information (or creating,
obtaining and using the protected health information) to perform a
function or activity on behalf of the covered entity. We also clarify
that providing specified services to a covered entity creates a business
associate relationship if the provision of the service involves the
disclosure of protected health information to the service provider. In
the proposed rule, we had included a list of persons that were
considered to be business partners of the covered entity. However, it is
not always clear whether the provision of certain services to a covered
entity is Afor@ the covered entity or whether the service provider is
acting Aon behalf of@ the covered entity. For example, a person
providing management consulting services may need protected health
information to perform those services, but may not be acting Aon behalf
of@ the covered entity. This we believe led to some general confusion
among the commenters as to whether certain arrangements fell within the
definition of a business partner under the proposed rule. The
construction of the final rule clarifies that the provision of the
specified services gives rise to a business associate relationship if
the performance of the service involves disclosure of protected health
information by the covered entity to the business associate. The
specified services are legal, actuarial, accounting, consulting,
management, administrative accreditation, data aggregation, and
financial services. The list is intended to include the types of
services commonly provided to covered entities where the disclosure of
protected health information is routine to the performance of the
service, but when the person providing the service may not always be
acting Aon behalf of@ the covered entity.

In the final rule, we reorganize the list of examples of the functions
or activities that may be conducted by business associates. We place a
part of the proposed list in the portion of the definition that
addresses when a person is providing functions or activities for or on
behalf of a covered entity. We place other parts of the list in the
portion of the definition that specifies the services that give rise to
a business associate relationship, as discussed above. We also have
expanded the examples to provide additional guidance and in response to
questions from commenters.

We have added data aggregation to the list of services that give rise to
a business associate relationship. Data aggregation, as discussed below,
is where a business associate in its capacity as the business associate
of one covered entity combines the protected health information of such
covered entity with protected health information received by the
business associate in its capacity as a business associate of another
covered entity in order to permit the creation of data for analyses that
relate to the health care operations of the respective covered entities.
Adding this service to the business associate definition clarifies the
ability of covered entities to contract with business associates to
undertake quality assurance and comparative analyses that involve the
protected health information of more than one contracting covered
entity. For example, a state hospital association could act as a
business associate of its member hospitals and could combine data
provided to it to assist the hospitals in evaluating their relative
performance in areas such as quality, efficiency and other patient care
issues. As discussed below, however, the business associate contracts of
each of the hospitals would have to permit the activity, and the
protected health information of one hospital could not be disclosed to
another hospital unless the disclosure is otherwise permitted by the
rule.

The definition also states that a business associate may be a covered
entity, and that business associate excludes a person who is part of the
covered entity=s workforce.

We also clarify in the final rule that a business association arises
with respect to a covered entity when a person performs functions or
activities on behalf of, or provides the specified services to or for,
an organized health care health care arrangement in which the covered
entity participates. This change recognizes that where covered entities
participate in certain joint arrangements for the financing or delivery
of health care, they often contract with persons to perform functions or
to provide services for the joint arrangement. This change is consistent
with changes made in the final rule to the definition of health care
operations, which permits covered entities to use or disclose protected
health information not only for their own health care operations, but
also for the operations of an organized health care arrangement in which
the covered entity participates. By making these changes, we avoid the
confusion that could arise in trying to determine whether a function or
activity is being provided on behalf of (or if a specified service is
being provided to or for) a covered entity or on behalf of or for a
joint enterprise involving the covered entity. The change clarifies that
in either instance the person performing the function or activity (or
providing the specified service) is a business associate.

We also add language to the final rule that clarifies that the mere fact
that two covered entities participate in an organized health care
arrangement does not make either of the covered entities a business
associate of the other covered entity. The fact that the entities
participate in joint health care operations or other joint activities,
or pursue common goals through a joint activity, does not mean that one
party is performing a function or activity on behalf of the other party
(or is providing a specified services to or for the other party).

In general under this provision, actions relating to the protected
health information of an individual undertaken by a business associate
are considered, for the purposes of this rule, to be actions of the
covered entity, although the covered entity is subject to sanctions
under this rule only if it has knowledge of the wrongful activity and
fails to take the required actions to address the wrongdoing. For
example, if a business associate maintains the medical records or
manages the claims system of a covered entity, the covered entity is
considered to have protected health information and the covered entity
must ensure that individuals who are the subject of the information can
have access to it pursuant to \' 164.524.

The business associate relationship does not describe all relationships
between covered entities and other persons or organizations. While we
permit uses or disclosures of protected health information for a variety
of purposes, business associate contracts or other arrangements are only
required for those cases in which the covered entity is disclosing
information to someone or some organization that will use the
information on behalf of the covered entity, when the other person will
be creating or obtaining protected health information on behalf of the
covered entity, or when the business associate is providing the
specified services to the covered entity and the provision of those
services involves the disclosure of protected health information by the
covered entity to the business associate. For example, when a health
care provider discloses protected health information to health plans for
payment purposes, no business associate relationship is established.
While the covered provider may have an agreement to accept discounted
fees as reimbursement for services provided to health plan members,
neither entity is acting on behalf of or providing a service to the
other.

Similarly, where a physician or other provider has staff privileges at
an institution, neither party to the relationship is a business
associate based solely on the staff privileges because neither party is
providing functions or activities on behalf of the other. However, if a
party provides services to or for the other, such as where a hospital
provides billing services for physicians with staff privileges, a
business associate relationship may arise with respect to those
services. Likewise, where a group health plan purchases insurance or
coverage from a health insurance issuer or HMO, the provision of
insurance by the health insurance issuer or HMO to the group health plan
does not make the issuer a business associate. In such case, the
activities of the health insurance issuer or HMO are on their own behalf
and not on the behalf of the group health plan. We note that where a
group health plan contracts with a health insurance issuer or HMO to
perform functions or activities or to provide services that are in
addition to or not directly related to the provision of insurance, the
health insurance issuer or HMO may be a business associate with respect
to those additional functions, activities or services. We also note that
covered entities are permitted to disclose protected health information
to oversight agencies that act to provide oversight of federal programs
and the health care system. These oversight agencies are not performing
services for or on behalf of the covered entities and so are not
business associates of the covered entities. Therefore HCFA, the federal
agency that administers Medicare, is not required to enter into a
business associate contract in order to disclose protected health
information to the Department\'s Office of Inspector General.

We do not require a covered entity to enter into a business associate
contract with a person or organization that acts merely as a conduit for
protected health information (e.g., the US Postal Service, certain
private couriers and their electronic equivalents). A conduit transports
information but does not access it other than on a random or infrequent
basis as may be necessary for the performance of the transportation
service, or as required by law. Since no disclosure is intended by the
covered entity and the probability of exposure of any particular
protected health information to a conduit is very small, we do not
consider a conduit to be a business associate of the covered entity.

We do not consider a financial institution to be acting on behalf of a
covered entity, and therefore no business associate contract is
required, when it processes consumer-conducted financial transactions by
debit, credit or other payment card, clears checks, initiates or
processes electronic funds transfers, or conducts any other activity
that directly facilitates or effects the transfer of funds for
compensation for health care. A typical consumer-conducted payment
transaction is when a consumer pays for health care or health insurance
premiums using a check or credit card. In these cases the identity of
the consumer is always included and some health information (e.g.,
diagnosis or procedure) may be implied through the name of the health
care provider or health plan being paid. Covered entities that initiate
such payment activities must meet the minimum necessary disclosure
requirements described in the preamble to \' 164.514.

***Covered Entity*.**

We provided this definition in the NPRM for convenience of reference and
proposed it to mean the entities to which part C of title XI of the Act
applies. These are the entities described in section 1172(a)(1): health
plans, health care clearinghouses, and health care providers who
transmit any health information in electronic form in connection with a
transaction referred to in section 1173(a)(1) of the Act (a Astandard
transaction@).

We note that health care providers who do not submit HIPAA transactions
in standard form become covered by this rule when other entities, such
as a billing service or a hospital, transmit standard electronic
transactions on their behalf. A provider could not circumvent these
requirements by assigning the task to its business associate since the
business associate would be considered to be acting on behalf of the
provider. See the definition of Abusiness associate.@

Where a public agency is required or authorized by law to administer a
health plan jointly with another entity, we consider each agency to be a
covered entity with respect to the health plan functions it performs.
Unlike private sector health plans, public plans are often required by
or expressly authorized by law to jointly administer health programs
that meet the definition of Ahealth plan@ under this regulation. In some
instances the public entity is required or authorized to administer the
program with another public agency. In other instances, the public
entity is required or authorized to administer the program with a
private entity. In either circumstance, we note that joint
administration does not meet the definition of Abusiness associate@ in
\' 164.501. Examples of joint administration include state and federal
administration of the Medicaid and SCHIP program, or joint
administration of a Medicare+Choice plan by the Health Care Financing
Administration and the issuer offering the plan.

***Health Care*.**

We proposed to define Ahealth care@ to mean the provision of care,
services, or supplies to a patient and to include any: (1) preventive,
diagnostic, therapeutic, rehabilitative, maintenance, or palliative
care, counseling, service, or procedure with respect to the physical or
mental condition, or functional status, of a patient or affecting the
structure or function of the body; (2) sale or dispensing of a drug,
device, equipment, or other item pursuant to a prescription; or (3)
procurement or banking of blood, sperm, organs, or any other tissue for
administration to patients.

The final rule revises both the NPRM definition and the definition as
provided in the Transactions Rule, to now mean Acare, services, or
supplies related to the health of an individual. *Health care* includes
the following:

\(1\) Preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic, rehabilitative, maintenance,
or palliative care, and counseling, service, assessment, or procedure
with respect to the physical or mental condition, or functional status,
of an individual or that affects the structure or function of the body;
and

\(2\) Sale or dispensing of a drug, device, equipment, or other item in
accordance with a prescription.

We delete the term Aproviding@ from the definition to delineate more
clearly the relationship between Atreatment,@as the term is defined in
\' 164.501, and Ahealth care.@ Other key revisions include adding the
term Aassessment@ in subparagraph (1) and deleting proposed subparagraph
(3) from the rule. Therefore the procurement or banking of organs, blood
(including autologous blood), sperm, eyes or any other tissue or human
product is not considered to be health care under this rule and the
organizations that perform such activities would not be considered
health care providers when conducting these functions. As described in
\' 164.512(h), covered entities are permitted to disclose protected
health information without individual authorization, consent, or
agreement (see below for explanation of authorizations, consents, and
agreements) as necessary to facilitate cadaveric donation.

***Health Care Clearinghouse*.**

In the NPRM, we defined Ahealth care clearinghouse@ as a public or
private entity that processes or facilitates the processing of
nonstandard data elements of health information into standard data
elements. The entity receives health care transactions from health care
providers or other entities, translates the data from a given format
into one acceptable to the intended payor or payors, and forwards the
processed transaction to appropriate payors and clearinghouses. Billing
services, repricing companies, community health management information
systems, community health information systems, and Avalue-added@
networks and switches would have been considered to be health care
clearinghouses for purposes of this part, if they perform the functions
of health care clearinghouses as described in the preceding sentences.

In the final regulation, we modify the definition of health care
clearinghouse to reflect changes in the definition published in the
Transactions Rule. The definition in the final rule is:

Health care clearinghouse means a public or private entity, including
billing services, repricing companies, community health management
information systems or community health information systems, and
Avalue-added@ networks and switches, that does either of the following
functions:

\(1\) Processes or facilitates the processing of health information
received from another entity in a nonstandard format or containing
nonstandard data content into standard data elements or a standard
transaction.

\(2\) Receives a standard transaction from another entity and processes
or facilitates the processing of health information into nonstandard
format or nonstandard data content for the receiving entity.

We note here that the term health care clearinghouse may have other
meanings and connotations in other contexts, but the regulation defines
it specifically, and an entity is considered a health care clearinghouse
only to the extent that it meets the criteria in this definition.
Telecommunications entities that provide connectivity or mechanisms to
convey information, such as telephone companies and Internet Service
Providers, are not health care clearinghouses as defined in the rule
unless they actually carry out the functions outlined in our definition.
Value added networks and switches are not health care clearinghouses
unless they carry out the functions outlined in the definition. The
examples of entities in our proposed definition we continue to consider
to be health care clearinghouses, as well as any other entities that
meet that definition, to the extent that they perform the functions in
the definition.

In order to fall within this definition of clearinghouse, the covered
entity must perform the clearinghouse function on health information
received from some other entity. A department or component of a health
plan or health care provider that transforms nonstandard information
into standard data elements or standard transactions (or vice versa) is
not a clearinghouse for purposes of this rule, unless it also performs
these functions for another entity. As described in more detail in \'
164.504(d), we allow affiliates to perform clearinghouse functions for
each other without triggering the definition of Aclearinghouse@ if the
conditions in \' 164.504(d) are met.

***Health Care Provider*.**

We proposed to define health care provider to mean a provider of
services as defined in section 1861(u) of the Act, a provider of medical
or health services as defined in section 1861(s) of the Act, and any
other person or organization who furnishes, bills, or is paid for health
care services or supplies in the normal course of business.

In the final rule, we delete the term Aservices and supplies,@ in order
to eliminate redundancy within the definition. The definition also
reflects the addition of the applicable U.S.C. citations (42 U.S.C.
1395x(u) and 42 U.S.C. 1395x(s), respectively) for the referenced
provisions of the Act that were promulgated in the Transactions Rule.

To assist the reader, we also provide here excerpts from the relevant
sections of the Act. (Refer to the U.S.C. sections cited above for
complete definitions in sections 1861(u) and 1861(s).) Section 1861(u)
of the Act defines a Aprovider of services,@ to include, for example,

> a hospital, critical access hospital, skilled nursing facility,
> comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facility, home health agency,
> hospice program, or, for purposes of section 1814(g) \[42 U.S.C.
> 1395f(g)\] and section 1835(e) \[42 U.S.C. 1395n(e)\], a fund.@
> Section 1861(s) of the Act defines the term, Amedical and other health
> services,@ and includes a list of covered items or services, as
> illustrated by the following excerpt:
>
> \(s\) Medical and other health services. The term \"medical and other
> health services\" means any of the following items or services:
>
> \(1\) physicians\' services;
>
> \(2\) (A) services and suppliesYfurnished as an incident to a
> physician\'s professional service, or kinds which are commonly
> furnished in physicians\' offices and are commonly either rendered
> without charge or included in the physicians\' bills;
>
> \(B\) hospital servicesYincident to physicians\' services rendered to
> outpatients and partial hospitalization services incident to such
> services;
>
> (C)diagnostic services which areB
>
> \(i\) furnished to an individual as an outpatient by a hospital or by
> others under arrangements with them made by a hospital, and
>
> \(ii\) ordinarily furnished by such hospital (or by others under such
> arrangements) to its outpatients for the purpose of diagnostic study;
>
> \(D\) outpatient physical therapy services and outpatient occupational
> therapy services;
>
> \(E\) rural health clinic services and federally qualified health
> center services;
>
> \(F\) home dialysis supplies and equipment, self-care home dialysis
> support services, and institutional dialysis services and supplies;
>
> \(G\) antigensYprepared by a physicianYfor a particular patient,
> including antigens so prepared which are forwarded to another
> qualified personYfor administration to such patient,Yby or under the
> supervision of another such physician;
>
> \(H\) (i) services furnished pursuant to a contract under section 1876
> \[42 U.S.C. 1395mm\] to a member of an eligible organization by a
> physician assistant or by a nurse practitionerYand such services and
> supplies furnished as an incident to his service to such a memberYand
>
> \(ii\) services furnished pursuant to a risk-sharing contract under
> section 1876(g) \[42 U.S.C. 1395mm(g)\] to a member of an eligible
> organization by a clinical psychologistYor by a clinical social
> workerY\[and\] furnished as an incident to such clinical
> psychologist\'s services or clinical social worker\'s servicesY;
>
> \(I\) blood clotting factors, for hemophilia patientsY;
>
> \(J\) prescription drugs used in immunosuppressive therapy furnished,
> to an individual who receives an organ transplant for which payment is
> made under this title \[42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.\], but only in the case
> of \[certain\] drugs furnishedY
>
> \(K\) (i) services which would be physicians\' services if furnished
> by a physicianYand which are performed by a physician assistantY;and
>
> \(ii\) services which would be physicians\' services if furnished by a
> physicianYand which are performed by a nurseY;
>
> \(L\) certified nurse-midwife services;
>
> \(M\) qualified psychologist services;
>
> \(N\) clinical social worker servicesY;
>
> \(O\) erythropoietin for dialysis patientsY;
>
> \(P\) prostate cancer screening testsY;
>
> \(Q\) an oral drug (which is approved by the federal Food and Drug
> Administration) prescribed for use as an anti-cancer chemotherapeutic
> agent for a given indication, and containing an active ingredient (or
> ingredients)Y;
>
> \(R\) colorectal cancer screening testsY;
>
> \(S\) diabetes outpatient self-management training servicesY; and
>
> \(T\) an oral drug (which is approved by the federal Food and Drug
> Administration) prescribed for use as an acute anti-emetic used as
> part of an anti-cancer chemotherapeutic regimenY
>
> \(3\) diagnostic X-ray testsYfurnished in a place of residence used as
> the patient\'s homeY;
>
> \(4\) X-ray, radium, and radioactive isotope therapy, including
> materials and services of technicians;
>
> \(5\) surgical dressings, and splints, casts, and other devices used
> for reduction of fractures and dislocations;
>
> \(6\) durable medical equipment;
>
> \(7\) ambulance service where the use of other methods of
> transportation is contraindicated by the individual\'s conditionY;
>
> \(8\) prosthetic devices (other than dental) which replace all or part
> of an internal body organ (including colostomy bags and supplies
> directly related to colostomy care),Yand including one pair of
> conventional eyeglasses or contact lenses furnished subsequent to each
> cataract surgeryY\[;\]
>
> \(9\) leg, arm, back, and neck braces, and artificial legs, arms, and
> eyes, including replacements if requiredY;
>
> \(10\) (A) pneumococcal vaccine and its administrationY; and
>
> \(B\) hepatitis B vaccine and its administrationY, and
>
> \(11\) services of a certified registered nurse anesthetistY;
>
> \(12\) Yextra-depth shoes with inserts or custom molded shoes with
> inserts for an individual with diabetes, ifY;
>
> \(13\) screening mammographyY;
>
> \(14\) screening pap smear and screening pelvic exam; and
>
> \(15\) bone mass measurementY. (etc.)

***Health Plan*.**

We proposed to define Ahealth plan@ essentially as section 1171(5) of
the Act defines it. Section 1171 of the Act refers to several
definitions in section 2791 of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C.
300gg-91, as added by Public Law 104-191.

As defined in section 1171(5), a Ahealth plan@ is an individual plan or
group health plan that provides, or pays the cost of, medical care. We
proposed that this definition include, but not be limited to the 15
types of plans (e.g., group health plan, health insurance issuer, health
maintenance organization) listed in the statute, as well as any
combination of them. Such term would have included, when applied to
public benefit programs, the component of the government agency that
administers the program. Church plans and government plans would have
been included to the extent that they fall into one or more of the
listed categories.

In the proposed rule, Ahealth plan@ included the following, singly or in
combination:

\(1\) A group health plan, defined as an employee welfare benefit plan
(as currently defined in section 3(1) of the Employee Retirement Income
and Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. 1002(1)), including insured and
self-insured plans, to the extent that the plan provides medical care
(as defined in section 2791(a)(2) of the Public Health Service Act, 42
U.S.C. 300gg-91(a)(2)), including items and services paid for as medical
care, to employees or their dependents directly or through insurance or
otherwise, that:

\(i\) Has 50 or more participants; or

\(ii\) Is administered by an entity other than the employer that
established and maintains the plan.

\(2\) A health insurance issuer, defined as an insurance company,
insurance service, or insurance organization that is licensed to engage
in the business of insurance in a state and is subject to state or other
law that regulates insurance.

\(3\) A health maintenance organization, defined as a federally
qualified health maintenance organization, an organization recognized as
a health maintenance organization under state law, or a similar
organization regulated for solvency under state law in the same manner
and to the same extent as such a health maintenance organization.

\(4\) Part A or Part B of the Medicare program under title XVIII of the
Act.

\(5\) The Medicaid program under title XIX of the Act.

\(6\) A Medicare supplemental policy (as defined in section 1882(g)(1)
of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 1395ss).

\(7\) A long-term care policy, including a nursing home fixed-indemnity
policy.

\(8\) An employee welfare benefit plan or any other arrangement that is
established or maintained for the purpose of offering or providing
health benefits to the employees of two or more employers.

\(9\) The health care program for active military personnel under title
10 of the United States Code.

\(10\) The veterans health care program under 38 U.S.C. chapter 17.

\(11\) The Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services
(CHAMPUS), as defined in 10 U.S.C. 1072(4).

\(12\) The Indian Health Service program under the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 1601, et seq.).

\(13\) The Federal Employees Health Benefits Program under 5 U.S.C.
chapter 89.

\(14\) An approved state child health plan for child health assistance
that meets the requirements of section 2103 of the Act.

\(15\) A Medicare Plus Choice organization as defined in 42 CFR 422.2,
with a contract under 42 CFR part 422, subpart K.

In addition to the 15 specific categories, we proposed that the list
include any other individual plan or group health plan, or combination
thereof, that provides or pays for the cost of medical care. The
Secretary would determine which plans that meet these criteria would to
be considered health plans for the purposes of this rule.

Consistent with the other titles of HIPAA, our proposed definition did
not include certain types of insurance entities, such as workers=
compensation and automobile insurance carriers, other property and
casualty insurers, and certain forms of limited benefits coverage, even
when such arrangements provide coverage for health care services.

In the final rule, we add two provisions to clarify the types of
policies or programs that we do not consider to be a health plan. First,
the rule excepts any policy, plan or program to the extent that it
provides, or pays for the cost of, excepted benefits, as defined in
section 2791(c)(1) of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300gg-91(c)(1). We note
that, while coverage for on-site medical clinics is excluded from
definition of Ahealth plans,@ such clinics may meet the definition of
Ahealth care provider@ and persons who work in the clinic may also meet
the definition of health care provider.@ Second, many commenters were
confused by the statutory inclusion as a health plan of any Aother
individual or group plan that provides or pays the cost of medical
care;@ they questioned how the provision applied to many government
programs. We therefore clarify that while many government programs
(other than the programs specified in the statute) provide or pay the
cost of medical care, we do not consider them to be individual or group
plans and therefore, do not consider them to be health plans. Government
funded programs that do not have as their principal purpose the
provision of, or payment for, the cost of health care but which do
incidentally provide such services are not health plans (for example,
programs such as the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants and Children (WIC) and the Food Stamp Program, which provide or
pay for nutritional services, are not considered to be health plans).
Government funded programs that have as their principal purpose the
provision of health care, either directly or by grant, are also not
considered to be health plans. Examples include the Ryan White
Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act, government funded health
centers and immunization programs. We note that some of these may meet
the rule=s definition of health care provider.

We note that in certain instances eligibility for or enrollment in a
health plan that is a government program providing public benefits, such
as Medicaid or SCHIP, is determined by an agency other than the agency
that administers the program, or individually identifiable health
information used to determine enrollment or eligibility in such a health
plan is collected by an agency other than the agency that administers
the health plan. In these cases, we do not consider an agency that is
not otherwise a covered entity, such as a local welfare agency, to be a
covered entity because it determines eligibility or enrollment or
collects enrollment information as authorized by law. We also do not
consider the agency to be a business associate when conducting these
functions, as we describe further in the business associate discussion
above.

The definition in the final rule also reflects the following changes
promulgated in the Transactions Rule:

\(1\) Exclusion of nursing home fixed-indemnity policies;

\(2\) Addition of the word Aissuer@ to Medicare supplemental policy, and
long-term care policy;

\(3\) Addition or revision of the relevant statutory cites where
appropriate;

\(4\) Deletion of the term Aor assisted@ when referring to government
programs;

\(5\) Replacement of the word Aorganization@ with Aprogram@ when
referring to Medicare + Choice;

\(6\) Deletion of the term Ahealth@ when referring to a group plan in
subparagraph (xvi);

\(7\) Extraction of the definitions of Agroup health plan,@ Ahealth
insurance issuer,@ and Ahealth maintenance organization@ into Part 160
as distinct definitions;

\(8\) In the definition of Agroup health plan,@ deletion of the term
Acurrently@ from the reference to the statutory cite of ERISA, addition
of the relevant statutory cite for the term Aparticipant,@ and addition
of the term Areimbursement;@

\(9\) In the definition of Ahealth insurance issuer,@ addition of the
relevant statutory cite, deletion of the term Aor other law@ after
Astate law,@ addition of health maintenance organizations for
consistency with the statute, and clarification that the term does not
include a group health plan; and

\(10\) In the definition of Ahealth maintenance organization,@ addition
of the relevant statutory cite.

Finally, we add to this definition a high risk pool that is a mechanism
established under state law to provide health insurance coverage or
comparable coverage to eligible individuals. High risk pools are
designed mainly to provide health insurance coverage for individuals
who, due to health status or pre-existing conditions, cannot obtain
insurance through the individual market or who can do so only at very
high premiums. Some states use their high risk pool as an alternative
mechanism under section 2744 of HIPAA. We do not reference the
definition of Aqualified high risk pool@ in HIPAA because that
definition includes the requirements for a state to use its risk pool as
its alternative mechanism under HIPAA. Some states may have high risk
pools, but do not use them as their alternative mechanism and therefore
may not meet the definition in HIPAA. We want to make clear that state
high risk pools are covered entities under this rule whether or not they
meet the definition of a qualified high risk pool under section 2744.
High risk pools, as described in this rule, do not include any program
established under state law solely to provide excepted benefits. For
example, a state program established to provide workers= compensation
coverage is not considered to be a high risk pool under the rule.

***Implementation specification***

This definition was adopted in the Transactions Rule and is minimally
revised here. We add the words Arequirements or@ before the word
Ainstructions.@ The word Ainstructions@ is appropriate in the context of
the implementation specifications adopted in the Transactions Rule,
which are generally a series of instructions as to how to use particular
electronic forms. However, that word is not apropos in the context of
the rules below. In the rules below, the implementation specifications
are specific requirements for how to comply with a given standard. The
change to this definition thus ties in to this regulatory framework.

***Standard***

This definition was adopted in the Transactions Rule and we have
modified it to make it clearer. We also add language reflecting section
264 of the statute, to clarify that the standards adopted by this rule
meet this definition.

***State***

We modify the definition of state as adopted in the Transactions Rule to
clarify that this term refers to any of the several states.

***Transaction***

We change the term Aexchange@ to the term Atransmission@ in the
definition of Transaction to clarify that these transactions may be
one-way communications.

***Workforce***

We proposed in the NPRM to define workforce to mean employees,
volunteers, trainees, and other persons under the direct control of a
covered entity, including persons providing labor on an unpaid basis.

The definition in the final rule reflects one revision established in
the Transactions Rule, which replaces the term Aincluding persons
providing labor on an unpaid basis@ with the term Awhether or not they
are paid by the covered entity.@ In addition, we clarify that if the
assigned work station of persons under contract is on the covered
entity=s premises and such persons perform a substantial proportion of
their activities at that location, the covered entity may choose to
treat them either as business associates or as part of the workforce, as
explained in the discussion of the definition of business associate. If
there is no business associate contract, we assume the person is a
member of the covered entity=s workforce. We note that independent
contractors may or may not be workforce members. However, for compliance
purposes we will assume that such personnel are members of the workforce
if no business associate contract exists.

**PART 160 B SUBPART B B PREEMPTION OF STATE LAWS**

***Statutory Background***

Section 1178 of the Act establishes a Ageneral rule@ that state law
provisions that are contrary to the provisions or requirements of part C
of title XI or the standards or implementation specifications adopted or
established thereunder are preempted by the federal requirements. The
statute provides three exceptions to this general rule: (1) in section
1178(a)(2)(A)(i), for state laws that the Secretary determines are
necessary to prevent fraud and abuse, ensure appropriate state
regulation of insurance and health plans, for state reporting on health
care delivery, and other purposes; (2) in section 1178(a)(2)(A)(ii), for
state laws that address controlled substances; and (3) in section
1178(a)(2)(B), for state laws relating to the privacy of individually
identifiable health information that as provided for by the related
provision of section 264(c)(2) of HIPAA, are contrary to and more
stringent than the federal requirements. Section 1178 also carves out,
in sections 1178(b) and 1178(c), certain areas of state authority that
are not limited or invalidated by the provisions of part C of title XI:
these areas relate to public health and state regulation of health
plans.

The NPRM proposed a new Subpart B of the proposed part 160. The new
Subpart B, which would apply to all standards, implementation
specifications, and requirements adopted under HIPAA, would consist of
four sections. Proposed \' 160.201 provided that the provisions of
Subpart B applied to exception determinations and advisory opinions
issued by the Secretary under section 1178. Proposed \' 160.202 set out
proposed definitions for four terms: (1) Acontrary,@ (2) Amore
stringent,@ (3) Arelates to the privacy of individually identifiable
health information,@ and (4) Astate law.@ The definition of Acontrary@
was drawn from case law concerning preemption. A seven-part set of
specific criteria, drawn from fair information principles, was proposed
for the definition of Amore stringent.@ The definition of Arelates to
the privacy of individually identifiable health information@ was also
based on case law. The definition of Astate law@ was drawn from the
statutory definition of this term elsewhere in HIPAA. We note that state
action having the force and effect of law may include common law. We
eliminate the term Adecision@ from the proposed rule because it is
redundant.

Proposed \' 160.203 proposed a general rule reflecting the statutory
general rule and exceptions that generally mirrored the statutory
language of the exceptions. The one substantive addition to the
statutory exception language was with respect to the statutory
exception, Afor other purposes.@ The following language was added: Afor
other purposes related to improving the Medicare program, the Medicaid
program, or the efficiency and effectiveness of the health care system.@

Proposed \' 160.204 proposed two processes, one for the making of
exception determinations, relating to determinations under section
1178(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the other for the rendering of advisory
opinions, with respect to section 1178(a)(2)(B) of the Act. The
processes proposed were similar in the following respects: (1) only the
state could request an exception determination or advisory opinion, as
applicable; (2) both required the request to contain the same
information, except that a request for an exception determination also
had to set out the length of time the requested exception would be in
effect, if less than three years; (3) both sets of requirements provided
that requests had to be submitted to the Secretary as required by the
Secretary, and until the Secretary=s determination was made, the federal
standard, requirement or implementation specification remained in
effect; (4) both sets of requirements provided that the Secretary=s
decision would be effective intrastate only; (5) both sets of
requirements provided that any change to either the federal or state
basis for the Secretary=s decision would require a new request, and the
federal standard, implementation specification, or requirement would
remain in effect until the Secretary acted favorably on the new request;
(6) both sets of requirements provided that the Secretary could seek
changes to the federal rules or urge states or other organizations to
seek changes; and (7) both sets of requirements provided for annual
publication of Secretarial decisions. In addition, the process for
exception determinations provided for a maximum effective period of
three years for such determinations.

The following changes have been made to Subpart B in the final rules.
First, \' 160.201 now expressly implements section 1178. Second, the
definition of Amore stringent@ has been changed by eliminating the
criterion relating to penalties and by framing the criterion under
paragraph (1) more generally. Also, we have clarified that the term
Aindividual@ means the person who is the subject of the individually
identifiable health information, since the term Aindividual@ is defined
this way only in Subpart E of Part 164, not in Part 160. Third, the
definition of Astate law@ has been changed by substituting the words
Astatute, constitutional provision@ for the word Alaw,@ the words
Acommon law@ for the word Adecision,@ and adding the words Aforce and@
before the word Aeffect@ in the proposed definition. Fourth, in \'
160.203, several criteria relating to the statutory grounds for
exception determinations have been further spelled out: (1) the words A
related to the provision of or payment for health care@ have been added
to the exception for fraud and abuse; (2) the words A to the extent
expressly authorized by statute or regulation@ have been added to the
exception for state regulation of health plans; (3) the words Aof
serving a compelling need related to public health, safety, or welfare,
and, where a standard, requirement, or implementation specification
under part 164 of this subchapter is at issue, where the Secretary
determines that the intrusion into privacy is warranted when balanced
against the need to be served@ have been added to the general exception
Afor other purposes@; and (4) the statutory provision regarding
controlled substances has been elaborated on as follows: AHas as its
principal purpose the regulation of the manufacture, registration,
distribution, dispensing, or other control of any controlled substance,
as defined at 21 U.S.C. 802, or which is deemed a controlled substance
by state law.@

The most extensive changes have been made to proposed \' 160.204. The
provision for advisory opinions has been eliminated. Section 160.204 now
sets out only a process for requesting exception determinations. In most
respects, this process is the same as proposed. However, the proposed
restriction of the effect of exception determinations to wholly
intrastate transactions has been eliminated. Section 160.204(a) has been
modified to allow any person, not just a state, to submit a request for
an exception determination, and clarifies that requests from states may
be made by the state=s chief elected official or his or her designee.
Proposed \' 160.204(a)(3) stated that if it is determined that the
federal standard, requirement, or implementation specification in
question meets the exception criteria as well as or better than the
state law for which the exception is requested, the request will be
denied; this language has been deleted. Thus, the criterion for granting
or denying an exception request is whether the applicable exception
criterion or criteria are met.

A new \' 160.205 is also adopted, replacing part of what was proposed at
proposed \' 160.204. The new \' 160.205 sets out the rules relating to
the effectiveness of exception determinations. Exception determinations
are effective until either the underlying federal or state laws change
or the exception is revoked, by the Secretary, based on a determination
that the grounds supporting the exception no longer exist. The proposed
maximum of three years has been eliminated.

***Relationship to Other Federal Laws***

Covered entities subject to these rules are also subject to other
federal statutes and regulations. For example, federal programs must
comply with the statutes and regulations that govern them. Pursuant to
their contracts, Medicare providers must comply with the requirements of
the Privacy Act of 1974. Substance abuse treatment facilities are
subject to the Substance Abuse Confidentiality provisions of the Public
Health Service Act, section 543 and its regulations. And, health care
providers in schools, colleges, and universities may come within the
purview of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. Thus, covered
entities will need to determine how the privacy regulation will affect
their ability to comply with these other federal laws.

Many commenters raised questions about how different federal statutes
and regulations intersect with the privacy regulation. While we address
specific concerns in the response to comments later in the preamble, in
this section, we explore some of the general interaction issues. These
summaries do not identify all possible conflicts or overlaps of the
privacy regulation and other federal laws, but should provide general
guidance for complying with both the privacy regulation and other
federal laws. The summaries also provide examples of how covered
entities can analyze other federal laws when specific questions arise.
HHS may consult with other agencies concerning the interpretation of
other federal laws as necessary.

***Implied Repeal Analysis***

When faced with the need to determine how different federal laws
interact with one another, we turn to the judiciary=s approach. Courts
apply the implied repeal analysis to resolve tensions that appear to
exist between two or more statutes. While the implication of a
regulation-on-regulation conflict is unclear, courts agree that
administrative rules and regulations that do not conflict with express
statutory provisions have the force and effect of law. Thus, we believe
courts would apply the standard rules of interpretation that apply to
statutes to address questions of interpretation with regard to
regulatory conflicts.

When faced with two potentially conflicting statutes, courts attempt to
construe them so that both are given effect. If this construction is not
possible, courts will look for express language in the later statute, or
an intent in its legislative history, indicating that Congress intended
the later statute to repeal the earlier one. If there is no expressed
intent to repeal the earlier statute, courts will characterize the
statutes as either general or specific. Ordinarily, later, general
statutes will not repeal the special provisions of an earlier, specific
statute. In some cases, when a later, general statute creates an
irreconcilable conflict or is manifestly inconsistent with the earlier,
specific statute in a manner that indicates a clear and manifest
Congressional intent to repeal the earlier statute, courts will find
that the later statute repeals the earlier statute by implication. In
these cases, the latest legislative action may prevail and repeal the
prior law, but only to the extent of the conflict.

There should be few instances in which conflicts exist between a statute
or regulation and the rules below. For example, if a statute permits a
covered entity to disclose protected health information and the rules
below permit such a disclosure, no conflict arises; the covered entity
could comply with both and choose whether or not to disclose the
information. In instances in which a potential conflict appears, we
would attempt to resolve it so that both laws applied. For example, if a
statute or regulation permits dissemination of protected health
information, but the rules below prohibit the use or disclosure without
an authorization, we believe a covered entity would be able to comply
with both because it could obtain an authorization under \' 164.508
before disseminating the information under the other law.

Many apparent conflicts will not be true conflicts. For example, if a
conflict appears to exist because a previous statute or regulation
requires a specific use or disclosure of protected health information
that the rules below appear to prohibit, the use or disclosure pursuant
to that statute or regulation would not be a violation of the privacy
regulation because \' 164.512(a) permits covered entities to use or
disclose protected health information as required by law.

If a statute or regulation prohibits dissemination of protected health
information, but the privacy regulation requires that an individual have
access to that information, the earlier, more specific statute would
apply. The interaction between the Clinical Laboratory Improvement
Amendments regulation is an example of this type of conflict. From our
review of several federal laws, it appears that Congress did not intend
for the privacy regulation to overrule existing statutory requirements
in these instances.

***Examples of Interaction***

We have summarized how certain federal laws interact with the privacy
regulation to provide specific guidance in areas deserving special
attention and to serve as examples of the analysis involved. In the
Response to Comment section, we have provided our responses to specific
questions raised during the comment period.

*The Privacy Act.*

The Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, prohibits disclosures of records
contained in a system of records maintained by a federal agency (or its
contractors) without the written request or consent of the individual to
whom the record pertains. This general rule is subject to various
statutory exceptions. In addition to the disclosures explicitly
permitted in the statute, the Privacy Act permits agencies to disclose
information for other purposes compatible with the purpose for which the
information was collected by identifying the disclosure as a Aroutine
use@ and publishing notice of it in the Federal Register. The Act
applies to all federal agencies and certain federal contractors who
operate Privacy Act systems of records on behalf of federal agencies.

Some federal agencies and contractors of federal agencies that are
covered entities under the privacy rules are subject to the Privacy Act.
These entities must comply with all applicable federal statutes and
regulations. For example, if the privacy regulation permits a
disclosure, but the disclosure is not permitted under the Privacy Act,
the federal agency may not make the disclosure. If, however, the Privacy
Act allows a federal agency the discretion to make a routine use
disclosure, but the privacy regulation prohibits the disclosure, the
federal agency will have to apply its discretion in a way that complies
with the regulation. This means not making the particular disclosure.

*The Freedom of Information Act.*

FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552, provides for public disclosure, upon the request of
any person, of many types of information in the possession of the
federal government, subject to nine exemptions and three exclusions. For
example, Exemption 6 permits federal agencies to withhold Apersonnel and
medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute
a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.@ 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6).

Uses and disclosures required by FOIA come within \' 164.512(a) of the
privacy regulation that permits uses or disclosures required by law if
the uses or disclosures meet the relevant requirements of the law. Thus,
a federal agency must determine whether it may apply an exemption or
exclusion to redact the protected health information when responding to
a FOIA request. When a FOIA request asks for documents that include
protected health information, we believe the agency, when appropriate,
must apply Exemption 6 to preclude the release of medical files or
otherwise redact identifying details before disclosing the remaining
information.

We offer the following analysis for federal agencies and federal
contractors who operate Privacy Act systems of records on behalf of
federal agencies and must comply with FOIA and the privacy regulation.
If presented with a FOIA request that would result in the disclosure of
protected health information, a federal agency must first determine if
FOIA requires the disclosure or if an exemption or exclusion would be
appropriate. We believe that generally a disclosure of protected health
information, when requested under FOIA, would come within FOIA Exemption
6. We recognize, however, that the application of this exemption to
information about deceased individuals requires a different analysis
than that applicable to living individuals because, as a general rule,
under the Privacy Act, privacy rights are extinguished at death.
However, under FOIA, it is entirely appropriate to consider the privacy
interests of a decedent=s survivors under Exemption 6. *See* Department
of Justice FOIA Guide 2000, Exemption 6: Privacy Considerations. Covered
entities subject to FOIA must evaluate each disclosure on a case-by-case
basis, as they do now under current FOIA procedures.

*Federal Substance Abuse Confidentiality Requirements.*

The federal confidentiality of substance abuse patient records statute,
section 543 of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 290dd-2, and its
implementing regulation, 42 CFR Part 2, establish confidentiality
requirements for patient records that are maintained in connection with
the performance of any federally-assisted specialized alcohol or drug
abuse program. Substance abuse programs are generally programs or
personnel that provide alcohol or drug abuse treatment, diagnosis, or
referral for treatment. The term \"federally-assisted\" is broadly
defined and includes federally conducted or funded programs, federally
licensed or certified programs, and programs that are tax exempt.
Certain exceptions apply to information held by the Veterans
Administration and the Armed Forces.

There are a number of health care providers that are subject to both
these rules and the substance abuse statute and regulations. In most
cases, a conflict will not exist between these rules. These privacy
rules permit a health care provider to disclose information in a number
of situations that are not permitted under the substance abuse
regulation. For example, disclosures allowed, without patient
authorization, under the privacy rule for law enforcement, judicial and
administrative proceedings, public health, health oversight, directory
assistance, and as required by other laws would generally be prohibited
under the substance abuse statute and regulation. However, because these
disclosures are permissive and not mandatory, there is no conflict. An
entity would not be in violation of the privacy rules for failing to
make these disclosures.

Similarly, provisions in the substance abuse regulation provide for
permissive disclosures in case of medical emergencies, to the FDA, for
research activities, for audit and evaluation activities, and in
response to certain court orders. Because these are permissive
disclosures, programs subject to both the privacy rules and the
substance abuse rule are able to comply with both rules even if the
privacy rules restrict these types of disclosures. In addition, the
privacy rules generally require that an individual be given access to
his or her own health information. Under the substance abuse regulation,
programs may provide such access, so there is no conflict.

The substance abuse regulation requires notice to patients of the
substance abuse confidentiality requirements and provides for written
consent for disclosure. While the privacy rules have requirements that
are somewhat different, the program may use notice and authorization
forms that include all the elements required by both regulations. The
substance abuse rule provides a sample notice and a sample authorization
form and states that the use of these forms would be sufficient. While
these forms do not satisfy all of the requirements of the privacy
regulation, there is no conflict because the substance abuse regulation
does not mandate the use of these forms.

*Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.*

ERISA was enacted in 1974 to regulate pension and welfare employee
benefit plans established by private sector employers, unions, or both,
to provide benefits to their workers and dependents. Under ERISA, plans
that provide \"through the purchase of insurance or otherwise \...
medical, surgical, or hospital care or benefits, or benefits in the
event of sickness, accident, disability, \[or\] death\" are defined as
employee welfare benefit plans. 29 U.S.C. 1002(1). In 1996, HIPAA
amended ERISA to require portability, nondiscrimination, and
renewability of health benefits provided by group health plans and group
health insurance issuers. Numerous, although not all, ERISA plans are
covered under the rules proposed below as Ahealth plans.@

Section 514(a) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1144(a), preempts all state laws that
\"relate to\" any employee benefit plan. However, section 514(b) of
ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1144(b)(2)(A), expressly saves from preemption state
laws that regulate insurance. Section 514(b)(2)(B) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C.
1144(b)(2)(B), provides that an ERISA plan is deemed not to be an
insurer for the purpose of regulating the plan under the state insurance
laws. Thus, under the deemer clause, states may not treat ERISA plans as
insurers subject to direct regulation by state law. Finally, section
514(d) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1144(d), provides that ERISA does not Aalter,
amend, modify, invalidate, impair, or supersede any law of the United
States.@

We considered whether the preemption provision of section 264(c)(2) of
HIPAA would give effect to state laws that would otherwise be preempted
by section 514(a) of ERISA. As discussed above, our reading of the
statutes together is that the effect of section 264(c)(2) is only to
leave in place state privacy protections that would otherwise apply and
that are more stringent than the federal privacy protections.

Many health plans covered by the privacy regulation are also subject to
ERISA requirements. Our discussions and consultations have not uncovered
any particular ERISA requirements that would conflict with the rules.

*The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.*

FERPA, as amended, 20 U.S.C. 1232g, provides parents of students and
eligible students (students who are 18 or older) with privacy
protections and rights for the records of students maintained by
federally funded educational agencies or institutions or persons acting
for these agencies or institutions. We have excluded education records
covered by FERPA, including those education records designated as
education records under Parts B, C, and D of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, from the definition of
protected health information. For example, individually identifiable
health information of students under the age of 18 created by a nurse in
a primary or secondary school that receives federal funds and that is
subject to FERPA is an education record, but not protected health
information. Therefore, the privacy regulation does not apply. We
followed this course because Congress specifically addressed how
information in education records should be protected in FERPA.

We have also excluded certain records, those described at 20 U.S.C.
1232g(a)(4)(B)(iv), from the definition of protected health information
because FERPA also provided a specific structure for the maintenance of
these records. These are records (1) of students who are 18 years or
older or are attending post-secondary educational institutions, (2)
maintained by a physician, psychiatrist, psychologist, or recognized
professional or paraprofessional acting or assisting in that capacity,
(3) that are made, maintained, or used only in connection with the
provision of treatment to the student, and (4) that are not available to
anyone, except a physician or appropriate professional reviewing the
record as designated by the student. Because FERPA excludes these
records from its protections only to the extent they are not available
to anyone other than persons providing treatment to students, any use or
disclosure of the record for other purposes, including providing access
to the individual student who is the subject of the information, would
turn the record into an education record. As education records, they
would be subject to the protections of FERPA.

These exclusions are not applicable to all schools, however. If a school
does not receive federal funds, it is not an educational agency or
institution as defined by FERPA. Therefore, its records that contain
individually identifiable health information are not education records.
These records may be protected health information. The educational
institution or agency that employs a school nurse is subject to our
regulation as a health care provider if the school nurse or the school
engages in a HIPAA transaction.

While we strongly believe every individual should have the same level of
privacy protection for his/her individually identifiable health
information, Congress did not provide us with authority to disturb the
scheme it had devised for records maintained by educational institutions
and agencies under FERPA. We do not believe Congress intended to amend
or preempt FERPA when it enacted HIPAA.

With regard to the records described at 20 U.S.C. 1232g(a)(4)(b)(iv), we
considered requiring health care providers engaged in HIPAA transactions
to comply with the privacy regulation up to the point these records were
used or disclosed for purposes other than treatment. At that point, the
records would be converted from protected health information into
education records. This conversion would occur any time a student sought
to exercise his/her access rights. The provider, then, would need to
treat the record in accordance with FERPA=s requirements and be relieved
from its obligations under the privacy regulation. We chose not to adopt
this approach because it would be unduly burdensome to require providers
to comply with two different, yet similar, sets of regulations and
inconsistent with the policy in FERPA that these records be exempt from
regulation to the extent the records were used only to treat the
student.

*Gramm-Leach-Bliley.*

In 1999, Congress passed Gramm-Leach-Bliley (GLB), Pub. L. 106-102,
which included provisions, section 501 *et seq.*, that limit the ability
of financial institutions to disclose Anonpublic personal information@
about consumers to non-affiliated third parties and require financial
institutions to provide customers with their privacy policies and
practices with respect to nonpublic personal information. In addition,
Congress required seven agencies with jurisdiction over financial
institutions to promulgate regulations as necessary to implement these
provisions. GLB and its accompanying regulations define Afinancial
institutions@ as including institutions engaged in the financial
activities of bank holding companies, which may include the business of
insuring. *See* 15 U.S.C. 6809(3); 12 U.S.C. 1843(k). However, Congress
did not provide the designated federal agencies with the authority to
regulate health insurers. Instead, it provided states with an incentive
to adopt and have their state insurance authorities enforce these rules.
*See* 15 U.S.C. 6805. If a state were to adopt laws consistent with GLB,
health insurers would have to determine how to comply with both sets of
rules.

Thus, GLB has caused concern and confusion among health plans that are
subject to our privacy regulation. Although Congress remained silent as
to its understanding of the interaction of GLB and HIPAA=s privacy
provisions, the Federal Trade Commission and other agencies implementing
the GLB privacy provisions noted in the preamble to their GLB
regulations that they Awould consult with HHS to avoid the imposition of
duplicative or inconsistent requirements.@ 65 Fed. Reg. 33646, 33648
(2000). Additionally, the FTC also noted that Apersons engaged in
providing insurance@ would be within the enforcement jurisdiction of
state insurance authorities and not within the jurisdiction of the FTC.
*Id.*

Because the FTC has clearly stated that it will not enforce the GLB
privacy provisions against persons engaged in providing insurance,
health plans will not be subject to dual federal agency jurisdiction for
information that is both nonpublic personal information and protected
health information. If states choose to adopt GLB-like laws or
regulations, which may or may not track the federal rules completely,
health plans would need to evaluate these laws under the preemption
analysis described in subpart B of Part 160.

*Federally Funded Health Programs.*

These rules will affect various federal programs, some of which may have
requirements that are, or appear to be, inconsistent with the
requirements of these regulations. These programs include those operated
directly by the federal government (such as health programs for military
personnel and veterans) as well as programs in which health services or
benefits are provided by the private sector or by state or local
governments, but which are governed by various federal laws (such as
Medicare, Medicaid, and ERISA).

Congress explicitly included some of these programs in HIPAA, subjecting
them directly to the privacy regulation. Section 1171 of the Act defines
the term Ahealth plan@ to include the following federally conducted,
regulated, or funded programs: group plans under ERISA that either have
50 or more participants or are administered by an entity other than the
employer who established and maintains the plan; federally qualified
health maintenance organizations; Medicare; Medicaid; Medicare
supplemental policies; the health care program for active military
personnel; the health care program for veterans; the Civilian Health and
Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS); the Indian health
service program under the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, 25 U.S.C.
1601, et seq.; and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. There
also are many other federally conducted, regulated, or funded programs
in which individually identifiable health information is created or
maintained, but which do not come within the statutory definition of
Ahealth plan.@ While these latter types of federally conducted,
regulated, or assisted programs are not explicitly covered by part C of
title XI in the same way that the programs listed in the statutory
definition of Ahealth plan@ are covered, the statute may nonetheless
apply to transactions and other activities conducted under such
programs. This is likely to be the case when the federal entity or
federally regulated or funded entity provides health services; the
requirements of part C may apply to such an entity as a Ahealth care
provider.@ Thus, the issue of how different federal requirements apply
is likely to arise in numerous contexts.

There are a number of authorities under the Public Health Service Act
and other legislation that contain explicit confidentiality
requirements, either in the enabling legislation or in the implementing
regulations. Many of these are so general that there would appear to be
no problem of inconsistency, in that nothing in those laws or
regulations would appear to restrict the provider=s ability to comply
with the privacy regulation=s requirements.

There may, however, be authorities under which either the requirements
of the enabling legislation or of the program regulations would impose
requirements that differ from these rules.

For example, regulations applicable to the substance abuse block grant
program funded under section 1943(b) of the Public Health Service Act
require compliance with 42 CFR part 2, and, thus, raise the issues
identified above in the substance abuse confidentiality regulations
discussion. There are a number of federal programs which, either by
statute or by regulation, restrict the disclosure of patient information
to, with minor exceptions, disclosures Arequired by law.@ See, for
example, the program of projects for prevention and control of sexually
transmitted diseases funded under section 318(e)(5) of the Public Health
Service Act (42 CFR 51b.404); the regulations implementing the community
health center program funded under section 330 of the Public Health
Service Act (42 CFR 51c.110); the regulations implementing the program
of grants for family planning services under title X of the Public
Health Service Act (42 CFR 59.15); the regulations implementing the
program of grants for black lung clinics funded under 30 U.S.C. 437(a)
(42 CFR 55a.104); the regulations implementing the program of maternal
and child health projects funded under section 501 of the Act (42 CFR
51a.6); the regulations implementing the program of medical examinations
of coal miners (42 CFR 37.80(a)). These legal requirements would
restrict the grantees or other entities providing services under the
programs involved from making many of the disclosures that \'\' 164.510
or 164.512 would permit. In some cases, permissive disclosures for
treatment, payment, or health care operations would also be limited.
Because \'\' 164.510 and 164.512 are merely permissive, there would not
be a conflict between the program requirements, because it would be
possible to comply with both. However, entities subject to both sets of
requirements would not have the total range of discretion that they
would have if they were subject only to this regulation.

*Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.*

The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 301, *et seq.*, and its
accompanying regulations outline the responsibilities of the Food and
Drug Administration with regard to monitoring the safety and
effectiveness of drugs and devices. Part of the agency=s responsibility
is to obtain reports about adverse events, track medical devices, and
engage in other types of post marketing surveillance. Because many of
these reports contain protected health information, the information
within them may come within the purview of the privacy rules. Although
some of these reports are required by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
or its accompanying regulations, other types of reporting are voluntary.
We believe that these reports, while not mandated, play a critical role
in ensuring that individuals receive safe and effective drugs and
devices. Therefore, in \' 164.512(b)(1)(iii), we have provided that
covered entities may disclose protected health information to a person
subject to the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration for
specified purposes, such as reporting adverse events, tracking medical
devices, or engaging in other post marketing surveillance. We describe
the scope and conditions of such disclosures in more detail in \'
164.512(b).

*Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments.*

CLIA, 42 U.S.C. 263a, and the accompanying regulations, 42 CFR part 493,
require clinical laboratories to comply with standards regarding the
testing of human specimens. This law requires clinical laboratories to
disclose test results or reports only to authorized persons, as defined
by state law. If a state does not define the term, the federal law
defines it as the person who orders the test.

We realize that the person ordering the test is most likely a health
care provider and not the individual who is the subject of the protected
health information included within the result or report. Under this
requirement, therefore, a clinical laboratory may be prohibited by law
from providing the individual who is the subject of the test result or
report with access to this information.

Although we believe individuals should be able to have access to their
individually identifiable health information, we recognize that in the
specific area of clinical laboratory testing and reporting, the Health
Care Financing Administration, through regulation, has provided that
access may be more limited. To accommodate this requirement, we have
provided at \' 164.524(1)(iii) that covered entities maintaining
protected health information that is subject to the CLIA requirements do
not have to provide individuals with a right of access to or a right to
inspect and obtain a copy of this information if the disclosure of the
information to the individual would be prohibited by CLIA.

Not all clinical laboratories, however, will be exempted from providing
individuals with these rights. If a clinical laboratory operates in a
state in which the term Aauthorized person@ is defined to include the
individual, the clinical laboratory would have to provide the individual
with these rights. Similarly, if the individual was the person who
ordered the test and an authorized person included such a person, the
laboratory would be required to provide the individual with these
rights.

Additionally, CLIA regulations exempt the components or functions of
Aresearch laboratories that test human specimens but do not report
patient specific results for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of
any disease or impairment of, or the assessment of the health of
individual patients@ from the CLIA regulatory scheme. 42 CFR
493.3(a)(2). If subject to the access requirements of this regulation,
such entities would be forced to meet the requirements of CLIA from
which they are currently exempt. To eliminate this additional regulatory
burden, we have also excluded covered entities that are exempt from CLIA
under that rule from the access requirement of this regulation.

Although we are concerned about the lack of immediate access by the
individual, we believe that, in most cases, individuals who receive
clinical tests will be able to receive their test results or reports
through the health care provider who ordered the test for them. The
provider will receive the information from the clinical laboratory.
Assuming that the provider is a covered entity, the individual will have
the right of access and right to inspect and copy this protected health
information through his or her provider.

*Other Mandatory Federal or State Laws.*

Many federal laws require covered entities to provide specific
information to specific entities in specific circumstances. If a federal
law requires a covered entity to disclose a specific type of
information, the covered entity would not need an authorization under \'
164.508 to make the disclosure because the final rule permits covered
entities to make disclosures that are required by law under \'
164.512(a). Other laws, such as the Social Security Act (including its
Medicare and Medicaid provisions), the Family and Medical Leave Act, the
Public Health Service Act, Department of Transportation regulations, the
Environmental Protection Act and its accompanying regulations, the
National Labor Relations Act, the Federal Aviation Administration, and
the Federal Highway Administration rules, may also contain provisions
that require covered entities or others to use or disclose protected
health information for specific purposes.

When a covered entity is faced with a question as to whether the privacy
regulation would prohibit the disclosure of protected health information
that it seeks to disclose pursuant to a federal law, the covered entity
should determine if the disclosure is required by that law. In other
words, it must determine if the disclosure is mandatory rather than
merely permissible. If it is mandatory, a covered entity may disclose
the protected health information pursuant to \' 164.512(a), which
permits covered entities to disclose protected health information
without an authorization when the disclosure is required by law. If the
disclosure is not required (but only permitted) by the federal law, the
covered entity must determine if the disclosure comes within one of the
other permissible disclosures. If the disclosure does not come within
one of the provisions for permissible disclosures, the covered entity
must obtain an authorization from the individual who is the subject of
the information or de-identify the information before disclosing it.

If another federal law prohibits a covered entity from using or
disclosing information that is also protected health information, but
the privacy regulation permits the use or disclosure, a covered entity
will need to comply with the other federal law and not use or disclose
the information.

*Federal Disability Nondiscrimination Laws*.

The federal laws barring discrimination on the basis of disability
protect the confidentiality of certain medical information. The
information protected by these laws falls within the larger definition
of Ahealth information@ under this privacy regulation. The two primary
disability nondiscrimination laws are the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 *et seq.*, and the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 701 *et seq.*, although other laws barring
discrimination on the basis of disability (such as the nondiscrimination
provisions of the Workforce Investment Act of 1988, 29 U.S.C. 2938) may
also apply. Federal disability nondiscrimination laws cover two general
categories of entities relevant to this discussion: employers and
entities that receive federal financial assistance.

Employers are not covered entities under the privacy regulation. Many
employers, however, are subject to the federal disability
nondiscrimination laws and, therefore, must protect the confidentiality
of all medical information concerning their applicants and employees.

The employment provisions of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12111 *et seq.*,
expressly cover employers of 15 or more employees, employment agencies,
labor organizations, and joint labor-management committees. Since 1992,
employment discrimination complaints arising under sections 501, 503,
and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act also have been subject to the ADA=s
employment nondiscrimination standards. *See* ARehabilitation Act
Amendments,@ Pub. L. No. 102-569, 106 Stat. 4344. Employers subject to
ADA nondiscrimination standards have confidentiality obligations
regarding applicant and employee medical information. Employers must
treat such medical information, including medical information from
voluntary health or wellness programs and any medical information that
is voluntarily disclosed as a confidential medical record, subject to
limited exceptions.

Transmission of health information by an employer to a covered entity,
such as a group health plan, is governed by the ADA confidentiality
restrictions. The ADA, however, has been interpreted to permit an
employer to use medical information for insurance purposes. *See* 29 CFR
1630 App. at \' 1630.14(b) (describing such use with reference to 29 CFR
1630.16(f), which in turn explains that the ADA regulation Ais not
intended to disrupt the current regulatory structure for self-insured
employers . . . or current industry practices in sales, underwriting,
pricing, administrative and other services, claims and similar insurance
related activities based on classification of risks as regulated by the
states@). *See also*, AEnforcement Guidance on Disability-Related
Inquiries and Medical Examinations of Employees under the Americans with
Disabilities Act,@ 4, n.10 (July 26, 2000), \_\_ FEP Manual (BNA) \_\_
(AEnforcement Guidance on Employees@). *See generally*, AADA Enforcement
Guidance on Preemployment Disability-Related Questions and Medical
Examinations@ (October 10, 1995), 8 FEP Manual (BNA) 405:7191 (1995)
(also available at [http://www.eeoc.gov).]{.underline} Thus, use of
medical information for insurance purposes may include transmission of
health information to a covered entity.

If an employer-sponsored group health plan is closely linked to an
employer, the group health plan may be subject to ADA confidentiality
restrictions, as well as this privacy regulation. *See* *Carparts
Distribution Center, Inc. v. Automotive Wholesaler=s Association of New
England, Inc.*, 37 F.3d 12 (1^st^ Cir. 1994)(setting forth three bases
for ADA Title I jurisdiction over an employer-provided medical
reimbursement plan, in a discrimination challenge to the plan=s HIV/AIDS
cap). Transmission of applicant or employee health information by the
employer=s management to the group health plan may be permitted under
the ADA standards as the use of medical information for insurance
purposes. Similarly, disclosure of such medical information by the group
health plan, under the limited circumstances permitted by this privacy
regulation, may involve use of the information for insurance purposes as
broadly described in the ADA discussion above.

Entities that receive federal financial assistance, which may also be
covered entities under the privacy regulation, are subject to section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 794) and its implementing
regulations. Each federal agency has promulgated such regulations that
apply to entities that receive financial assistance from that agency
(Arecipients@). These regulations may limit the disclosure of medical
information about persons who apply to or participate in a federal
financially assisted program or activity. For example, the Department of
Labor=s section 504 regulation (found at 29 CFR part 32), consistent
with the ADA standards, requires recipients that conduct
employment-related programs, including employment training programs, to
maintain confidentiality regarding any information about the medical
condition or history of applicants to or participants in the program or
activity. Such information must be kept separate from other information
about the applicant or participant and may be provided to certain
specified individuals and entities, but only under certain limited
circumstances described in the regulation. *See* 29 CFR 32.15(d). Apart
from those circumstances, the information must be afforded the same
confidential treatment as medical records, *id*. Also, recipients of
federal financial assistance from the Department of Health and Human
Services, such as hospitals, are subject to the ADA=s employment
nondiscrimination standards. They must, accordingly, maintain
confidentiality regarding the medical condition or history of applicants
for employment and employees.

The statutes and implementing regulations under which the federal
financial assistance is provided may contain additional provisions
regulating collection and disclosure of medical, health, and
disability-related information. *See, e.g.*, section 188 of the
Workforce Investment Act of 1988 (29 U.S.C. 2938) and 29 CFR 37.3(b).
Thus, covered entities that are subject to this privacy regulation, may
also be subject to the restrictions in these laws as well.

*U.S. Safe Harbor Privacy Principles (European Union Directive on Data
Protection).*

The E.U. Directive became effective in October 1998 and prohibits
European Union Countries from permitting the transfer of personal data
to another country without ensuring that an Aadequate level of
protection,@ as determined by the European Commission, exists in the
other country or pursuant to one of the Directive=s derogations of this
rule, such as pursuant to unambiguous consent or to fulfill a contract
with the individual. In July 2000, the European Commission concluded
that the U.S. Safe Harbor Privacy Principles[^1] constituted Aadequate
protection.@ Adherence to the Principles is voluntary. Organizations
wishing to engage in the exchange of personal data with E.U. countries
may assert compliance with the Principles as one means of obtaining data
from E.U. countries.

The Department of Commerce, which negotiated these Principles with the
European Commission, has provided guidance for U.S. organizations
seeking to adhere to the guidelines and comply with U.S. law. We believe
this guidance addresses the concerns covered entities seeking to
transfer personal data from E.U. countries may have. When AU.S. law
imposes a conflicting obligation, U.S. organizations whether in the safe
harbor or not must comply with the law.@ An organization does not need
to comply with the Principles if a conflicting U.S. law Aexplicitly
authorizes@ the particular conduct. The organization=s non-compliance is
Alimited to the extent necessary to meet the overriding legitimate
interests further\[ed\] by such authorization.@ However, if only a
difference exists such that an Aoption is allowable under the Principles
and/or U.S. law, organizations are expected to opt for the higher
protection where possible.@ Questions regarding compliance and
interpretation will be decided based on U.S. law. *See* Department of
Commerce, Memorandum on Damages for Breaches of Privacy, Legal
Authorizations and Mergers and Takeovers in U.S. Law 5 (July 17, 2000);
Department of Commerce, Safe Harbor Privacy Principles Issued by the
U.S. Department of Commerce on July 21, 2000, 65 Fed. Reg. 45666 (2000).
The Principles and our privacy regulation are based on common principles
of fair information practices. We believe they are essentially
consistent and that an organization complying with our privacy
regulation can fairly and correctly self-certify that it complies with
the Principles. If a true conflict arises between the privacy regulation
and the Principles, the Department of Commerce=s guidance provides that
an entity must comply with the U.S. law.

**PART 160BSUBPART CBCOMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT**

Proposed \' 164.522 included five paragraphs addressing activities
related to the Secretary=s enforcement of the rule. These provisions
were based on procedures and requirements in various civil rights
regulations. Proposed \' 164.522(a) provided that the Secretary would,
to the extent practicable, seek the cooperation of covered entities in
obtaining compliance, and could provide technical assistance to covered
entities to help them comply voluntarily. Proposed \' 164.522(b)
provided that individuals could file complaints with the Secretary.
However, where the complaint related to the alleged failure of a covered
entity to amend or correct protected health information as proposed in
the rule, the Secretary would not make certain determinations such as
whether protected health information was accurate or complete. This
paragraph also listed the requirements for filing complaints and
indicated that the Secretary may investigate such complaints and what
might be reviewed as part of such investigation.

Under proposed \' 164.522(c), the Secretary would be able to conduct
compliance reviews. Proposed \' 164.522(d) described the
responsibilities that covered entities keep records and reports as
prescribed by the Secretary, cooperate with compliance reviews, permit
the Secretary to have access to their facilities, books, records, and
other sources of information during normal business hours, and seek
records held by other persons. This paragraph also stated that the
Secretary would maintain the confidentiality of protected health
information she collected and prohibit covered entities from taking
retaliatory action against individuals for filing complaints or for
other activities. Proposed \' 164.522(e) provided that the Secretary
would inform the covered entity and the individual complainant if an
investigation or review indicated a failure to comply and would seek to
resolve the matter informally if possible. If the matter could not be
resolved informally, the Secretary would be able to issue written
findings, be required to inform the covered entity and the complainant,
and be able to pursue civil enforcement action or make a criminal
referral. The Secretary would also be required to inform the covered
entity and the individual complainant if no violation was found.

We make the following changes and additions to proposed \' 164.522 in
the final rule. First, we have moved this section to part 160, as a new
subpart C, ACompliance and Enforcement.@ Second, we add new sections
that explain the applicability of these provisions and incorporate
certain definitions. Accordingly, we change the proposed references to
violations to Athis subpart@ to violations of Athe applicable
requirements of part 160 and the applicable standards, requirements, and
implementation specifications of subpart E of part 164 of this
subchapter.@ Third, the final rule at \' 160.306(a) provides that any
person, not just an Aindividual@ (the person who is the subject of the
individually identifiable health information) may file a complaint with
the Secretary. Other references in this subpart to an individual have
been changed accordingly. Fourth, we delete the proposed \' 164.522(a)
language that indicated that the Secretary would not determine whether
information was accurate or complete, or whether errors or omissions
might have an adverse effect on the individual. While the policy is not
changed in that the Secretary will not make such determinations, we
believe the language is unnecessary and may suggest that we would make
all other types of determinations, such as all determinations in which
the regulation defers to the professional judgment of the covered
entity. Fifth, \' 160.306(b)(3) requires that complaints be filed within
180 days of when the complainant knew or should have known that the act
or omission complained of occurred, unless this time limit is waived by
the Secretary for good cause shown. Sixth, \' 160.310(b) requires
cooperation with investigations as well as compliance reviews. Seventh,
\' 160.310 (c)(1) provides that the Secretary must be provided access to
a covered entity=s facilities, books, records, accounts, and other
sources of information, including protected health information, at any
time and without notice where exigent circumstances exist, such as where
documents might be hidden or destroyed. Eighth, the provision proposed
at \' 164.522(d) that would prohibit covered entities from taking
retaliatory action against individuals for filing a complaint with the
Secretary or for certain other actions has been changed and moved to \'
164.530. Ninth, \' 160. 312(a)(2) deletes the reference in the proposed
rule to using violation findings as a basis for initiating action to
secure penalties. This deletion is not a substantive change. This
language was removed because penalties will be addressed in the
enforcement regulation. As in the NPRM, the Secretary may promulgate
alternative procedures for complaints relating to national security. For
example, to protect classified information, we may promulgate rules that
would allow an intelligence community agency to create a separate body
within that agency to receive complaints.

The Department plans to issue an Enforcement Rule that applies to all of
the regulations that the Department issues under the Administrative
Simplification provisions of HIPAA. This regulation will address the
imposition of civil monetary penalties and the referral of criminal
cases where there has been a violation of this rule. Penalties are
provided for under section 262 of HIPAA. The Enforcement Rule would also
address the topics covered by Subpart C below. It is expected that this
Enforcement Rule would replace Subpart C.

**PART 164 B SUBPART A B GENERAL PROVISIONS**

**SECTION 164.102 B STATUTORY BASIS**

In the NPRM, we provided that the provisions of this part are adopted
pursuant to the Secretary\'s authority to prescribe standards,
requirements, and implementation standards under part C of title XI of
the Act and section 264 of Public Law 104-191. The final rule adopts
this language.

**SECTION 164.104 B APPLICABILITY**

In the NPRM, we provided that except as otherwise provided, the
provisions of this part apply to covered entities: health plans, health
care clearinghouses, and health care providers who transmit health
information in electronic form in connection with any transaction
referred to in section 1173(a)(1) of the Act. The final rule adopts this
language.

**SECTION 164.106 B RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PARTS**

The final rule adds a new provision stating that in complying with the
requirements of this part, covered entities are required to comply with
the applicable provisions of parts 160 and 162 of this subchapter. This
language references Subchapter C in this regulation, Administrative Data
Standards and Related Requirements; Part 160, General Administrative
Requirements; and Part 162, Administrative Requirements. Part 160
includes requirements such as keeping records and submitting compliance
reports to the Secretary and cooperating with the Secretary=s complaint
investigations and compliance reviews. Part 162 includes requirements
such as requiring a covered entity that conducts an electronic
transaction, adopted under this part, with another covered entity to
conduct the transaction as a standard transaction as adopted by the
Secretary.

**PART 164 B SUBPART B-D B RESERVED**

**PART 164 B SUBPART E B PRIVACY**

**SECTION 164.500 B APPLICABILITY**

The discussion below describes the entities and the information that are
subject to the final regulation.

Many of the provisions of the regulation are presented as Astandards.@
Generally, the standards indicate what must be accomplished under the
regulation and implementation specifications describe how the standards
must be achieved.

***Covered Entities***

We proposed in the NPRM to apply the standards in the regulation to
health plans, health care clearinghouses, and to any health care
provider who transmits health information in electronic form in
connection with transactions referred to in section 1173(a)(1) of the
Act. The proposal referred to these entities as Acovered entities.@

We have revised \' 164.500 to clarify the applicability of the rule to
health care clearinghouses. As we stated in the preamble to the NPRM, we
believe that in most instances health care clearinghouses will receive
protected health information as a business associate to another covered
entity. This understanding was confirmed by the comments and by our fact
finding. Clearinghouses rarely have direct contact with individuals, and
usually will not be in a position to create protected health information
or to receive it directly from them. Unlike health plans and providers,
clearinghouses usually convey and repackage information and do not add
materially to the substance of protected health information of an
individual.

The revised language provides that clearinghouses are not subject to
certain requirements in the rule when acting as business associates of
other covered entities. As revised, a clearinghouse acting as a business
associate is subject only to the provisions of this section, to the
definitions, to the general rules for uses and disclosures of protected
health information (subject to limitations), to the provision relating
to health care components, to the provisions relating to uses and
disclosures for which consent, individual authorization or an
opportunity to agree or object is not required (subject to limitations),
to the transition requirements and to the compliance date. With respect
to the uses and disclosures authorized under \' 164.502 or \' 164.512, a
clearinghouse acting as a business associate is not authorized by the
rule to make any use or disclosure not permitted by its business
associate contract. Clearinghouses acting as business associates are not
subject to the other requirements of this rule, which include the
provisions relating to procedural requirements, requirements for
obtaining consent, individual authorization or agreement, provision of a
notice, individual rights to request privacy protection, access and
amend information and receive an accounting of disclosures and the
administrative requirements.

We note that, even as business associates, clearinghouses remain covered
entities.

Clearinghouses, like other covered entities, are responsible under this
regulation for abiding by the terms of business associate contracts. For
example, while the provisions regarding individuals= access to and right
to request corrections to protected health information about them apply
only to health plans and covered health care providers, clearinghouses
may have some responsibility for providing such access under their
business associate contracts. A clearinghouse (or any other covered
entity) that violates the terms of a business associate contract also is
in direct violation of this rule and, as a covered entity, is subject to
compliance and enforcement action.

We clarify that a covered entity is only subject to these rules to the
extent that they possess protected health information. Moreover, these
rules only apply with regard to protected health information. For
example, if a covered entity does not disclose or receive from its
business associate any protected health information and no protected
health information is created or received by its business associate on
behalf of the covered entity, then the business associate requirements
of this rule do not apply.

We clarify that the Department of Defense or any other federal agency
and any non-governmental organization acting on its behalf, is not
subject to this rule when it provides health care in another country to
foreign national beneficiaries. The Secretary believes that this
exemption is warranted because application of the rule could have the
unintended effect of impeding or frustrating the conduct of such
activities, such as interfering with the ability of military command
authorities to obtain protected health information on prisoners of war,
refugees, or detainees for whom they are responsible under international
law. See the preamble to the definition of Aindividual@ for further
discussion.

***Covered Information***

We proposed in the NPRM to apply the requirements of the rule to
individually identifiable health information that is or has been
electronically transmitted or maintained by a covered entity. The
provisions would have applied to the information itself, referred to as
protected health information in the rule, and not to the particular
records in which the information is contained. We proposed that once
information was maintained or transmitted electronically by a covered
entity, the protections would follow the information in whatever form,
including paper records, in which it exists while held by a covered
entity. The proposal would not have applied to information that was
never electronically maintained or transmitted by a covered entity.

In the final rule, we extend the scope of protections to all
individually identifiable health information in any form, electronic or
non-electronic, that is held or transmitted by a covered entity. This
includes individually identifiable health information in paper records
that never has been electronically stored or transmitted. (See \'
164.501, definition of Aprotected health information,@ for further
discussion.)

**SECTION 164.501CDEFINITIONS**

***Correctional institution.***

The proposed rule did not define the term correctional institution. The
final rule defines correctional institution as any penal or correctional
facility, jail, reformatory, detention center, work farm, halfway house,
or residential community program center operated by, or under contract
to, the United States, a state, a territory, a political subdivision of
a state or territory, or an Indian tribe, for the confinement or
rehabilitation of persons charged with or convicted of a criminal
offense or other persons held in lawful custody. *Other persons held in
lawful custody* includes juvenile offenders adjudicated delinquent,
aliens detained awaiting deportation, persons committed to mental
institutions through the criminal justice system, witnesses, or others
awaiting charges or trial. This language was necessary to explain the
privacy rights and protections of inmates in this regulation.

***Covered functions.***

We add a new term, Acovered functions,@ as a shorthand way of expressing
and referring to the functions that the entities covered by section
1172(a) of the Act perform. Section 1171 defines the terms Ahealth
plan@, Ahealth care provider@, and Ahealth care clearinghouse@ in
functional terms. Thus, a Ahealth plan@ is an individual or group plan
Athat provides, or pays the cost of, medical care\...@, a Ahealth care
provider@ Afurnish\[es\] health care services or supplies,@ and a
Ahealth care clearinghouse@ is an entity Athat processes or facilitates
the processing of \... data elements of health information\...@. Covered
functions, therefore, are the activities that any such entity engages in
that are directly related to operating as a health plan, health care
provider, or health care clearinghouse; that is, they are the functions
that make it a health plan, health care provider, or health care
clearinghouse.

The term Acovered functions@ is not intended to include various support
functions, such as computer support, payroll and other office support,
and similar support functions, although we recognize that these support
functions must occur in order for the entity to carry out its health
care functions. Because such support functions are often also performed
for parts of an organization that are not doing functions directly
related to the health care functions and may involve access to and/or
use of protected health information, the rules below describe
requirements for ensuring that workforce members who perform these
support functions do not impermissibly use or disclose protected health
information. See \' 164.504.

***Data aggregation.***

The NPRM did not include a definition of data aggregation. In the final
rule, *data aggregation* is defined, with respect to protected health
information received by a business associate in its capacity as the
business associate of a covered entity, as the combining of such
protected health information by the business associate with protected
health information received by the business associate in its capacity as
a business associate of another covered entity, to permit the creation
of data for analyses that relate to the health care operations of the
respective covered entities. The definition is included in the final
rule to help describe how business associates can assist covered
entities to perform health care operations that involve comparative
analysis of protected health information from otherwise unaffiliated
covered entities. Data aggregation is a service that gives rise to a
business associate relationship if the performance of the service
involves disclosure of protected health information by the covered
entity to the business associate.

***Designated record set.***

In the proposed rule, we defined designated record set as Aa group of
records under the control of a covered entity from which information is
retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying number,
symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual and
which is used by the covered entity to make decisions about the
individual.@ We defined a Arecord@ as Aany item, collection, or grouping
of protected health information maintained, collected, used, or
disseminated by a covered entity.@

In the final rule, we modify the definition of designated record set to
specify certain records maintained by or for a covered entity that are
always part of a covered entity=s designated record sets and to include
other records that are used to make decisions about individuals. We do
not use the means of retrieval of a record as a defining criteria.

For health plans, designated record sets include, at a minimum, the
enrollment, payment, claims adjudication, and case or medical management
record systems of the plan. For covered health care providers,
designated record sets include, at a minimum, the medical record and
billing record about individuals maintained by or for the provider. In
addition to these records, designated record sets include any other
group of records that are used, in whole or in part, by or for a covered
entity to make decisions about individuals. We note that records that
otherwise meet the definition of designated record set and which are
held by a business associate of the covered entity are part of the
covered entity=s designated record sets. Although we do not specify
particular types of records that are always included in the designated
record sets of clearinghouses when they are not acting as business
associates, this definition includes a group of records that such a
clearinghouse uses, in whole or in part, to make decisions about
individuals.

For the most part we retain, with slight modifications, the definition
of Arecord,@ defining it as any item, collection, or grouping of
information that includes protected health information and is
maintained, collected, used, or disseminated.

***Direct treatment relationship.***

This term was not included in the proposed rule. Direct treatment
relationship means a relationship between a health care provider and an
individual that is not an indirect treatment relationship (see
definition of indirect treatment relationship, below). For example,
outpatient pharmacists and Web-based providers generally have direct
treatment relationships with patients. Outpatient pharmacists fill
prescriptions written by other providers, but they furnish the
prescription and advice about the prescription directly to the patient,
not through another treating provider. Web-based providers generally
deliver health care independently, without the orders of another
provider.

A provider may have direct treatment relationships with some patients
and indirect treatment relationships with others. In some provisions of
the final rule, providers with indirect treatment relationships are
excepted from requirements that apply to other providers. See \' 164.506
regarding consent for uses and disclosures of protected health
information for treatment, payment, and health care operations, and \'
164.520 regarding notice of information practices. These exceptions
apply only with respect to the individuals with whom the provider has an
indirect treatment relationship.

***Disclosure.***

We proposed to define Adisclosure@ to mean the release, transfer,
provision of access to, or divulging in any other manner of information
outside the entity holding the information. The final rule is unchanged.
We note that the transfer of protected health information from a covered
entity to a business associate is a disclosure for purposes of this
regulation.

***Health care operations.***

The preamble to the proposed rule explained that in order for treatment
and payment to occur, protected health information must be used within
entities and shared with business partners. In the proposed rule we
provided a definition for Ahealth care operations@ to clarify the
activities we considered to be Acompatible with and directly related to@
treatment and payment and for which protected health information could
be used or disclosed without individual authorization. These activities
included conducting quality assessment and improvement activities,
reviewing the competence or qualifications and accrediting/licensing of
health care professionals and plans, evaluating health care professional
and health plan performance, training future health care professionals,
insurance activities relating to the renewal of a contract for
insurance, conducting or arranging for medical review and auditing
services, and compiling and analyzing information in anticipation of or
for use in a civil or criminal legal proceeding. Recognizing the dynamic
nature of the health care industry, we acknowledged that the specified
categories may need to be modified as the industry evolves.

The preamble discussion of the proposed general rules listed certain
activities that would not be considered health care operations because
they were sufficiently unrelated to treatment and payment to warrant
requiring an individual to authorize such use or disclosure. Those
activities included: marketing of health and non-health items and
services; disclosure of protected health information for sale, rent or
barter; use of protected health information by a non-health related
division of an entity; disclosure of protected health information for
eligibility, enrollment, underwriting, or risk rating determinations
prior to an individuals= enrollment in a health plan; disclosure to an
employer for employment determinations; and fundraising.

In the final rule, we do not change the general approach of defining
health care operations: health care operations are the listed activities
undertaken by the covered entity that maintains the protected health
information (i.e., one covered entity may not disclose protected health
information for the operations of a second covered entity); a covered
entity may use any protected health information it maintains for its
operations (e.g., a plan may use protected health information about
former enrollees as well as current enrollees); we expand the proposed
list to reflect many changes requested by commenters.

We modify the proposal that health care operations represent activities
Ain support of@ treatment and payment functions. Instead, in the final
rule, health care operations are the enumerated activities to the extent
that the activities are related to the covered entity=s functions as a
health care provider, health plan or health care clearinghouse, i.e.,
the entity=s Acovered functions.@ We make this change to clarify that
health care operations includes general administrative and business
functions necessary for the covered entity to remain a viable business.
While it is possible to draw a connection between all the enumerated
activities and Atreatment and payment,@ for some general business
activities (e.g., audits for financial disclosure statements) that
connection may be tenuous. The proposed concept also did not include the
operations of those health care clearinghouses that may be covered by
this rule outside their status as business associate to a covered
entity. We expand the definition to include disclosures for the
enumerated activities of organized health care arrangements in which the
covered entity participates. See also the definition of organized health
care arrangements, below.

In addition, we make the following changes and additions to the
enumerated subparagraphs:

\(1\) We add language to clarify that the primary purpose of the studies
encompassed by Aquality assessment and improvement activities@ must not
be to obtain generalizable knowledge. A study with such a purpose would
meet the rule=s definition of research, and use or disclosure of
protected health information would have to meet the requirements of \'\'
164.508 or 164.512(i). Thus, studies may be conducted as a health care
operation if development of generalizable knowledge is not the primary
goal. However, if the study changes and the covered entity intends the
results to be generalizable, the change should be documented by the
covered entity as proof that, when initiated, the primary purpose was
health care operations.

We add population-based activities related to improving health or
reducing health care costs, protocol development, case management and
care coordination, contacting of health care providers and patients with
information about treatment alternatives, and related functions that do
not entail direct patient care. Many commenters recommended adding the
term Adisease management@ to health care operations. We were unable,
however, to find a generally accepted definition of the term. Rather
than rely on this label, we include many of the functions often included
in discussions of disease management in this definition or in the
definition of treatment. This topic is discussed further in the comment
responses below.

\(2\) We have deleted Aundergraduate and graduate@ as a qualifier for
Astudents,@ to make the term more general and inclusive. We add the term
Apractitioners.@ We expand the purposes encompassed to include
situations in which health care providers are working to improve their
skills. The rule also adds the training of non-health care
professionals.

\(3\) The rule expands the range of insurance related activities to
include those related to the creation, renewal or replacement of a
contract for health insurance or health benefits, as well as ceding,
securing, or placing a contract for reinsurance of risk relating to
claims for health care (including stop-loss and excess of loss
insurance). For these activities, we also eliminate the proposed
requirement that these uses and disclosures apply only to protected
health information about individuals already enrolled in a health plan.
Under this provision, a group health plan that wants to replace its
insurance carrier may disclose certain protected health information to
insurance issuers in order to obtain bids on new coverage, and an
insurance carrier interested in bidding on new business may use
protected health information obtained from the potential new client to
develop the product and pricing it will offer. For circumstances in
which no new contract is issued, we add a provision in \' 164.514(g)
restricting the recipient health plan from using or disclosing protected
health information obtained for this purpose, other than as required by
law. Uses and disclosures in these cases come within the definition of
Ahealth care operations,@ provided that the requirements of \'
164.514(g) are met, if applicable. See \' 164.504(f) for requirements
for such disclosures by group health plans, as well as specific
restrictions on the information that may be disclosed to plan sponsors
for such purposes. We note that a covered health care provider must
obtain an authorization under \' 164.508 in order to disclose protected
health information about an individual for purposes of pre-enrollment
underwriting; the underwriting is not an Aoperation@ of the provider and
that disclosure is not otherwise permitted by a provision of this rule.

\(4\) We delete reference to the Acompiling and analyzing information in
anticipation of or for use in a civil or criminal legal proceeding@ and
replace it with a broader reference to conducting or arranging for
Alegal services.@

We add two new categories of activities:

\(5\) Business planning and development, such as conducting
cost-management and planning-related analyses related to managing and
operating the entity, including formulary development and
administration, development or improvement of methods of payment or
coverage policies.

\(6\) Business management activities and general administrative
functions, such as management activities relating to implementation of
and compliance with the requirements of this subchapter, fundraising for
the benefit of the covered entity to the extent permitted without
authorization under \' 164.514(f), and marketing of certain services to
individuals served by the covered entity, to the extent permitted
without authorization under \' 164.514(e) (see discussion in the
preamble to that section, below). For example, under this category we
permit uses or disclosures of protected health information to determine
from whom an authorization should be obtained, for example to generate a
mailing list of individuals who would receive an authorization request.

We add to the definition of health care operations disclosure of
protected health information for due diligence to a covered entity that
is a potential successor in interest. This provision includes
disclosures pursuant to the sale of a covered entity\'s business as a
going concern, mergers, acquisitions, consolidations, and other similar
types of corporate restructuring between covered entities, including a
division of a covered entity, and to an entity that is not a covered
entity but will become a covered entity if the transfer or sale is
completed. Other types of sales of assets, or disclosures to
organizations that are not and would not become covered entities, are
not included in the definition of health care operations and could only
occur if the covered entity obtained valid authorization for such
disclosure in accordance with \' 164.508, or if the disclosure is
otherwise permitted under this rule.

We also add to health care operations disclosure of protected health
information for resolution of internal grievances. These uses and
disclosures include disclosure to an employee and/or employee
representative, for example when the employee needs protected health
information to demonstrate that the employer=s allegations of improper
conduct are untrue. We note that such employees and employee
representatives are not providing services to or for the covered entity,
and, therefore, no business associate contract is required. Also
included are resolution of disputes from patients or enrollees regarding
the quality of care and similar matters.

We also add use for customer service, including the provision of data
and statistical analyses for policyholders, plan sponsors, or other
customers, as long as the protected health information is not disclosed
to such persons. We recognize that part of the general management of a
covered entity is customer service. We clarify that customer service may
include the use of protected health information to provide data and
statistical analyses. For example, a plan sponsor may want to understand
why its costs are rising faster than average, or why utilization in one
plant location is different than in another location. An association
that sponsors an insurance plan for its members may want information on
the relative costs of its plan in different areas. Some plan sponsors
may want more detailed analyses that attempt to identify health problems
in a work site. We note that when a plan sponsor has several different
group health plans, or when such plans provide insurance or coverage
through more than one health insurance issuer or HMO, the covered
entities may jointly engage in this type of analysis as a health care
operation of the organized health care arrangement.

This activity qualifies as a health care operation only if it does not
result in the disclosure of protected health information to the
customer. The results of the analyses must be presented in a way that
does not disclose protected health information. A disclosure of
protected health information to the customer as a health care operation
under this provision violates this rule. This provision is not intended
to permit covered entities to circumvent other provisions in this rule,
including requirements relating to disclosures of protected health
information to plan sponsors or the requirements relating to research.
See \' 164.504(f) and \' 164.512(i).

We use the term customer to provide flexibility to covered entities. We
do not intend the term to apply to persons with whom the covered entity
has no other business; this provision is intended to permit covered
entities to provide service to their existing customer base.

We note that this definition, either alone or in conjunction with the
definition of Aorganized health care arrangement,@ allows an entity such
as an integrated staff model HMO, whether legally integrated or whether
a group of associated entities, that hold themselves out as an organized
arrangement to share protected health information under \' 164.506. In
these cases, the sharing of protected health information will be either
for the operations of the disclosing entity or for the organized health
care arrangement in which the entity is participating.

Whether a disclosure is allowable for health care operations under this
provision is determined separately from whether a business associate
contract is required. These provisions of the rule operate
independently. Disclosures for health care operations may be made to an
entity that is neither a covered entity nor a business associate of the
covered entity. For example, a covered academic medical center may
disclose certain protected health information to community health care
providers who participate in one of its continuing medical education
programs, whether or not such providers are covered health care
providers under this rule. A provider attending a continuing education
program is not thereby performing services for the covered entity
sponsoring the program and, thus, is not a business associate for that
purpose. Similarly, health plans may disclose for due diligence purposes
to another entity that may or may not be a covered entity or a business
associate.

***Health oversight agency.***

The proposed rule would have defined Ahealth oversight agency@ as Aan
agency, person, or entity, including the employees or agents thereof,
(1) That is: (i) A public agency; or (ii) A person or entity acting
under grant of authority from or contract with a public agency; and (2)
Which performs or oversees the performance of any audit; investigation;
inspection; licensure or discipline; civil, criminal, or administrative
proceeding or action; or other activity necessary for appropriate
oversight of the health care system, of government benefit programs for
which health information is relevant to beneficiary eligibility, or of
government regulatory programs for which health information is necessary
for determining compliance with program standards.@ The proposed rule
also described the functions of health oversight agencies in the
proposed health oversight section (\' 164.510(c)) by repeating much of
this definition.

In the final rule, we modify the definition of health oversight agency
by eliminating from the definition the language in proposed \'
164.510(c) (now \' 164.512(d)). In addition, the final rule clarifies
this definition by specifying that a Ahealth oversight agency@ is an
agency or authority of the United States, a state, a territory, a
political subdivision of a state or territory, or an Indian tribe, or a
person or entity acting under a grant of authority from or contract with
such public agency, including the employees or agents of such public
agency or its contractors or grantees, that is authorized by law to
oversee the health care system or government programs in which health
information is necessary to determine eligibility or compliance, or to
enforce civil rights laws for which health information is relevant.

The preamble to the proposed rule listed the following as examples of
health oversight agencies that conduct oversight activities relating to
the health care system: state insurance commissions, state health
professional licensure agencies, Offices of Inspectors General of
federal agencies, the Department of Justice, state Medicaid fraud
control units, Defense Criminal Investigative Services, the Pension and
Welfare Benefit Administration, the HHS Office for Civil Rights, and the
FDA. The proposed rule listed the Social Security Administration and the
Department of Education as examples of health oversight agencies that
conduct oversight of government benefit programs for which health
information is relevant to beneficiary eligibility. The proposed rule
listed the Occupational Health and Safety Administration and the
Environmental Protection Agency as examples of oversight agencies that
conduct oversight of government regulatory programs for which health
information is necessary for determining compliance with program
standards.

In the final rule, we include the following as additional examples of
health oversight activities: (1) The U.S. Department of Justice=s civil
rights enforcement activities, and in particular, enforcement of the
Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (42 U.S.C. 1997-1997j) and
the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.), as well
as the EEOC=s civil rights enforcement activities under titles I and V
of the ADA; (2) the FDA=s oversight of food, drugs, biologics, devices,
and other products pursuant to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21
U.S.C. 301 et seq.) and the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 201 et
seq.); and (3) data analysis B performed by a public agency or by a
person or entity acting under grant of authority from or under contract
with a public agency B to detect health care fraud.

AOverseeing the health care system,@ which is included in the definition
of health oversight, encompasses activities such as: oversight of health
care plans; oversight of health benefit plans; oversight of health care
providers; oversight of health care and health care delivery; oversight
activities that involve resolution of consumer complaints; oversight of
pharmaceuticals, medical products and devices, and dietary supplements;
and a health oversight agency=s analysis of trends in health care costs,
quality, health care delivery, access to care, and health insurance
coverage for health oversight purposes.

We recognize that health oversight agencies, such as the U.S. Department
of Labor=s Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration, may perform more
than one type of health oversight. For example, agencies may sometimes
perform audits and investigations and at other times conduct general
oversight of health benefit plans. Such entities are considered health
oversight agencies under the rule for any and all of the health
oversight functions that they perform.

The definition of health oversight agency does not include private
organizations, such as private-sector accrediting groups. Accreditation
organizations are performing health care operations functions on behalf
of health plans and covered health care providers. Accordingly, in order
to obtain protected health information without individuals=
authorizations, accrediting groups must enter into business associate
agreements with health plans and covered health care providers for these
purposes. Similarly, private entities, such as coding committees, that
help government agencies that are health plans make coding and payment
decisions are performing health care payment functions on behalf the
government agencies and, therefore, must enter into business associate
agreements in order to receive protected health information from the
covered entity (absent individuals= authorization for such disclosure).

***Indirect treatment relationship.***

This term was not included in the proposed rule. An Aindirect treatment
relationship@ is a relationship between a health care provider and an
individual in which the provider delivers health care to the individual
based on the orders of another health care provider and the health care
services, products, diagnoses, or results are typically furnished to the
patient through another provider, rather than directly. For example,
radiologists and pathologists generally have indirect treatment
relationships with patients because they deliver diagnostic services
based on the orders of other providers and the results of those services
are furnished to the patient through the direct treating provider. This
definition is necessary to clarify the relationships between providers
and individuals in the regulation. For example, see the consent
discussion at \' 164.506.

***Individual.***

We proposed to define Aindividual@ to mean the person who is the subject
of the protected health information. We proposed that the term include,
with respect to the signing of authorizations and other rights (such as
access, copying, and correction), the following types of legal
representatives:

\(1\) With respect to adults and emancipated minors, legal
representatives (such as court-appointed guardians or persons with a
power of attorney), to the extent to which applicable law permits such
legal representatives to exercise the person=s rights in such contexts.

\(2\) With respect to unemancipated minors, a parent, guardian, or
person acting *in loco parentis*, provided that when a minor lawfully
obtains a health care service without the consent of or notification to
a parent, guardian, or other person acting *in loco parentis*, the minor
shall have the exclusive right to exercise the rights of an individual
with respect to the protected health information relating to such care.

\(3\) With respect to deceased persons, an executor, administrator, or
other person authorized under applicable law to act on behalf of the
decedent=s estate.

In addition, we proposed to exclude from the definition:

\(1\) Foreign military and diplomatic personnel and their dependents who
receive health care provided by or paid for by the Department of Defense
or other federal agency or by an entity acting on its behalf, pursuant
to a country-to-country agreement or federal statute.

\(2\) Overseas foreign national beneficiaries of health care provided by
the Department of Defense or other federal agency or by a
non-governmental organization acting on its behalf.

In the final rule, we eliminate from the definition of Aindividual@ the
provisions designating a legal representative as the Aindividual@ for
purposes of exercising certain rights with regard to protected health
information. Instead, we include in the final rule a separate standard
for Apersonal representatives.@ A covered entity must treat a personal
representative of an individual as the individual except under specified
circumstances. See discussion in \' 164.502(g) regarding personal
representatives.

In addition, we eliminate from the definition of Aindividual@ the above
exclusions for foreign military and diplomatic personnel and overseas
foreign national beneficiaries. We address the special circumstances for
use and disclosure of protected health information about individuals who
are foreign military personnel in \' 164.512(k). We address overseas
foreign national beneficiaries in \' 164.500, AApplicability.@ The
protected health information of individuals who are foreign diplomatic
personnel and their dependents are not subject to special treatment
under the final rule.

Individually identifiable health information about one individual may
exist in the health records of another individual; health information
about one individual may include health information about a second
person. For example, a patient\'s medical record may contain information
about the medical conditions of the patient=s parents, children, and
spouse, as well as their names and contact information. For the purpose
of this rule, if information about a second person is included within
the protected health information of an individual, the second person is
not the person who is the subject of the protected health information.
The second person is not the Aindividual@ with regard to that protected
health information, and under this rule thus does not have the
individual\'s rights (e.g., access and amendment) with regard to that
information.

***Individually identifiable health information.***

We proposed to define Aindividually identifiable health information@ to
mean information that is a subset of health information, including
demographic information collected from an individual, and that:

\(1\) Is created by or received from a health care provider, health
plan, employer, or health care clearinghouse; and

\(2\) Relates to the past, present, or future physical or mental health
or condition of an individual, the provision of health care to an
individual, or the past, present, or future payment for the provision of
health care to an individual, and

\(i\) Which identifies the individual, or

\(ii\) With respect to which there is a reasonable basis to believe that
the information can be used to identify the individual.

In the final rule, we change Acreated by or received from a health care
provider\...@ to Acreated or received by a health care provider\... A in
order to conform to the statute. We otherwise retain the definition of
Aindividually identifiable health information@ without change in the
final rule.

***Inmate.***

The proposed rule did not define the term inmate. In the final rule, it
is defined as a person incarcerated in or otherwise confined to a
correctional institution. The addition of this definition is necessary
to explain the privacy rights and protections of inmates in this
regulation.

***Law enforcement official.***

The proposed rule would have defined a Alaw enforcement official@ as Aan
official of an agency or authority of the United States, a state, a
territory, a political subdivision of a state or territory, or an Indian
tribe, who is empowered by law to conduct: (1) an investigation or
official proceeding inquiring into a violation of, or failure to comply
with, any law; or (2) a criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding
arising from a violation of, or failure to comply with, any law.@

The final rule modifies this definition slightly. The definition in the
final rule recognizes that law enforcement officials are empowered to
prosecute cases as well as to conduct investigations and civil,
criminal, or administrative proceedings. In addition, the definition in
the final rule reflects the fact that when investigations begin, often
it is not clear that law has been violated. Thus, the final rule
describes law enforcement investigations and official proceedings as
inquiring into a potential violation of law. In addition, it describes
law enforcement-related civil, criminal, or administrative proceedings
as arising from alleged violation of law.

***Marketing.***

The proposed rule did not include a definition of Amarketing.@ The
proposed rule generally required that a covered entity would need an
authorization from an individual to use or disclose protected health
information for marketing.

In the final rule we define marketing as a communication about a product
or service a purpose of which is to encourage recipients of the
communication to purchase or use the product or service. The definition
does not limit the type or means of communication that are considered
marketing.

The definition of marketing contains three exceptions. If a covered
entity receives direct or indirect remuneration from a third party for
making a written communication otherwise described in an exception, then
the communication is not excluded from the definition of marketing. The
activities we except from the definition of marketing are encompassed by
the definitions of treatment, payment, and health care operations.
Covered entities may therefore use and disclose protected health
information for these excepted activities without authorization under \'
164.508 and pursuant to any applicable consent obtained under \'
164.506.

The first exception applies to communications made by a covered entity
for the purpose of describing the entities participating in a provider
network or health plan network. It also applies to communications made
by a covered entity for the purpose of describing if and the extent to
which a product or service, or payment for a product or service, is
provided by the covered entity or included in a benefit plan. This
exception permits covered entities to use or disclose protected health
information when discussing topics such as the benefits and services
available under a health plan, the payment that may be made for a
product or service, which providers offer a particular product or
service, and whether a provider is part of a network or whether (and
what amount of) payment will be provided with respect to the services of
particular providers. This exception expresses our intent not to
interfere with communications made to individuals about their health
benefits.

The second exception applies to communications tailored to the
circumstances of a particular individual, made by a health care provider
to an individual as part of the treatment of the individual, and for the
purpose of furthering the treatment of that individual. This exception
leaves health care providers free to use or disclose protected health
information as part of a discussion of its products and services, or the
products and services of others, and to prescribe, recommend, or sell
such products or services, as part of the treatment of an individual.
This exception includes activities such as referrals, prescriptions,
recommendations, and other communications that address how a product or
service may relate to the individual\'s health. This exception expresses
our intent not to interfere with communications made to individuals
about their treatment.

The third exception applies to communications tailored to the
circumstances of a particular individual and made by a health care
provider or health plan to an individual in the course of managing the
treatment of that individual or for the purpose of directing or
recommending to that individual alternative treatments, therapies,
providers, or settings of care. As with the previous exception, this
exception permits covered entities to discuss freely their products and
services and the products and services of third parties, in the course
of managing an individual=s care or providing or discussing treatment
alternatives with an individual, even when such activities involve the
use or disclose protected health information.

Section 164.514 contains provisions governing use or disclosure of
protected health information in marketing communications, including a
description of certain marketing communications that may use or include
protected health information but that may be made by a covered entity
without individual authorization. The definition of health care
operations includes those marketing communications that may be made
without an authorization pursuant to \' 164.514. Covered entities may
therefore use and disclose protected health information for these
activities pursuant to any applicable consent obtained under \' 164.506,
or, if they are not required to obtain a consent under \' 164.506,
without one.

***Organized Health Care Arrangement.***

This term was not used in the proposed rule. We define the term in order
to describe certain arrangements in which participants need to share
protected health information about their patients to manage and benefit
the common enterprise. To allow uses and disclosures of protected health
information for these arrangements, we also add language to the
definition of Ahealth care operations.@ See discussion of that term
above.

We include five arrangements within the definition of *organized health
care arrangement*. The arrangements involve clinical or operational
integration among legally separate covered entities in which it is often
necessary to share protected health information for the joint management
and operations of the arrangement. They may range in legal structure,
but a key component of these arrangements is that individuals who obtain
services from them have an expectation that these arrangements are
integrated and that they jointly manage their operations. We include
within the definition a clinically integrated care setting in which
individuals typically receive health care from more than one health care
provider. Perhaps the most common example of this type of organized
health care arrangement is the hospital setting, where a hospital and a
physician with staff privileges at the hospital together provide
treatment to the individual. Participants in such clinically integrated
settings need to be able to share health information freely not only for
treatment purposes, but also to improve their joint operations. For
example, any physician with staff privileges at a hospital must be able
to participate in the hospital=s morbidity and mortality reviews, even
when the particular physician=s patients are not being discussed. Nurses
and other hospital personnel must also be able to participate. These
activities benefit the common enterprise, even when the benefits to a
particular participant are not evident. While protected health
information may be freely shared among providers for treatment purposes
under other provisions of this rule, some of these joint activities also
support the health care operations of one or more participants in the
joint arrangement. Thus, special rules are needed to ensure that this
rule does not interfere with legitimate information sharing among the
participants in these arrangements.

We also include within the definition an organized system of health care
in which more than one covered entity participates, and in which the
participating covered entities hold themselves out to the public as
participating in a joint arrangement, and in which the joint activities
of the participating covered entities include at least one of the
following: utilization review, in which health care decisions by
participating covered entities are reviewed by other participating
covered entities or by a third party on their behalf; quality assessment
and improvement activities, in which treatment provided by participating
covered entities is assessed by other participating covered entities or
by a third party on their behalf; or payment activities, if the
financial risk for delivering health care is shared in whole or in part
by participating covered entities through the joint arrangement and if
protected health information created or received by a covered entity is
reviewed by other participating covered entities or by a third party on
their behalf for the purpose of administering the sharing of financial
risk. A common example of this type of organized health care arrangement
is an independent practice association formed by a large number of
physicians. They may advertise themselves as a common enterprise (e.g.,
Acme IPA), whether or not they are under common ownership or control,
whether or not they practice together in an integrated clinical setting,
and whether or not they share financial risk.

If such a group engages jointly in one or more of the listed activities,
the participating covered entities will need to share protected health
information to undertake such activities and to improve their joint
operations. In this example, the physician participants in the IPA may
share financial risk through common withhold pools with health plans or
similar arrangements. The IPA participants who manage the financial
arrangements need protected health information about all the
participants= patients in order to manage the arrangement. (The
participants may also hire a third party to manage their financial
arrangements.) If the participants in the IPA engage in joint quality
assurance or utilization review activities, they will need to share
protected health information about their patients much as participants
in an integrated clinical setting would. Many joint activities that
require the sharing of protected health information benefit the common
enterprise, even when the benefits to a particular participant are not
evident.

We include three relationships related to group health plans as
organized health care arrangements. First, we include a group health
plan and an issuer or HMO with respect to the group health plan within
the definition, but only with respect to the protected health
information of the issuer or HMO that relates to individuals who are or
have been participants or beneficiaries in the group health plan. We
recognize that many group health plans are funded partially or fully
through insurance, and that in some cases the group health plan and
issuer or HMO need to coordinate operations to properly serve the
enrollees. Second, we include a group health plan and one or more other
group health plans each of which are maintained by the same plan
sponsor. We recognize that in some instances plan sponsors provide
health benefits through a combination of group health plans, and that
they may need to coordinate the operations of such plans to better serve
the participants and beneficiaries of the plans. Third, we include a
combination of group health plans maintained by the same plan sponsor
and the health insurance issuers and HMOs with respect to such plans,
but again only with respect to the protected health information of such
issuers and HMOs that relates to individuals who are or have been
enrolled in such group health plans. We recognize that is some instances
a plan sponsor may provide benefits through more than one group health
plan, and that such plans may fund the benefits through one or more
issuers or HMOs. Again, coordinating health care operations among these
entities may be necessary to serve the participants and beneficiaries in
the group health plans. We note that the necessary coordination may
necessarily involve the business associates of the covered entities and
may involve the participation of the plan sponsor to the extent that it
is providing plan administration functions and subject to the limits in
\' 164.504.

***Payment.***

We proposed the term payment to mean:

\(1\) The activities undertaken by or on behalf of a covered entity that
is:

\(i\) A health plan, or by a business partner on behalf of a health
plan, to obtain premiums or to determine or fulfill its responsibility
for coverage under the health plan and for provision of benefits under
the health plan; or

\(ii\) A health care provider or health plan, or a business partner on
behalf of such provider or plan, to obtain reimbursement for the
provision of health care.

\(2\) Activities that constitute payment include:

\(i\) Determinations of coverage, adjudication or subrogation of health
benefit claims;

\(ii\) Risk adjusting amounts due based on enrollee health status and
demographic characteristics;

\(iii\) Billing, claims management, and medical data processing;

\(iv\) Review of health care services with respect to medical necessity,
coverage under a health plan, appropriateness of care, or justification
of charges; and

\(v\) Utilization review activities, including precertification and
preauthorization of services.

In the final rule, we maintain the general approach of defining of
payment: payment activities are described generally in the first clause
of the definition, and specific examples are given in the second clause.
Payment activities relate to the covered entity that maintains the
protected health information (i.e., one covered entity may not disclose
protected health information for the payment activities of a second
covered entity). A covered entity may use or disclose only the protected
health information about the individual to whom care was rendered, for
its payment activities (e.g., a provider may disclose protected health
information only about the patient to whom care was rendered in order to
obtain payment for that care, or only the protected health information
about persons enrolled in the particular health plan that seeks to audit
the provider=s records). We expand the proposed list to reflect many
changes requested by commenters.

We add eligibility determinations as an activity included in the
definition of payment. We expand coverage determinations to include the
coordination of benefits and the determination of a specific
individual=s cost sharing amounts. The rule deletes activities related
to the improvement of methods of paying or coverage policies from this
definition and instead includes them in the definition of health care
operations. We add to the definition Acollection activities.@ We replace
Amedical data processing@ activities with health care data processing
related to billing, claims management, and collection activities. We add
activities for the purpose of obtaining payment under a contract for
reinsurance (including stop-loss and excess of loss insurance).
Utilization review activities now include concurrent and retrospective
review of services.

In addition, we modify this definition to clarify that the activities
described in section 1179 of the Act are included in the definition of
Apayment.@ We add new subclause (vi) allowing covered entities to
disclose to consumer reporting agencies an individual=s name, address,
date of birth, social security number and payment history, account
number, as well as the name and address of the individual=s health care
provider and/or health plan, as appropriate. Covered entities may make
disclosure of this protected health information to consumer reporting
agencies for purposes related to collection of premiums or
reimbursement. This allows reporting not just of missed payments and
overdue debt but also of subsequent positive payment experience (e.g.,
to expunge the debt). We consider such positive payment experience to be
Arelated to@ collection of premiums or reimbursement.

The remaining activities described in section 1179 are included in other
language in this definition. For example, Aauthorizing, processing,
clearing, settling, billing, transferring, reconciling or collecting, a
payment for, or related to, health plan premiums or health care@ are
covered by paragraph (2)(iii) of the definition, which allows use and
disclosure of protected health information for Abilling, claims
management, collection activities and related health care data
processing.@ AClaims management@ also includes auditing payments,
investigating and resolving payment disputes and responding to customer
inquiries regarding payments. Disclosure of protected health information
for compliance with civil or criminal subpoenas, or with other
applicable laws, are covered under \' 164.512 of this regulation. (See
discussion above regarding the interaction between 1179 and this
regulation.)

We modify the proposed regulation text to clarify that payment includes
activities undertaken to reimburse health care providers for treatment
provided to individuals.

Covered entities may disclose protected health information for payment
purposes to any other entity, regardless of whether it is a covered
entity. For example, a health care provider may disclose protected
health information to a financial institution in order to cash a check
or to a health care clearinghouse to initiate electronic transactions.
However, if a covered entity engages another entity, such as a billing
service or a financial institution, to conduct payment activities on its
behalf, the other entity may meet the definition of \>business
associate= under this rule. For example, an entity is acting as a
business associate when it is operating the accounts receivable system
on behalf of a health care provider.

Similarly, payment includes disclosure of protected health information
by a health care provider to an insurer that is not a \>health plan= as
defined in this rule, to obtain payment. For example, protected health
information may be disclosed to obtain reimbursement from a disability
insurance carrier. We do not interpret the definition of Apayment@ to
include activities that involve the disclosure of protected health
information by a covered entity, including a covered health care
provider, to a plan sponsor for the purpose of obtaining payment under a
group health plan maintained by such plan sponsor, or for the purpose of
obtaining payment from a health insurance issuer or HMO with respect to
a group health plan maintained by such plan sponsor, unless the plan
sponsor is performing plan administration pursuant to \' 164.504(f).

The Transactions Rule adopts standards for electronic health care
transactions, including two for processing payments. We adopted the ASC
X12N 835 transaction standard for \"Health Care Payment and Remittance
Advice\" transactions between health plans and health care providers,
and the ASC X12N 820 standard for AHealth Plan Premium Payments@
transactions between entities that arrange for the provision of health
care or provide health care coverage payments and health plans. Under
these two transactions, information to effect funds transfer is
transmitted in a part of the transaction separable from the part
containing any individually identifiable health information.

We note that a covered entity may conduct the electronic funds transfer
portion of the two payment standard transactions with a financial
institution without restriction, because it contains no protected health
information. The protected health information contained in the
electronic remittance advice or the premium payment enrollee data
portions of the transactions is not necessary either to conduct the
funds transfer or to forward the transactions. Therefore, a covered
entity may not disclose the protected health information to a financial
institution for these purposes. A covered entity may transmit the
portions of the transactions containing protected health information
through a financial institution if the protected health information is
encrypted so it can be read only by the intended recipient. In such
cases no protected health information is disclosed and the financial
institution is acting solely as a conduit for the individually
identifiable data.

***Plan sponsor.***

In the final rule we add a definition of \"plan sponsor.\" We define
plan sponsor by referencing the definition of the term provided in
(3)(16)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The
plan sponsor is the employer or employee organization, or both, that
establishes and maintains an employee benefit plan. In the case of a
plan established by two or more employers, it is the association,
committee, joint board of trustees, or other similar group of
representative of the parties that establish and maintain the employee
benefit plan. This term includes church health plans and government
health plans. Group health plans may disclose protected health
information to plan sponsors who conduct payment and health care
operations activities on behalf of the group health plan if the
requirements for group health plans in \' 164.504 are met.

The preamble to the Transactions Rule noted that plan sponsors of group
health plans are not covered entities and, therefore, are not required
to use the standards established in that regulation to perform
electronic transactions, including enrollment and disenrollment
transactions. We do not change that policy through this rule. Plan
sponsors that perform enrollment functions are doing so on behalf of the
participants and beneficiaries of the group health plan and not on
behalf of the group health plan itself. For purposes of this rule, plan
sponsors are not subject to the requirements of \' 164.504 regarding
group health plans when conducting enrollment activities.

***Protected health information.***

We proposed to define Aprotected health information@ to mean
individually identifiable health information that is or has been
electronically maintained or electronically transmitted by a covered
entity, as well as such information when it takes any other form. For
purposes of this definition, we proposed to define Aelectronically
transmitted@ as including information exchanged with a computer using
electronic media, such as the movement of information from one location
to another by magnetic or optical media, transmissions over the
Internet, Extranet, leased lines, dial-up lines, private networks,
telephone voice response, and Afaxback@ systems. We proposed that this
definition not include Apaper-to-paper@ faxes, or person-to-person
telephone calls, video teleconferencing, or messages left on voice-mail.

Further, Aelectronically maintained@ was proposed to mean information
stored by a computer or on any electronic medium from which the
information may be retrieved by a computer, such as electronic memory
chips, magnetic tape, magnetic disk, or compact disc optical media.

The proposal=s definition explicitly excluded:

\(1\) individually identifiable health information that is part of an
Aeducation record@ governed by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy
Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. 1232g.

\(2\) individually identifiable health information of inmates of
correctional facilities and detainees in detention facilities.

In this final rule we expand the definition of protected health
information to encompasses all individually identifiable health
information transmitted or maintained by a covered entity, regardless of
form. Specifically, we delete the conditions for individually
identifiable health information to be Aelectronically maintained@ or
Aelectronically transmitted@ and the corresponding definitions of those
terms. Instead, the final rule defines protected health information to
be individually identifiable health information that is:

\(1\) transmitted by electronic media;

\(2\) maintained in any medium described in the definition of
*electronic media* at \' 162.103 of this subchapter; or

\(3\) transmitted or maintained in any other form or medium.

We refer to *electronic media*, as defined in \' 162.103, which means
the mode of electronic transmission. It includes the Internet
(wide-open), Extranet (using Internet technology to link a business with
information only accessible to collaborating parties), leased lines,
dial-up lines, private networks, and those transmissions that are
physically moved from one location to another using magnetic tape, disk,
or compact disk media.

The definition of protected health information is set out in this form
to emphasize the severability of this provision. As discussed below, we
believe we have ample legal authority to cover all individually
identifiable health information transmitted or maintained by covered
entities. We have structured the definition this way so that, if a court
were to disagree with our view of our authority in this area, the rule
would still be operational, albeit with respect to a more limited
universe of information.

Other provisions of the rules below may also be severable, depending on
their scope and operation. For example, if the rule itself provides a
fallback, as it does with respect to the various discretionary uses and
disclosures permitted under \' 164.512, the provisions would be
severable under case law.

The definition in the final rule retains the exception relating to
individually identifiable health information in Aeducation records@
governed by FERPA. We also exclude the records described in 20 U.S.C.
1232g(a)(4)(B)(iv). These are records of students held by post-secondary
educational institutions or of students 18 years of age or older, used
exclusively for health care treatment and which have not been disclosed
to anyone other than a health care provider at the student=s request.
(See discussion of FERPA above.)

We have removed the exception for individually identifiable health
information of inmates of correctional facilities and detainees in
detention facilities. Individually identifiable health information about
inmates is protected health information under the final rule, and
special rules for use and disclosure of the protected health information
about inmates and their ability to exercise the rights granted in this
rule are described below.

***Psychotherapy notes.***

Section 164.508(a)(3)(iv)(A) of the proposed rule defined psychotherapy
notes as notes recorded (in any medium) by a health care provider who is
a mental health professional documenting or analyzing the contents of
conversation during a private counseling session or a group, joint, or
family counseling session. The proposed definition excluded medication
prescription and monitoring, counseling session start and stop times,
the modalities and frequencies of treatment furnished, results of
clinical tests, and any summary of the following items: diagnosis,
functional status, the treatment plan, symptoms, prognosis and progress.
Furthermore, we stated in the preamble of the proposed rule that
psychotherapy notes would have to be maintained separately from the
medical record.

In this final rule, we retain the definition of psychotherapy notes that
we had proposed, but add to the regulation text the requirement that, to
meet the definition of psychotherapy notes, the information must be
separated from the rest of the individual=s medical record.

***Public health authority.***

The proposed rule would have defined Apublic health authority@ as Aan
agency or authority of the United States, a state, a territory, or an
Indian tribe that is responsible for public health matters as part of
its official mandate.@

The final rule changes this definition slightly to clarify that a
Apublic health authority@ also includes a person or entity acting under
a grant of authority from or contract with a public health agency.
Therefore, the final rule defines this term as an agency or authority of
the United States, a state, a territory, a political subdivision of a
state or territory, or an Indian tribe, or a person or entity acting
under a grant of authority from or contract with such public agency,
including the employees or agents of such public agency or its
contractors or persons or entities to whom it has granted authority,
that is responsible for public health matters as part of its official
mandate.

***Required by law.***

In the preamble to the NPRM, we did not include a definition of
Arequired by law.@ We discussed what it meant for an action to be
considered to be Arequired@ or Amandated@ by law and included several
examples of activities that would be considered as required by law for
the purposes of the proposed rule, including a valid Inspector General
subpoena, grand jury subpoena, civil investigative demand, or a statute
or regulation requiring production of information justifying a claim
would constitute a disclosure required by law.

In the final rule we include a new definition, move the preamble
clarifications to the regulatory text and add several items to the
illustrative list. For purposes of this regulation, Arequired by law@
means a mandate contained in law that compels a covered entity to make a
use or disclosure of protected health information and that is
enforceable in a court of law. Among the examples listed in definition
are Medicare conditions of participation with respect to health care
providers participating in that program, court-ordered warrants, and
subpoenas issued by a court. We note that disclosures Arequired by law@
include disclosures of protected health information required by this
regulation in \' 164.502(a)(2). It does not include contracts between
private parties or similar voluntary arrangements. This list is
illustrative only and is not intended in any way to limit the scope of
this paragraph or other paragraphs in \' 164.512 that permit uses or
disclosures to the extent required by other laws. We note that nothing
in this rule compels a covered entity to make a use or disclosure
required by the legal demands or prescriptions listed in this
clarification or by any other law or legal process, and a covered entity
remains free to challenge the validity of such laws and processes.

***Research.***

We proposed to define Aresearch@ as it is defined in the Federal Policy
for the Protection of Human Subjects, at 45 CFR 46, Subpart A (referred
to elsewhere in this rule as ACommon Rule@), and in addition, elaborated
on the meaning of the term Ageneralizable knowledge.@ In \' 164.504 of
the proposed rule we defined research as A\... a systematic
investigation, including research development, testing and evaluation,
designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.
\>Generalizable knowledge= is knowledge related to health that can be
applied to populations outside of the population served by the covered
entity.@

The final rule eliminates the further elaboration of Ageneralizable
knowledge.@ Therefore, the rule defines Aresearch@ as the term is
defined in the Common Rule: a systematic investigation, including
research development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop or
contribute to generalizable knowledge.

***Research information unrelated to treatment.***

We delete this definition and the associated requirements from the final
rule. Refer to \' 164.508(f) for new requirements regarding
authorizations for research that includes treatment of the individual.

***Treatment.***

The proposed rule defined Atreatment@ as the provision of health care
by, or the coordination of health care (including health care management
of the individual through risk assessment, case management, and disease
management) among, health care providers; the referral of a patient from
one provider to another; or the coordination of health care or other
services among health care providers and third parties authorized by the
health plan or the individual. The preamble noted that the definition
was intended to relate only to services provided to an individual and
not to an entire enrolled population.

In the final rule, we do not change the general approach to defining
treatment: treatment means the listed activities undertaken by any
health care provider, not just a covered health care provider. A plan
can disclose protected health information to any health care provider to
assist the provider=s treatment activities; and a health care provider
may use protected health information about an individual to treat
another individual. A health care provider may use any protected health
information it maintains for treatment purposes (e.g., a provider may
use protected health information about former patients as well as
current patients). We modify the proposed list of treatment activities
to reflect changes requested by commenters.

Specifically, we modify the proposed definition of Atreatment@ to
include the management of health care and related services. Under the
definition, the provision, coordination, or management of health care or
related services may be undertaken by one or more health care providers.
ATreatment@ includes coordination or management by a health care
provider with a third party and consultation between health care
providers. The term also includes referral by a health care provider of
a patient to another health care provider.

Treatment refers to activities undertaken on behalf of a single patient,
not a population. Activities are considered treatment only if delivered
by a health care provider or a health care provider working with another
party. Activities of health plans are not considered to be treatment.
Many services, such as a refill reminder communication or nursing
assistance provided through a telephone service, are considered
treatment activities if performed by or on behalf of a health care
provider, such as a pharmacist, but are regarded as health care
operations if done on behalf of a different type of entity, such as a
health plan.

We delete specific reference to risk assessment, case management, and
disease management. Activities often referred to as risk assessment,
disease and case management are treatment activities only to the extent
that they are services provided to a particular patient by a health care
provider; population based analyses or records review for the purposes
of treatment protocol development or modification are health care
operations, not treatment activities. If a covered entity is licensed as
both a health plan and a health care provider, a single activity could
be considered to be both treatment and health care operations; for
compliance purposes we would consider the purpose of the activity. Given
the integration of the health care system we believe that further
classification of activities into either treatment or health care
operations would not be helpful. See the definition of health care
operations for additional discussion.

***Use.***

We proposed to define Ause@ to mean the employment, application,
utilization, examination, or analysis of information within an entity
that holds the information. In the final rule, we clarify that use
refers to the use of individually identifiable health information. We
replace the term Aholds@ with the term Amaintains.@ These changes are
for clarity only, and are not intended to effect any substantive change.

**SECTION 164.502 B GENERAL RULES FOR USES AND DISCLOSURES OF PROTECTED
HEALTH INFORMATION**

**Section 164.502(a) B Use and Disclosure for Treatment, Payment and
Health Care Operations**

As a general rule, we proposed in the NPRM to prohibit covered entities
from using or disclosing protected health information except as
authorized by the individual who is the subject of such information or
as explicitly permitted by the rule. The proposed rule explicitly would
have permitted covered entities to use or disclose an individual=s
protected health information without authorization for treatment,
payment, and health care operations. The proposal would not have
restricted to whom disclosures could be made for the purposes of
treatment, payment, or operations. The proposal would have allowed
disclosure of the protected health information of one individual for the
treatment or payment of another, as appropriate. We also proposed to
prohibit covered entities from seeking individual authorization for uses
and disclosures for treatment, payment, and health care operations
unless required by state or other applicable law.

We proposed two exceptions to this general rule which prohibited covered
entities from using or disclosing research information unrelated to
treatment or psychotherapy notes for treatment, payment, or health care
operations purposes unless a specific authorization was obtained from
the subject of the information. In addition, we proposed that a covered
entity be prohibited from conditioning treatment, enrollment in a health
plan or payment decisions on a requirement that the individual provide a
specific authorization for the disclosure of these two types of
information (see proposed \' 164.508(a)(3)(iii)).

We also proposed to permit covered entities to use or disclose an
individual=s protected health information for specified public and
public policy-related purposes, including public health, research,
health oversight, law enforcement, and use by coroners. In addition, the
proposal would have permitted covered entities to use and disclose
protected health information when required to do so by other law or
pursuant to an authorization from the individual allowing them to use or
disclose the information for purposes other than treatment, payment or
health care operations.

We proposed to require covered entities to disclose protected health
information for only two purposes: to permit individuals to inspect and
copy protected health information about themselves and for enforcement
of the rule.

We proposed not to require covered entities to vary the level of
protection accorded to protected health information based on the
sensitivity of such information. In addition, we proposed to require
that each affected entity assess its own needs and devise, implement,
and maintain appropriate privacy policies, procedures, and documentation
to address its business requirements.

In the final rule, the general standard remains that covered entities
may use or disclose protected health information only as permitted or
required by this rule. However, we make significant changes to the
conditions under which uses and disclosures are permitted.

We revise the application of the general standard to require covered
health care providers who have a direct treatment relationship with an
individual to obtain a general Aconsent@ from the individual in order to
use or disclose protected health information about the individual for
treatment, payment and health care operations (for details on who must
obtain such consents and the requirements they must meet, see \'
164.506). These consents are intended to accommodate both the covered
provider=s need to use or disclose protected health information for
treatment, payment, and health care operations, and also the
individual=s interest in understanding and acquiescing to such uses and
disclosures. In general, other covered entities are permitted to use and
disclose protected health information to carry out treatment, payment,
or health care operations (as defined in this rule) without obtaining
such consent, as in the proposed rule. Covered entities must, as under
the proposed rule, obtain the individual=s Aauthorization@ in order to
use or disclose psychotherapy notes for most purposes: see \'
164.508(a)(2) for exceptions to this rule. We delete the proposed
special treatment of Aresearch information unrelated to treatment.@

We revise the application of the general standard to require all covered
entities to obtain the individual=s verbal Aagreement@ before using or
disclosing protected health information for facility directories, to
persons assisting in the individual=s care, and for other purposes
described in \' 164.510. Unlike Aconsent@ and Aauthorization,@ verbal
agreement may be informal and implied from the circumstances (for
details on who must obtain such agreements and the requirements they
must meet, see \' 164.510). Verbal agreements are intended to
accommodate situations where it is neither appropriate to remove from
the individual the ability to control the protected health information
nor appropriate to require formal, written permission to share such
information. For the most part, these provisions reflect current
practices.

As under the proposed rule, we permit covered entities to use or
disclose protected health information without the individual=s consent,
authorization or agreement for specified public policy purposes, in
compliance with the requirements in \' 164.512.

We permit covered entities to disclose protected health information to
the individual who is the subject of that information without any
condition. We note that this may include disclosures to Apersonal
representatives@ of individuals as provided by \' 164.502(g).

We permit a covered entity to use or disclose protected health
information for other lawful purposes if the entity obtains a written
Aauthorization@ from the individual, consistent with the provisions of
\' 164.508. Unlike Aconsents,@ these Aauthorizations@ are specific and
detailed. (For details on who must obtain such authorizations and the
requirements they must meet, see \' 164.508.) They are intended to
provide the individuals with concrete information about, and control
over, the uses and disclosures of protected health information about
themselves.

The final rule retains the provision that requires a covered entity to
disclose protected health information only in two instances: when
individuals request access to information about themselves, and when
disclosures are compelled by the Secretary for compliance and
enforcement purposes.

Finally, \' 164.502(a)(1) also requires covered entities to use or
disclose protected health information in compliance with the other
provisions of \' 164.502, for example, consistent with the minimum
necessary standard, to create de-identified information, or to a
personal representative of an individual. These provisions are described
below.

We note that a covered entity may use or disclose protected health
information as permitted by and in accordance with a provision of this
rule, regardless of whether that use or disclosure fails to meet the
requirements for use or disclosure under another provision of this rule.

**Section 164.502(b) B Minimum Necessary Uses and Disclosures**

The proposed rule required a covered entity to make all reasonable
efforts not to use or disclose more than the minimum amount of protected
health information necessary to accomplish the intended purpose of the
use or disclosure (proposed \' 164.506(b)). This final rule
significantly modifies the proposed requirements for implementing the
minimum necessary standard. In the final rule, \' 164.502(b) contains
the basic standard and \' 164.514 describes the requirements for
implementing the standard. Therefore we discuss all aspects of the
minimum necessary standard and specific requirements below in the
discussion of \' 164.514(d).

**Section 164.502(c) B Uses and Disclosures** **Under a Restriction
Agreement**

The proposed rule would have required that covered health care providers
permit individuals to request restrictions of uses and disclosures of
protected health information and would have prohibited covered providers
from using or disclosing protected health information in violation of
any agreed-to restriction.

The final rule retains an individual=s right to request restrictions on
uses or disclosures for treatment, payment or health care operations and
prohibits a covered entity from using or disclosing protected health
information in a way that is inconsistent with an agreed upon
restriction between the covered entity and the individual, but makes
some changes to this right. Most significantly, under the final rule
individuals have the right to request restrictions of all covered
entities. This standard is set forth in \' 164.522. Details about the
changes to the standard are explained in the preamble discussion to \'
164.522.

**Section 164.502(d) B Creation of De-identified Information**

In proposed \' 164.506(d) of the NPRM, we proposed to permit use of
protected health information for the purpose of creating de-identified
information and we provided detailed mechanisms for doing so.

In \' 164.502(d) of the final rule, we permit a covered entity to use
protected health information to create de-identified information,
whether or not the de-identified information is to be used by the
covered entity. We clarify that de-identified information created in
accordance with our procedures (which have been moved to \' 164.514(a))
is not subject to the requirements of these privacy rules unless it is
re-identified. Disclosure of a key or mechanism that could be used to
re-identify such information is also defined to be disclosure of
protected health information. See the preamble to \' 164.514(a) for
further discussion.

**Section 164.502(e) B Business Associates**

In the proposed rule, other than for purposes of consultation or
referral for treatment, we would have allowed a covered entity to
disclose protected health information to a business partner only
pursuant to a written contract that would, among other specified
provisions, limit the business partner=s uses and disclosures of
protected health information to those permitted by the contract, and
would impose certain security, inspection and reporting requirements on
the business partner. We proposed to define the term Abusiness partner@
to mean, with respect to a covered entity, a person to whom the covered
entity discloses protected health information so that the person can
carry out, assist with the performance of, or perform on behalf of, a
function or activity for the covered entity.

In the final rule, we change the term Abusiness partner@ to Abusiness
associate@ and in the definition clarify the full range of circumstances
in which a person is acting as a business associate of a covered entity.
(See definition of Abusiness associate@ in \' 160.103.) These changes
mean that \' 164.502(e) requires a business associate contract (or other
arrangement, as applicable) not only when the covered entity discloses
protected health information to a business associate, but also when the
business associate creates or receives protected health information on
behalf of the covered entity.

In the final rule, we modify the proposed standard and implementation
specifications for business associates in a number of significant ways.
These modifications are explained in the preamble discussion of \'
164.504(e).

**Section 164.502(f) B Deceased Individuals**

We proposed to extend privacy protections to the protected health
information of a deceased individual for two years following the date of
death. During the two-year time frame, we proposed in the definition of
Aindividual@ that the right to control the deceased individual=s
protected health information would be held by an executor or
administrator, or other person (e.g., next of kin) authorized under
applicable law to act on behalf of the decedent=s estate. The only
proposed exception to this standard allowed for uses and disclosures of
a decedent=s protected health information for research purposes without
the authorization of a legal representative and without the
Institutional Review Board (IRB) or privacy board approval required (in
proposed \' 164.510(j)) for most other uses and disclosures for
research.

In the final rule (\' 164.502(f)), we modify the standard to extend
protection of protected health information about deceased individuals
for as long as the covered entity maintains the information. We retain
the exception for uses and disclosures for research purposes, now part
of \' 164.512(i), but also require that the covered entity take certain
verification measures prior to release of the decedent=s protected
health information for such purposes (see \'\' 164.514(h) and
164.512(i)(1)(iii)).

We remove from the definition of Aindividual@ the provision related to
deceased persons. Instead, we create a standard for Apersonal
representatives@ (\' 164.502(g), see discussion below) that requires a
covered entity to treat a personal representative of an individual as
the individual in certain circumstances, i.e., allows the representative
to exercise the rights of the individual. With respect to deceased
individuals, the final rule describes when a covered entity must allow a
person who otherwise is permitted under applicable law to act with
respect to the interest of the decedent or on behalf of the decedent=s
estate, to make decisions regarding the decedent=s protected health
information.

The final rule also adds a provision to \' 164.512(g), that permits
covered entities to disclose protected health information to a funeral
director, consistent with applicable law, as necessary to carry out
their duties with respect to the decedent. Such disclosures are
permitted both after death and in reasonable anticipation of death.

**Section 164.502(g) B Personal Representatives**

In the proposed rule we defined Aindividual@ to include certain persons
who were authorized to act on behalf of the person who is the subject of
the protected health information. For adults and emancipated minors, the
NPRM provided that Aindividual@ includes a legal representative to the
extent to which applicable law permits such legal representative to
exercise the individual=s rights in such contexts. With respect to
unemancipated minors, we proposed that the definition of Aindividual@
include a parent, guardian, or person acting [in loco
parentis]{.underline}, (hereinafter referred to as Aparent@) except when
an unemancipated minor obtained health care services without the consent
of, or notification to, a parent. Under the proposed rule, if a minor
obtained health care services under these conditions, the minor would
have had the exclusive rights of an individual with respect to the
protected health information related to such health care services.

In the final rule, the definition of Aindividual@ is limited to the
subject of the protected health information, which includes
unemancipated minors and other individuals who may lack capacity to act
on their own behalf. We remove from the definition of Aindividual@ the
provisions regarding legal representatives. The circumstances in which a
representative must be treated as an individual for purposes of this
rule are addressed in a separate standard titled Apersonal
representatives.@ (\' 164.502(g)). The standard regarding personal
representatives incorporates some changes to the proposed provisions
regarding legal representatives. In general, under the final regulation,
the Apersonal representatives@ provisions are directed at the more
formal representatives, while \' 164.510(b) addresses situations in
which persons are informally acting on behalf of an individual.

With respect to adults or emancipated minors, we clarify that a covered
entity must treat a person as a personal representative of an individual
if such person is, under applicable law, authorized to act on behalf of
the individual in making decisions related to health care. This includes
a court-appointed guardian and a person with a power of attorney, as set
forth in the NPRM, but may also include other persons. The authority of
a personal representative under this rule is limited: the representative
must be treated as the individual only to the extent that protected
health information is relevant to the matters on which the personal
representative is authorized to represent the individual. For example,
if a person=s authority to make health care decisions for an individual
is limited to decisions regarding treatment for cancer, such person is a
personal representative and must be treated as the individual with
respect to protected health information related to the cancer treatment
of the individual. Such a person is not the personal representative of
the individual with respect to all protected health information about
the individual, and therefore, a covered entity may not disclose
protected health information that is not relevant to the cancer
treatment to the person, unless otherwise permitted under the rule. We
intend this provision to apply to persons empowered under state or other
law to make health related decisions for an individual, whether or not
the instrument or law granting such authority specifically addresses
health information.

In addition, we clarify that with respect to an unemancipated minor, if
under applicable law a parent may act on behalf of an unemancipated
minor in making decisions related to health care, a covered entity must
treat such person as a personal representative under this rule with
respect to protected health information relevant to such personal
representation, with three exceptions. Under the general rule, in most
circumstances the minor would not have the capacity to act as the
individual, and the parent would be able to exercise rights and
authorities on behalf of the minor. Under the exceptions to the rule on
personal representatives of unemancipated minors, the minor, and not the
parent, would be treated as the individual and able to exercise the
rights and authorities of an individual under the rule. These exceptions
occur if: (1) the minor consents to a health care service; no other
consent to such health care service is required by law, regardless of
whether the consent of another person has also been obtained; and the
minor has not requested that such person be treated as the personal
representative; (2) the minor may lawfully obtain such health care
service without the consent of a parent, and the minor, a court, or
another person authorized by law consents to such health care service;
or (3) a parent assents to an agreement of confidentiality between a
covered health care provider and the minor with respect to such health
care service. We note that the definition of health care includes
services, but we use Ahealth care service@ in this provision to clarify
that the scope of the rights of minors under this rule is limited to the
protected health information related to a particular service.

Under this provision, we do not provide a minor with the authority to
act under the rule unless the state has given them the ability to obtain
health care without consent of a parent, or the parent has assented. In
addition, we defer to state law where the state authorizes or prohibits
disclosure of protected health information to a parent. See part 160,
subpart B, Preemption of State Law. This rule does not affect parental
notification laws that permit or require disclosure of protected health
information to a parent. However, the rights of a minor under this rule
are not otherwise affected by such notification.

In the final rule, the provision regarding personal representatives of
deceased individuals has been changed to clarify the provision. The
policy has not changed substantively from the NPRM.

Finally, we added a provision in the final rule to permit covered
entities to elect not to treat a person as a personal representative in
abusive situations. Under this provision, a covered entity need not
treat a person as a personal representative of an individual if the
covered entity, in the exercise of professional judgment, decides that
it is not in the best interest of the individual to treat the person as
the individual=s personal representative and the covered entity has a
reasonable belief that the individual has been or may be subjected to
domestic violence, abuse, or neglect by such person, or that treating
such person as the personal representative could endanger the
individual.

Section 164.502(g) requires a covered entity to treat a person that
meets the requirements of a personal representative as the individual
(with the exceptions described above). We note that disclosure of
protected health information to a personal representative is mandatory
under this rule only if disclosure to the individual is mandatory.
Disclosure to the individual is mandatory only under \'\' 164.524 and
164.528. Further, as noted above, the personal representative=s rights
are limited by the scope of its authority under other law. Thus, this
provision does not constitute a general grant of authority to personal
representatives.

We make disclosure to personal representatives mandatory to ensure that
an individual=s rights under \'\' 164.524 and 164.528 are preserved even
when individuals are incapacitated or otherwise unable to act for
themselves to the same degree as other individuals. If the covered
entity were to have the discretion to recognize a personal
representative as the individual, there could be situations in which no
one could invoke an individual=s rights under these sections.

We continue to allow covered entities to use their discretion to
disclose certain protected health information to family members,
relatives, close friends, and other persons assisting in the care of an
individual, in accordance with \' 164.510(b). We recognize that many
health care decisions take place on an informal basis, and we permit
disclosures in certain circumstance to permit this practice to continue.
Health care providers may continue to use their discretion to address
these informal situations.

**Section 164.502(h) B Confidential Communications**

In the NPRM, we did not directly address the issue of whether an
individual could request that a covered entity restrict the manner in
which it communicated with the individual. The NPRM did provide
individuals with the right to request that health care providers
restrict uses and disclosures of protected health information for
treatment, payment and health operations, but providers were not
required to agree to such a restriction.

In the final rule, we require covered providers to accommodate
reasonable requests by patients about how the covered provider
communicates with the individual. For example, an individual who does
not want his or her family members to know about a certain treatment may
request that the provider communicate with the individual at his or her
place of employment, or to send communications to a designated address.
Covered providers must accommodate the request unless it is
unreasonable. Similarly, the final rule permits individuals to request
that health plans communicate with them by alternative means, and the
health plan must accommodate such a request if it is reasonable and the
individual states that disclosure of the information could endanger the
individual. The specific provisions relating to confidential
communications are in \' 164.522.

**Section 164.502(i) B Uses and Disclosures Consistent with Notice**

We proposed to prohibit covered entities from using or disclosing
protected health information in a manner inconsistent with their notice
of information practices. We retain this provision in the final rule.
See \' 164.520 regarding notice content and distribution requirements.

**Section 164.502(j) B Disclosures by Whistleblowers and Workforce
Member Crime Victims**

***Disclosures by Whistleblowers***

In \' 164.518(c)(4) of the NPRM we addressed the issue of whistleblowers
by proposing that a covered entity not be held in violation of this rule
because a member of its workforce or a person associated with a business
associate of the covered entity used or disclosed protected health
information that such person believed was evidence of a civil or
criminal violation, and any disclosure was: (1) made to relevant
oversight agencies or law enforcement or (2) made to an attorney to
allow the attorney to determine whether a violation of criminal or civil
law had occurred or to assess the remedies or actions at law that may be
available to the person disclosing the information.

We included an extensive discussion on how whistleblower actions can
further the public interest, including reference to the need in some
circumstances to utilize protected health information for this purpose
as well as reference to the qui tam provisions of the Federal False
Claims Act.

In the final rule we retitle the provision and include it in \' 164.502
to reflect the fact that these disclosures are not made by the covered
entity and therefore this material does not belong in the section on
safeguarding information against disclosure.

We retain the basic concept in the NPRM of providing protection to a
covered entity for the good faith whistleblower action of a member of
its workforce or a business associate. We clarify that a whistleblower
disclosure by an employee, subcontractor, or other person associated
with a business associate is considered a whistleblower disclosure of
the business associate under this provision. However, in the final rule,
we modify the scope of circumstances under which a covered entity is
protected in whistleblower situations. A covered entity is not in
violation of the requirements of this rule when a member of its
workforce or a business associate of the covered entity discloses
protected health information to: (i) a health oversight agency or public
health authority authorized by law to investigate or otherwise oversee
the relevant conduct or conditions of the covered entity; (ii) an
appropriate health care accreditation organization; or (iii) an
attorney, for the purpose of determining his or her legal options with
respect to whistle blowing. We delete disclosures to a law enforcement
official.

We expand the scope of this section to cover disclosures of protected
health information to an oversight or accreditation organization for the
purpose of reporting breaches of professional standards or problems with
quality of care. The covered entity will not be in violation of this
rule, provided that the disclosing individual believes in good faith
that the covered entity has engaged in conduct which is unlawful or
otherwise violates professional or clinical standards, or that the care,
services or conditions provided by the covered entity potentially
endanger one or more patients, workers or the public. Since these
provisions only relate to whistleblower actions in relation to the
covered entity, disclosure of protected health information to expose
malfeasant conduct by another person, such as knowledge gained during
the course of treatment about an individual=s illicit drug use, would
not be protected activity.

We clarify that this section only applies to protection of a covered
entity, based on the whistleblower action of a member of its workforce
or business associates. Since the HIPAA legislation only applies to
covered entities, not their workforces, it is beyond the scope of this
rule to directly regulate the whistleblower actions of members of a
covered entity=s workforce.

In the NPRM, we had proposed to require covered entities to apply
sanctions to members of its workforce who improperly disclose protected
health information. In this final rule, we retain this requirement in \'
164.530(e)(1) but modify the proposed provision on sanctions to clarify
that the sanctions required under this rule do not apply to workforce
members of a covered entity for whistleblower disclosures.

***Disclosures by Workforce Members Who Are Crime Victims***

The proposed rule did not address disclosures by workforce members who
are victims of a crime. In the final rule, we clarify that a covered
entity is not in violation of the rule when a workforce member of a
covered entity who is the victim of a crime discloses protected health
information to law enforcement officials about the suspected perpetrator
of the crime. We limit the amount of protected health information that
may be disclosed to the limited information for identification and
location described in \' 164.512(f)(2).

We note that this provision is similar to the provision in \'
164.512(f)(5), which permits a covered entity to disclose protected
health information to law enforcement that the covered entity believes
in good faith constitutes evidence of criminal conduct that occurred on
the premises of the covered entity. This provision differs in that it
permits the disclosure even if the crime occurred somewhere other than
on the premises of the covered entity. For example, if a hospital
employee is the victim of an attack outside of the hospital, but spots
the perpetrator sometime later when the perpetrator seeks medical care
at the hospital, the workforce member who was attacked may notify law
enforcement of the perpetrator=s location and other identifying
information. We do not permit, however, the disclosure of protected
health information other than that described in \' 164.512(f)(2).

**SECTION 164.504 - USES AND DISCLOSURES - ORGANIZATIONAL REQUIREMENTS -
COMPONENT ENTITIES, AFFILIATED ENTITIES, BUSINESS ASSOCIATES AND GROUP
HEALTH PLANS**

**Section 164.504(a)-(c)CHealth Care Component (Component Entities)**

In the preamble to the proposed rule we introduced the concept of a
Acomponent entity@ to differentiate the health care unit of a larger
organization from the larger organization. In the proposal we noted that
some organizations that are primarily involved in non-health care
activities do provide health care services or operate health plans or
health care clearinghouses. Examples included a school with an on-site
health clinic and an employer that self administers a sponsored health
plan. In such cases, the proposal said that the health care component of
the entity would be considered the covered entity, and any release of
information from that component to another office or person in the
organization would be a regulated disclosure. We would have required
such entities to create barriers to prevent protected health information
from being used or disclosed for activities not authorized or permitted
under the proposal.

We discuss group health plans and their relationships with plan sponsors
below under ARequirements for Group Health Plans.@

In the final rule we address the issue of differentiating health plan,
covered health care provider and health care clearinghouse activities
from other functions carried out by a single legal entity in paragraphs
(a)-(c) of \' 164.504. We have created a new term, Ahybrid entity@, to
describe the situation where a health plan, health care provider, or
health care clearinghouse is part of a larger legal entity; under the
definition, a Ahybrid entity@ is Aa single legal entity that is a
covered entity and whose covered functions are not its primary
functions.@ The term Acovered functions@ is discussed above under \'
164.501. By Asingle legal entity@ we mean a legal entity, such as a
corporation or partnership, that cannot be further differentiated into
units with their own legal identities. For example, for purposes of this
rule a multinational corporation composed of multiple subsidiary
companies would not be a single legal entity, but a small manufacturing
firm and its health clinic, if not separately incorporated, could be a
single legal entity.

The health care component rules are designed for the situation in which
the health care functions of the legal entity are not its dominant
mission. Because some part of the legal entity meets the definition of a
health plan or other covered entity, the legal entity as a whole could
be required to comply with the rules below. However, in such a
situation, it makes sense not to require the entire entity to comply
with the requirements of the rules below, when most of its activities
may have little or nothing to do with the provision of health care;
rather, as a practical matter, it makes sense for such an entity to
focus its compliance efforts on the component that is actually
performing the health care functions. On the other hand, where most of
what the covered entity does consists of covered functions, it makes
sense to require the entity as a whole to comply with the rules. The
provisions at \'\' 164.504(a)-(c) provide that for a hybrid entity, the
rules apply only to the part of the entity that is the health care
component. At the same time, the lack of corporate boundaries increases
the risk that protected health information will be used in a manner that
would not otherwise be permitted by these rules. Thus, we require that
the covered entity erect firewalls to protect against the improper use
or disclosure within or by the organization. See \' 164.504(c)(2).

The term Aprimary functions@ in the definition of Ahybrid entity@ is not
meant to operate with mathematical precision. Rather, we intend that a
more common sense evaluation take place: is most of what the covered
entity does related to its health care functions? If so, then the whole
entity should be covered. Entities with different insurance lines, if
not separately incorporated, present a particular issue with respect to
this analysis. Because the definition of Ahealth plan@ excludes many
types of insurance products (in the exclusion under paragraph (2)(i) of
the definition), we would consider an entity that has one or more of
these lines of insurance in addition to its health insurance lines to
come within the definition of Ahybrid entity,@ because the other lines
of business constitute substantial parts of the total business operation
and are required to be separate from the health plan(s) part of the
business.

An issue that arises in the hybrid entity situation is what records are
covered in the case of an office of the hybrid entity that performs
support functions for both the health care component of the entity and
for the rest of the entity. For example, this situation could arise in
the context of a company with an onsite clinic (which we will assume is
a covered health care provider), where the company=s business office
maintains both clinic records and the company=s personnel records. Under
the definition of the term Ahealth care component,@ the business office
is part of the health care component (in this hypothetical, the clinic)
Ato the extent that@ it is performing covered functions on behalf of the
clinic involving the use or disclosure of protected health information
that it receives from, creates or maintains for the clinic. Part of the
business office, therefore, is part of the health care component, and
part of the business office is outside the health care component. This
means that the non-health care component part of the business office is
not covered by the rules below. Under our hypothetical, then, the
business office would not be required to handle its personnel records in
accordance with the rules below. The hybrid entity would be required to
establish firewalls with respect to these record systems, to ensure that
the clinic records were handled in accordance with the rules.

With respect to excepted benefits, the rules below operate as follows.
(Excepted benefits include accident, disability income, liability,
workers= compensation and automobile medical payment insurance.)
Excepted benefit programs are excluded from the health care component
(or components) through the definition of Ahealth plan.@ If a particular
organizational unit performs both excepted benefits functions and
covered functions, the activities associated with the excepted benefits
program may not be part of the health care component. For example, an
accountant who works for a covered entity with both a health plan and a
life insurer would have his or her accounting functions performed for
the health plan as part of the component, but not the life insurance
accounting function. See \' 164.504(c)(2)(iii). We require this
segregation of excepted benefits because HIPAA does not cover such
programs, policies and plans, and we do not permit any use or disclosure
of protected health information for the purposes of operating or
performing the functions of the excepted benefits without authorization
from the individual, except as otherwise permitted in this rule.

In \' 164.504(c)(2) we require covered entities with a health care
component to establish safeguard policies and procedures to prevent any
access to protected health information by its other organizational units
that would not be otherwise permitted by this rule. We note that Sec.
1173 (d)(1)(B) of HIPAA requires policies and procedures to isolate the
activities of a health care clearinghouse from a Alarger organization@
to prevent unauthorized access by the larger organization. This
safeguard provision is consistent with the statutory requirement and
extends to any covered entity that performs Anon-covered entity
functions@ or operates or conducts functions of more than one type of
covered entity.

Because, as noted, the covered entity in the hybrid entity situation is
the legal entity itself, we state explicitly what is implicitly the
case, that the covered entity (legal entity) remains responsible for
compliance vis-a-vis subpart C of part 160. See \' 164.504(c)(3)(i). We
do this simply to make these responsibilities clear and to avoid
confusion on this point. Also, in the hybrid entity situation the
covered entity/legal entity has control over the entire workforce, not
just the workforce of the health care component. Thus, the covered
entity is in a position to implement policies and procedures to ensure
that the part of its workforce that is doing mixed or non-covered
functions does not impermissibly use or disclose protected health
information. Its responsibility to do so is clarified in \'
164.504(c)(3)(ii).

**Section 164.504(d) B Affiliated Entities**

Some legally distinct covered entities may share common administration
of organizationally differentiated but similar activities (for example,
a hospital chain). In \' 164.504(d) we permit legally distinct covered
entities that share common ownership or control to designate themselves,
or their health care components, together to be a single covered entity.
Common control exists if an entity has the power, directly or
indirectly, significantly to influence or direct the actions or policies
of another entity. Common ownership exists if an entity or entities
possess an ownership or equity interest of 5 percent or more in another
entity.

Such organizations may promulgate a single shared notice of information
practices and a consent form. For example, a corporation with hospitals
in twenty states may designate itself as a covered entity and,
therefore, able to merge information for joint marketplace analyses. The
requirements that apply to a covered entity also apply to an affiliated
covered entity. For example, under the minimum necessary provisions, a
hospital in one state could not share protected health information about
a particular patient with another hospital if such a use is not
necessary for treatment, payment or health care operations. The covered
entities that together make up the affiliated covered entity are
separately subject to liability under this rule. The safeguarding
requirements for affiliated covered entities track the requirements that
apply to health care components.

**Section 164.504(e) B Business Associates**

In the NPRM, we proposed to require a contract between a covered entity
and a business associate, except for disclosures of protected health
information by a covered entity that is a health care provider to
another health care provider for the purposes of consultation or
referral. A covered entity would have been in violation of this rule if
the covered entity knew or reasonably should have known of a material
breach of the contract by a business associate and it failed to take
reasonable steps to cure the breach or terminate the contract. We
proposed in the preamble that when a covered entity acted as a business
associate to another covered entity, the covered entity that was acting
as business associate also would have been responsible for any
violations of the regulation.

We also proposed that covered health care providers receiving protected
health information for consultation or referral purposes would still
have been subject to this rule, and could not have used or disclosed
such protected health information for a purpose other than the purpose
for which it was received (i.e., the consultation or referral). Further,
we noted that providers making disclosures for consultations or
referrals should be careful to inform the receiving provider of any
special limitations or conditions to which the disclosing provider had
agreed to impose (e.g., the disclosing provider had provided notice to
its patients that it would not make disclosures for research).

We proposed that business associates would not have been permitted to
use or disclose protected health information in ways that would not have
been permitted of the covered entity itself under these rules, and
covered entities would have been required to take reasonable steps to
ensure that protected health information disclosed to a business
associate remained protected.

In the NPRM (proposed \' 164.506(e)(2)) we would have required that the
contractual agreement between a covered entity and a business associate
be in writing and contain provisions that would:

\$ Prohibit the business associate from further using or disclosing the
protected health information for any purpose other than the purpose
stated in the contract.

\$ Prohibit the business associate from further using or disclosing the
protected health information in a manner that would violate the
requirements of this proposed rule if it were done by the covered
entity.

\$ Require the business associate to maintain safeguards as necessary to
ensure that the protected health information is not used or disclosed
except as provided by the contract.

\$ Require the business associate to report to the covered entity any
use or disclosure of the protected health information of which the
business associate becomes aware that is not provided for in the
contract.

\$ Require the business associate to ensure that any subcontractors or
agents to whom it provides protected health information received from
the covered entity will agree to the same restrictions and conditions
that apply to the business associate with respect to such information.

\$ Require the business associate to provide access to non-duplicative
protected health information to the subject of that information, in
accordance with proposed \' 164.514(a).

\$ Require the business associate to make available its internal
practices, books and records relating to the use and disclosure of
protected health information received from the covered entity to the
Secretary for the purposes of enforcing the provisions of this rule.

\$ Require the business associate, at termination of the contract, to
return or destroy all protected health information received from the
covered entity that the business associate still maintains in any form
to the covered entity and prohibit the business associate from retaining
such protected health information in any form.

\$ Require the business associate to incorporate any amendments or
corrections to protected health information when notified by the covered
entity that the information is inaccurate or incomplete.

\$ State that individuals who are the subject of the protected health
information disclosed are intended to be third party beneficiaries of
the contract.

\$ Authorize the covered entity to terminate the contract, if the
covered entity determines that the business associate has violated a
material term of the contract.

We also stated in the preamble to the NPRM that the contract could have
included any additional arrangements that did not violate the provisions
of this regulation.

We explained in the preamble to the NPRM that a business associate
(including business associates that are covered entities) that had
contracts with more than one covered entity would have had no authority
to combine, aggregate or otherwise use for a single purpose protected
health information obtained from more than one covered entity unless
doing so would have been a lawful use or disclosure for each of the
covered entities that supplied the protected health information that is
being combined, aggregated or used. In addition, the business associate
would have had to have been authorized through the contract or
arrangement with each covered entity that supplied the protected health
information to combine or aggregate the information. A covered entity
would not have been permitted to obtain protected health information
through a business associate that it could not otherwise obtain itself.

In the final rule we retain the overall approach proposed: covered
entities may disclose protected health information to persons that meet
the rule=s definition of business associate, or hire such persons to
obtain or create protected health information for them, only if covered
entities obtain specified satisfactory assurances from the business
associate that it will appropriately handle the information; the
regulation specifies the elements of such satisfactory assurances;
covered entities have responsibilities when such specified satisfactory
assurances are violated by the business associate. We retain the
requirement that specified satisfactory assurances must be obtained if a
covered entity=s business associate is also a covered entity. We note
that a master business associate contract or MOU that otherwise meets
the requirements regarding specified satisfactory assurances meets the
requirements with respect to all the signatories.

A covered entity may disclose protected health information to a business
associate, consistent with the other requirements of the final rule, as
necessary to permit the business associate to perform functions and
activities for or on behalf of the covered entity, or to provide the
services specified in the business associate definition to or for the
covered entity. As discussed below, a business associate may only use
the protected health information it receives in its capacity as a
business associate to a covered entity as permitted by its contract or
agreement with the covered entity.

We do not attempt to directly regulate business associates, but pursuant
to our authority to regulate covered entities we place restrictions on
the flow of information from covered entities to non-covered entities.
We add a provision to clarify that a violation of a business associate
agreement by a covered entity that is a business associate of another
covered entity constitutes a violation of this rule.

In the final rule, we make significant changes to the requirements
regarding business associates. As explained below in more detail: we
make significant changes to the content of the required contractual
satisfactory assurances; we include exceptions for arrangements that
would otherwise meet the definition of business associate; we make
special provisions for government agencies that by law cannot enter into
contracts with one another or that operate under other legal
requirements incompatible with some aspects of the required contractual
satisfactory assurances; we provide a new mechanism for covered entities
to hire a third party to aggregate data.

The final rule provides several exception to the business associate
requirements, where a business associate relationship would otherwise
exist. We substantially expand the exception for disclosure of protected
health information for treatment. Rather than allowing disclosures
without business associate assurances only for the purpose of
consultation or referral, in the final rule we allow covered entities to
make any disclosure of protected health information for treatment
purposes to a health care provider without a business associate
arrangement. This provision includes all activities that fall under the
definition of treatment.

We do not require a business associate contract for a group health plan
to make disclosures to the plan sponsor, to the extent that the health
plan meets the applicable requirements of \' 164.504(f).

We also include an exception for certain jointly administered government
programs providing public benefits. Where a health plan that is a
government program provides public benefits, such as SCHIP and Medicaid,
and where eligibility for, or enrollment in, the health plan is
determined by an agency other than the agency administering the health
plan, or where the protected health information used to determine
enrollment or eligibility in the health plan is collected by an agency
other than the agency administering the health plan, and the joint
activities are authorized by law, no business associate contract is
required with respect to the collection and sharing of individually
identifiable health information for the performance of the authorized
functions by the health plan and the agency other than the agency
administering the health plan. We note that the phrase Agovernment
programs providing public benefits@ refers to programs offering benefits
to specified members of the public and not to programs that offer
benefits only to employees or retirees of government agencies.

We note that we do not consider a financial institution to be acting on
behalf of a covered entity, and therefore no business associate contract
is required, when it processes consumer-conducted financial transactions
by debit, credit or other payment card, clears checks, initiates or
processes electronic funds transfers, or conducts any other activity
that directly facilitates or effects the transfer of funds for
compensation for health care. A typical consumer-conducted payment
transaction is when a consumer pays for health care or health insurance
premiums using a check or credit card. In these cases, the identity of
the consumer is always included and some health information (e.g.,
diagnosis or procedure) may be implied through the name of the health
care provider or health plan being paid. Covered entities that initiate
such payment activities must meet the minimum necessary disclosure
requirements described in the preamble to \' 164.514.

In the final rule, we reduce the extent to which a covered entity must
monitor the actions of its business associate and we make it easier for
covered entities to identify the circumstances that will require them to
take actions to correct a business associate=s material violation of the
contract, in the following ways. We delete the proposed language
requiring covered entities to Atake reasonable steps to ensure@ that
each business associate complies with the rule=s requirements.
Additionally, we now require covered entities to take reasonable steps
to cure a breach or terminate the contract for business associate
behaviors only if they know of a material violation by a business
associate. In implementing this standard, we will view a covered entity
that has substantial and credible evidence of a violation as knowing of
such violation. While this standard relieves the covered entity of the
need to actively monitor its business associates, a covered entity
nonetheless is expected to investigate when they receive complaints or
other information that contain substantial and credible evidence of
violations by a business associate, and it must act upon any knowledge
of such violation that it possesses. We note that a whistleblowing
disclosure by a business associate of a covered entity that meets the
requirements of \' 164.502(j)(1) does not put the covered entity in
violation of this rule, and the covered entity has no duty to correct or
cure, or to terminate the relationship.

We also qualify the requirement for terminating contracts with
non-compliant business associates. The final rule still requires that
the business associate contract authorize the covered entity to
terminate the contract, if the covered entity determines that the
business associate has violated a material term of the contract, and it
requires the covered entity to terminate the contract if steps to cure
such a material breach fail. The rule now stipulates, however, that if
the covered entity is unable to cure a material breach of the business
associate=s obligation under the contract, it is expected to terminate
the contract, when feasible. This qualification has been added to
accommodate circumstances where terminating the contract would be
unreasonably burdensome on the covered entity, such as when there are no
viable alternatives to continuing a contract with that particular
business associate. It does not mean, for instance, that the covered
entity can choose to continue the contract with a non-compliant business
associate merely because it is more convenient or less costly than
contracts with other potential business associates. We also require that
if a covered entity determines that it is not feasible to terminate a
non-compliant business associate, the covered entity must notify the
Secretary.

We retain all of the requirements for a business associate contract that
were listed in proposed \' 164.506(e)(2), with some modifications. See
\' 164.504(e)(2).

We retain the requirement that the business associate contract must
provide that the business associate will not use or further disclose the
information other than as permitted or required by the contract or as
required by law. We do not mean by this requirement that the business
associate contract must specify each and every use and disclosure of
protected health information permitted to the business associate.
Rather, the contract must state the purposes for which the business
associate may use and disclose protected health information, and must
indicate generally the reasons and types of persons to whom the business
associate may make further disclosures. For example, attorneys often
need to provide information to potential witnesses, opposing counsel,
and others in the course of their representation of a client. The
business associate contract pursuant to which protected health
information is provided to its attorney may include a general statement
permitting the attorney to disclose protected health information to
these types of people, within the scope of its representation of the
covered entity.

We retain the requirement that a business associate contract may not
authorize a business associate to use or further disclose protected
health information in a manner that would violate the requirements of
this subpart if done by the covered entity, but we add two exceptions.
First, we permit a covered entity to authorize a business associate to
use and disclose protected health information it receives in its
capacity as a business associate for its proper management and
administration and to carry out its legal responsibilities. The contract
must limit further disclosures of the protected health information for
these purposes to those that are required by law and to those for which
the business associate obtains reasonable assurances that the protected
health information will be held confidentially and that it will be
notified by the person to whom it discloses the protected health
information of any breaches of confidentiality.

Second, we permit a covered entity to authorize the business associate
to provide data aggregation services to the covered entity. As discussed
above in \' 164.501, data aggregation, with respect to protected health
information received by a business associate in its capacity as the
business associate of a covered entity, is the combining of such
protected health information by the business associate with protected
health information received by the business associate in its capacity as
a business associate of another covered entity, to permit the creation
of data for analyses that relate to the health care operations of the
respective covered entities. We added this service to the business
associate definition to clarify the ability of covered entities to
contract with business associates to undertake quality assurance and
comparative analyses that involve the protected health information of
more than one contracting covered entity. We except data aggregation
from the general requirement that a business associate contract may not
authorize a business associate to use or further disclose protected
health information in a manner that would violate the requirements of
this subpart if done by the covered entity in order to permit the
combining or aggregation of protected health information received in its
capacity as a business associate of different covered entities when it
is performing this service. In many cases, the combining of this
information for the respective health care operations of the covered
entities is not something that the covered entities could do B a covered
entity cannot generally disclose protected health information to another
covered entity for the disclosing covered entity=s health care
operations. However, we permit covered entities that enter into business
associate contracts with a business associate for data aggregation to
permit the business associate to combine or aggregate the protected
health information they disclose to the business associate for their
respective health care operations.

We note that there may be other instances in which a business associate
may combine or aggregate protected health information received in its
capacity as a business associate of different covered entities, such as
when it is performing health care operations on behalf of covered
entities that participate in an organized health care arrangement. A
business associate that is performing payment functions on behalf of
different covered entities also may combine protected health information
when it is necessary, such as when the covered entities share financial
risk or otherwise jointly bill for services.

In the final rule we clarify that the business associate contract must
require the business associate to make available protected health
information for amendment and to incorporate such amendments. The
business associate contract must also require the business associate to
make available the information required to provide an accounting of
disclosures. We provide more flexibility to the requirement that all
protected health information be returned by the business associate upon
termination of the contract. The rule now stipulates that if feasible,
the protected health information should be destroyed or returned at the
end of a contract. Accordingly, a contract with a business associate
must state that if there are reasons that the return or destruction of
the information is not feasible and the information must be retained for
specific reasons and uses, such as for future audits, privacy
protections must continue after the contract ends, for as long as the
business associate retains the information. The contract also must state
that the uses of information after termination of the contract must be
limited to the specific set of uses or disclosures that make it
necessary for the business associate to retain the information.

We also remove the requirement that business associate contracts contain
a provision stating that individuals whose protected health information
is disclosed under the contract are intended third-party beneficiaries
of the contract. Third party beneficiary or similar responsibilities may
arise under these business associate arrangements by operation of state
law; we do not intend in this rule to affect the operation of such state
laws.

We modify the requirement that a business associate contract require the
business associate to ensure that agents abide by the provisions of the
business associate contract. We clarify that agents includes
subcontractors, and we note that a business associate contract must make
the business associate responsible for ensuring that any person to whom
it delegates a function, activity or service which is within its
business associate contract with the covered entity agrees to abide by
the restrictions and conditions that apply to the business associate
under the contract. We note that a business associate will need to
consider the purpose for which protected health information is being
disclosed in determining whether the recipient must be bound to the
restrictions and conditions of the business associate contract. When the
disclosure is a delegation of a function, activity or service that the
business associate has agreed to perform for a covered entity, the
recipient who undertakes such a function steps into the shoes of the
business associate and must be bound to the restrictions and conditions.
When the disclosure is to a third party who is not performing business
associate functions, activities or services for on behalf of the covered
entity, but is the type of disclosure that the covered entity itself
could make without giving rise to a business associate relationship, the
business associate is not required to ensure that the restrictions or
conditions of the business associate contract are maintained.

For example, if a business associate acts as the billing agent of a
health care provider, and discloses protected health information on
behalf of the hospital to health plans, the business associate has no
responsibility with respect to further uses or disclosures by the health
plan. In the example above, where a covered entity has a business
associate contract with a lawyer, and the lawyer discloses protected
health information to an expert witness in preparation for litigation,
the lawyer again would have no responsibility under this subpart with
respect to uses or disclosures by the expert witness, because such
witness is not undertaking the functions, activities or services that
the business associate lawyer has agreed to perform. However, if a
covered entity contracts with a third party administrator to provide
claims management, and the administrator delegates management of the
pharmacy benefits to a third party, the business associate third party
administrator must ensure that the pharmacy manager abides by the
restrictions and conditions in the business associate contract between
the covered entity and the third party administrator.

We provide in \' 164.504(c)(3) several methods other than a business
associate contract that will satisfy the requirement for satisfactory
assurances under this section. First, when a government agency is a
business associate of another government agency that is a covered
entity, we permit memorandum of understanding between the agencies to
constitute satisfactory assurance for the purposes of this rule, if the
memorandum accomplishes each of the objectives of the business associate
contract. We recognize that the relationships of government agencies are
often organized as a matter of law, and that it is not always feasible
for one agency to contract with another for all of the purposes provided
for in this section. We also recognize that it may be incorrect to view
one government agency as \>acting on behalf of@ the other government
agency; under law, each agency may be acting to fulfill a statutory
mission. We note that in some instances, it may not be possible for the
agencies to include the right to terminate the arrangement because the
relationship may be established under law. In such instances, the
covered entity government agency would need to fulfill the requirement
to report known violations of the memorandum to the Secretary.

Where the covered entity is a government agency, we consider the
satisfactory assurances requirement to be satisfied if other law
contains requirements applicable to the business associate that
accomplish each of the objectives of the business associate contract. We
recognize that in some cases, covered entities that are government
agencies may be able to impose the requirements of this section directly
on the persons acting as their business associates. We also recognize
that often one government agency is acting as a business associate of
another government agency, and either party may have the legal authority
to establish the requirements of this section by regulation. We believe
that imposing these requirements directly on business associates
provides greater protection than we can otherwise provide under this
section, and so we recognize such other laws as sufficient to substitute
for a business associate contract.

We also recognize that there may be some circumstances where the
relationship between covered entities and business associates is
otherwise mandated by law. In the final rule, we provide that where a
business associate is required by law to act as a business associate to
a covered entity, the covered entity may disclose protected health
information to the business associate to the extent necessary to comply
with the legal mandate without meeting the requirement to have a
business associate contract (or, in the case of government agencies, a
memorandum of understanding or law pertaining to the business associate)
if it makes a good faith attempt the obtain satisfactory assurances
required by this section and, if unable to do so, documents the attempt
and the reasons that such assurances cannot be obtained. This provision
addresses situations where law requires one party to act as the business
associate of another party. The fact that the parties have contractual
obligations that may be enforceable is not sufficient to meet the
required by law test in this provision.

This provision recognizes that in some instances the law requires that a
government agency act as a business associate of a covered entity. For
example, the United States Department of Justice is required by law to
defend tort suits brought against certain covered entities; in such
circumstances, however, the United States, and not the individual
covered entity, is the client and is potentially liable. In such
situations, covered entities must be able to disclose protected health
information needed to carry out the representation, but the particular
requirements that would otherwise apply to a business associate
relationship may not be possible to obtain. Subsection (iii) makes clear
that, where the relationship is required by law, the covered entity
complies with the rule if it attempts, in good faith, to obtain
satisfactory assurances as are required by this paragraph and, if such
attempt fails, documents the attempts and the reasons that such
assurances cannot be obtained.

The operation of the final rule maintains the construction discussed in
the preamble to the NPRM that a business associate (including a business
associate that is a covered entity) that has business associate
contracts with more than one covered entity generally may not use or
disclose the protected health information that it creates or receives in
its capacity as a business associate of one covered entity for the
purposes of carrying out its responsibilities as a business associate of
another covered entity, unless doing so would be a lawful use or
disclosure for each of the covered entities and the business associate=s
contract with each of the covered entities permits the business
associate to undertake the activity. For example, a business associate
performing a function under health care operations on behalf of an
organized health care arrangement would be permitted to combine or
aggregate the protected health information obtained from covered
entities participating in the arrangement to the extent necessary to
carry out the authorized activity and in conformance with its business
associate contracts. As described above, a business associate providing
data aggregation services to different covered entities also could
combine and use the protected health information of the covered entities
to assist with their respective health care operations. A covered entity
that is undertaking payment activities on behalf of different covered
entities also may use or disclose protected health information obtained
as a business associate of one covered entity when undertaking such
activities as a business associate of another covered entity where the
covered entities have authorized the activities and where they are
necessary to secure payment for the entities. For example, when a group
of providers share financial risk and contract with a business associate
to conduct payment activities on their behalf, the business associate
may use the protected health information received from the covered
entities to assist them in managing their shared risk arrangement.

Finally, we note that the requirements imposed by this provision are
intended to extend privacy protection to situations in which a covered
entity discloses substantial amounts of protected health information to
other persons so that those persons can perform functions or activities
on its behalf or deliver specified services to it. A business associate
contract basically requires the business associate to maintain the
confidentiality of the protected health information that it receives and
generally to use and disclose such information for the purposes for
which it was provided. This requirement does not interfere with the
relationship between a covered entity and business associate, or require
the business associate to subordinate its professional judgment to that
of a covered entity. Covered entities may rely on the professional
judgment of their business associates as to the type and amount of
protected health information that is necessary to carry out a permitted
activity. The requirements of this provision are aimed at securing the
continued confidentiality of protected health information disclosed to
third parties that are serving the covered entity=s interests.

**Section 164.504(f) B Group Health Plans**

Covered entities under HIPAA include health care clearinghouses, health
care providers and health plans. Specifically included in the definition
of Ahealth plan@ are group health plans (as defined in section 2791(a)
of the Public Health Service Act) with 50 or more participants or those
of any size that are administered by an entity other than the employer
who established and maintains the plan. These group health plans may be
fully insured or self-insured. Neither employers nor other group health
plan sponsors are defined as covered entities. However, employers and
other plan sponsors - particularly those sponsors with self-insured
group health plans - may perform certain functions that are integrally
related to or similar to the functions of group health plans and, in
carrying out these functions, often require access to individual health
information held by the group health plan.

Most group health plans are also regulated under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Under ERISA, a group health plan
must be a separate legal entity from its plan sponsor. ERISA-covered
group health plans usually do not have a corporate presence, in other
words, they may not have their own employees and sometimes do not have
their own assets (i.e., they may be fully insured or the benefits may be
funded through the general assets of the plan sponsor, rather than
through a trust). Often, the only tangible evidence of the existence of
a group health plan is the contractual agreement that describes the
rights and responsibilities of covered participants, including the
benefits that are offered and the eligible recipients.

ERISA requires the group health plan to identify a Anamed fiduciary,@ a
person responsible for ensuring that the plan is operated and
administered properly and with ultimate legal responsibility for the
plan. If the plan documents under which the group health plan was
established and is maintained permit, the named fiduciary may delegate
certain responsibilities to trustees and may hire advisors to assist it
in carrying out its functions. While generally the named fiduciary is an
individual, it may be another entity. The plan sponsor or employees of
the plan sponsor are often the named fiduciaries. These structural and
operational relationships present a problem in our ability to protect
health information from being used inappropriately in employment-related
decisions. On the one hand, the group health plan, and any health
insurance issuer or HMO providing health insurance or health coverage to
the group health plan, are covered entities under the regulation and may
only disclose protected health information as authorized under the
regulation or with individual consent. On the other hand, plan sponsors
may need access to protected health information to carry out
administration functions on behalf of the plan, but under circumstances
in which securing individual consent is impractical. We note that we
sometimes refer in the rule and preamble to health insurance issuers and
HMOs that provide health insurance or health coverage to a group health
plan as health insurance issuers or HMOs with respect to a group health
plan.

The proposed rule used the health care component approach for employers
and other plan sponsors. Under this approach, only the component of an
employer or other plan sponsor would be treated as a covered entity. The
component of the plan sponsor would have been able to use protected
health information for treatment, payment, and health care operations,
but not for other purposes, such as discipline, hiring and firing,
placement and promotions. We have modified the final rule in a number of
ways.

In the final rule, we recognize plan sponsors= legitimate need for
health information in certain situations while, at the same time,
protecting health information from being used for employment-related
functions or for other functions related to other employee benefit plans
or other benefits provided by the plan sponsor. We do not attempt to
directly regulate employers or other plan sponsors, but pursuant to our
authority to regulate health plans, we place restrictions on the flow of
information from covered entities to non-covered entities.

The final rule permits group health plans, and allows them to authorize
health insurance issuers or HMOs with respect to the group health plan,
to disclose protected health information to plan sponsors if the plan
sponsors voluntarily agree to use and disclose the information only as
permitted or required by the regulation. The information may be used
only for plan administration functions performed on behalf of the group
health plan which are specified in plan documents. The group health plan
is not required to have a business associate contract with the plan
sponsor to disclose the protected health information or allow the plan
sponsor to create protected health information on its behalf, if the
conditions of \' 164.504(e) are met.

In order for the group health plan to disclose protected health
information to a plan sponsor, the plan documents under which the plan
was established and is maintained must be amended to: (1) describe the
permitted uses and disclosures of protected health information; (2)
specify that disclosure is permitted only upon receipt of a
certification from the plan sponsor that the plan documents have been
amended and the plan sponsor has agreed to certain conditions regarding
the use and disclosure of protected health information; and (3) provide
adequate firewalls to: identify the employees or classes of employees
who will have access to protected health information; restrict access
solely to the employees identified and only for the functions performed
on behalf of the group health plan; and provide a mechanism for
resolving issues of noncompliance.

Any employee of the plan sponsor who receives protected health
information for payment, health care operations or other matters related
to the group health plan must be identified in the plan documents either
by name or function. We assume that since individuals employed by the
plan sponsor may change frequently, the group health plan would likely
describe such individuals in a general manner. Any disclosure to
employees or classes of employees not identified in the plan documents
is not a permissible disclosure. To the extent a group health plan does
have its own employees separate from the plan sponsor=s employees, as
the workforce of a covered entity (i.e. the group health plan), they
also are bound by the permitted uses and disclosures of this rule.

The certification that must be given to the group health plan must state
that the plan sponsor agrees to: (1) not use or further disclose
protected health information other than as permitted or required by the
plan documents or as required by law; (2) ensure that any subcontractors
or agents to whom the plan sponsor provides protected health information
agree to the same restrictions; (3) not use or disclose the protected
health information for employment-related actions; (4) report to the
group health plan any use or disclosure that is inconsistent with the
plan documents or this regulation; (5) make the protected health
information accessible to individuals; (6) allow individuals to amend
their information; (7) provide an accounting of its disclosures; (8)
make its practices available to the Secretary for determining
compliance; (9) return and destroy all protected health information when
no longer needed, if feasible; and (10) ensure that the firewalls have
been established.

We have included this certification requirement in part, as a way to
reduce the burden on health insurance issuers and HMOs. Without a
certification, health insurance issuers and HMOs would need to review
the plan documents in order to ensure that the amendments have been made
before they could disclose protected health information to plan
sponsors. The certification, however, is a simple statement that the
amendments have been made and that the plan sponsor has agreed to
certain restrictions on the use and disclosure of protected health
information. The receipt of the certification therefore, is sufficient
basis for the health insurance issuer or HMO to disclose protected
health information to the plan sponsor.

Many activities included in the definitions of health care operations
and payment are commonly referred to as plan administration functions in
the ERISA group health plan context. For purposes of this rule, plan
administration activities are limited to activities that would meet the
definition of payment or health care operations, but do not include
functions to modify, amend, or terminate the plan or solicit bids from
prospective issuers. Plan administration functions include quality
assurance, claims processing, auditing, monitoring, and management of
carve-out plans - such as vision and dental. Under the final rule, Aplan
administration@ does not include any employment-related functions or
functions in connection with any other benefits or benefit plans, and
group health plans may not disclose information for such purposes absent
an authorization from the individual. For purposes of this rule,
enrollment functions performed by the plan sponsor on behalf of its
employees are not considered plan administration functions.

Plan sponsors have access to protected health information only to the
extent group health plans have access to protected health information
and plan sponsors are permitted to use or disclose protected health
information only as would be permitted by group health plans. That is, a
group health plan may permit a plan sponsor to have access to or to use
protected health information only for purposes allowed by the
regulation.

As explained above, where a group health plan purchases insurance or
coverage from a health insurance issuer or HMO, the provision of
insurance or coverage by the health insurance issuer or HMO to the group
health plan does not make the health insurance issuer or HMO a business
associate. In such case, the activities of the health insurance issuer
or HMO are on their own behalf and not on the behalf of the group health
plan. We note that where a group health plan contracts with a health
insurance issuer or HMO to perform functions or activities or to provide
services that are in addition to or not directly related to the
provision of insurance, the health insurance issuer or HMO may be a
business associate with respect to those additional functions,
activities, or services. In addition, group health plans that provide
health benefits only through an insurance contract and do not create,
maintain, or receive protected health information (except for summary
information described below or information that merely states whether an
individual is enrolled in or has been disenrolled from the plan) do not
have to meet the notice requirements of \' 164.520 or the administrative
requirements of \' 164.530, except for the documentation requirement in
\' 164.530(j), because these requirements are satisfied by the issuer or
HMO that is providing benefits under the group health plan. A group
health plan, however, may not permit a health insurance issuer or HMO to
disclose protected health information to a plan sponsor unless the
notice required in 164.520 indicate such disclosure may occur.

The final rule also permits a health plan that is providing insurance to
a group health plan to provide summary information to the plan sponsor
to permit the plan sponsor to solicit premium bids from other health
plans or for the purpose of modifying, amending, or terminating the
plan. The rule provides that summary information is information that
summarizes claims history, claims expenses, or types of claims
experienced by individuals for whom the plan sponsor has provided health
benefits under a group health plan, provided that specified identifiers
are not included. Summary information may be disclosed under this
provision even if it does not meet the definition of de-identified
information. As part of the notice requirements in \' 164.520, health
plans must inform individuals that they may disclose protected health
information to plan sponsors. The provision to allow summaries of claims
experience to be disclosed to plan sponsors that purchase insurance will
allow them to shop for replacement coverage, and get meaningful bids
from prospective issuers. It also permits a plan sponsor to get summary
information as part of its consideration of whether or not to change the
benefits that are offered or employees or whether or not to terminate a
group health plan.

We note that a plan sponsor may perform enrollment functions on behalf
of its employees without meeting the conditions above and without using
the standard transactions described in the Transactions Rule.

**Section 164.504(g)CMultiple Covered Function Entities**

Although not addressed in the proposed rule, this final rule also
recognizes that a covered entity may as a single legal entity,
affiliated entity, or other arrangement combine the functions or
operations of health care providers, health plans and health care
clearinghouses (for example, integrated health plans and health care
delivery systems may function as both health plans and health care
providers). The rule permits such covered entities to use or disclose
the protected health information of its patients or members for all
covered entity functions, consistent with the other requirements of this
rule. The health care component must meet the requirements of this rule
that apply to a particular type of covered entity when it is functioning
as that entity; e.g., when a health care component is operating as a
health care provider it must meet the requirements of this rule
applicable to a health care provider. However, such covered entities may
not use or disclose the protected health information of an individual
who is not involved in a particular covered entity function for that
function, and such information must be segregated from any joint
information systems. For example, an HMO may integrate data about health
plan members and clinic services to members, but a health care system
may not share information about a patient in its hospital with its
health plan if the patient is not a member of the health plan.

**SECTION 164.506 - USES AND DISCLOSURES FOR TREATMENT, PAYMENT, AND
HEALTH CARE OPERATIONS**

***Introduction: AConsent@ versus AAuthorization@***

In the proposed rule, we used the term Aauthorization@ to describe the
individual=s written permission for a covered entity to use and disclose
protected health information, regardless of the purpose of the use or
disclosure. Authorization would have been required for all uses and
disclosures that were not otherwise permitted or required under the
NPRM.

We proposed to permit covered entities, subject to limited exceptions
for psychotherapy notes and research information unrelated to treatment,
to use and disclose protected health information to carry out treatment,
payment, and health care operations without authorization. See proposed
\' 164.506(a)(1).

We also proposed to prohibit covered entities from requiring individuals
to sign authorizations for uses and disclosures of protected health
information for treatment, payment, and health care operations, unless
required by other applicable law. See proposed \' 164.508(a)(iv). We
instead proposed requiring covered entities to produce a notice
describing their information practices, including practices with respect
to uses and disclosures to carry out treatment, payment, and health care
operations.

In the final rule, we retain the requirement for covered entities to
obtain the individual=s written permission (an Aauthorization@) for uses
and disclosures of protected health information that are not otherwise
permitted or required under the rule. However, under the final rule, we
add a second type of written permission for use or disclosure of
protected health information: a Aconsent@ for uses and disclosures to
carry out treatment, payment, and health care operations. In the final
rule, we permit, and in some cases require, covered entities to obtain
the individual=s written permission for the covered entity to use or
disclose protected health information other than psychotherapy notes to
carry out treatment, payment, and health care operations. We refer to
this written permission as a Aconsent.@

The Aconsent@ and the Aauthorization@ do not overlap. The requirement to
obtain a Aconsent@ applies in different circumstances than the
requirement to obtain an authorization. In content, a consent and an
authorization differ substantially from one another.

As described in detail below, a Aconsent@ allows use and disclosure of
protected health information only for treatment, payment, and health
care operations. It is written in general terms and refers the
individual to the covered entity=s notice for further information about
the covered entity=s privacy practices. It allows use and disclosure of
protected health information by the covered entity seeking the consent,
not by other persons. Most persons who obtain a consent will be health
care providers; health plans and health care clearinghouses may also
seek a consent. The consent requirements appear in \' 164.506 and are
described in this section of the preamble.

With a few exceptions, an Aauthorization@ allows use and disclosure of
protected health information for purposes other than treatment, payment,
and health care operations. In order to make uses and disclosures that
are not covered by the consent requirements and not otherwise permitted
or required under the final rule, covered entities must obtain the
individual=s Aauthorization.@ An Aauthorization@ must be written in
specific terms. It may allow use and disclosure of protected health
information by the covered entity seeking the authorization, or by a
third party. In some instances, a covered entity may not refuse to treat
or cover individuals based on the fact that they refuse to sign an
authorization. See \' 164.508 and the corresponding preamble discussion
regarding authorization requirements.

**Section 164.506(a) B Consent Requirements**

We make significant changes in the final rule with respect to uses and
disclosures of protected health information to carry out treatment,
payment, and health care operations. We do not prohibit covered entities
from seeking an individual=s written permission for use or disclosure of
protected health information to carry out treatment, payment, or health
care operations.

Except as described below, we instead require covered health care
providers to obtain the individual=s consent prior to using or
disclosing protected health information to carry out treatment, payment,
or health care operations. If the covered provider does not obtain the
individual=s consent, the provider is prohibited from using or
disclosing protected health information about the individual for
purposes of treating the individual, obtaining payment for health care
delivered to the individual, or for the provider=s health care
operations. See \' 164.506(a)(1).

We except two types of health care providers from this consent
requirement. First, covered health care providers that have an indirect
treatment relationship with an individual are not required to obtain the
individual=s consent prior to using or disclosing protected health
information about the individual to carry out treatment, payment, and
health care operations. An Aindirect treatment relationship@ is defined
in \' 164.501 and described in the corresponding preamble. These
providers may use and disclose protected health information as otherwise
permitted under the rule and consistent with their notice of privacy
practices (see \' 164.520 regarding notice requirements and \'
164.502(i) regarding requirements to adhere to the notice). For example,
a covered provider that provides consultation services to another
provider without seeing the patient would have an indirect treatment
relationship with that patient and would not be required to obtain the
patient=s consent to use protected health information about the patient
for the consultation. These covered providers are, however, permitted to
obtain consent, as described below.

Second, covered health care providers that create or receive protected
health information in the course of providing health care to inmates of
a correctional institution are not required to obtain the inmate=s
consent prior to using or disclosing protected health information about
the inmate to carry out treatment, payment, and health care operations.
See \' 164.501 and the corresponding preamble discussion regarding the
definitions of Acorrectional institution@ and Ainmate.@ These providers
may use and disclose protected health information as otherwise permitted
under the rule. These providers are permitted, however, to obtain
consent, as described below.

In addition, we permit covered health care providers to use and disclose
protected health information, without consent, to carry out treatment,
payment, and health care operations, if the protected health information
was created or received in certain treatment situations. In the
treatment situations described in \' 164.506(a)(3) and immediately
below, the covered health care provider must attempt to obtain the
individual=s consent. If the covered provider is unable to obtain
consent, but documents the attempt and the reason consent was not
obtained, the covered provider may, without consent, use and disclose
the protected health information resulting from the treatment as
otherwise permitted under the rule. All other protected health
information about that individual that the covered health care provider
creates or receives, however, is subject to the consent requirements.

This exception to the consent requirement applies to protected health
information created or received in any of three treatment situations.
First, the exception applies to protected health information created or
received in emergency treatment situations. In these situations, covered
providers must attempt to obtain the consent as soon as reasonably
practicable after the delivery of the emergency treatment. Second, the
exception applies to protected health information created or received in
situations where the covered health care provider is required by law to
treat the individual (for example, certain publicly funded providers)
and the covered health care provider attempts to obtain such consent.
Third, the exception applies to protected health information created or
received in treatment situations where there are substantial barriers to
communicating with the individual and, in the exercise of professional
judgment, the covered provider clearly infers from the circumstances the
individual=s consent to receive treatment. For example, there may be
situations in which a mentally incapacitated individual seeks treatment
from a health care provider but is unable to provide informed consent to
undergo such treatment and does not have a personal representative
available to provide such consent on the individual=s behalf. If the
covered provider, in her professional judgment, believes she can legally
provide treatment to that individual, we also permit the provider to use
and disclose protected health information resulting from the treatment
without the individual=s consent. We intend covered health care
providers that legally provide treatment without the individual=s
consent to that treatment to be able to use and disclose protected
health information resulting from that treatment to carry out treatment,
payment, or health care operations without obtaining the individual=s
consent for such use or disclosure. We do not intend to impose
unreasonable barriers to individuals= ability to receive, and health
care providers= ability to provide, health care.

Under \' 164.506(a)(4), covered health care providers that have an
indirect treatment relationship with an individual, as well as health
plans and health care clearinghouses, may elect to seek consent for
their own uses and disclosures to carry out treatment, payment, and
health care operations. If such a covered entity seeks consent for these
purposes, the consent must meet the minimum requirements described
below.

If a covered health care provider with an indirect treatment
relationship, a health plan, or a health care clearinghouse does not
seek consent, the covered entity may use or disclose protected health
information to carry out treatment, payment, and health care operations
as otherwise permitted under the rule and consistent with its notice of
privacy practices (see \' 164.520 regarding notice requirements and \'
164.502(i) regarding requirements to adhere to the notice).

If a covered health care provider with an indirect treatment
relationship, a health plan, or a health care clearinghouse does ask an
individual to sign a consent, and the individual does not do so, the
covered entity is prohibited under \' 164.502(a)(1) from using or
disclosing protected health information for the purpose(s) included in
the consent. A covered entity that seeks a consent must adhere to the
individual=s decision.

In \' 164.506(a)(5), we specify that a consent obtained by one covered
entity is not effective to permit another covered entity to use or
disclose protected health information, unless the consent is a joint
consent. See \' 164.506(f) and the corresponding preamble discussion
below regarding joint consents. A consent provides the individual=s
permission only for the covered entity that obtains the consent to use
or disclose protected health information for treatment, payment, and
health care operations. A consent under this section does not operate to
authorize another covered entity to use or disclose protected health
information, except where the other covered entity is operating as a
business associate. We note that, where a covered entity is acting as a
business associate of another covered entity, the business associate
covered entity is acting for or on behalf of the principal covered
entity, and its actions for or on behalf of the principal covered entity
are authorized by the consent obtained by the principal covered entity.
Thus, under this section, a health plan can obtain a consent that
permits the health plan and its business associates to use and disclose
protected health information that the health plan and its business
associates create or receive. That consent cannot, however, permit
another covered entity (that is not a business associate) to disclose
protected health information to the health plan or to any other person.

If a covered entity wants to obtain the individual=s permission for
another covered entity to disclose protected health information to it
for treatment, payment, or health care operations purposes, it must seek
an authorization in accordance with \' 164.508(e). For example, when a
covered provider asks the individual for written permission to obtain
the individual=s medical record from another provider for treatment
purposes, it must do so with an authorization, not a consent. Since the
permission is for disclosure of protected health information by another
person, a consent may not be used.

**Section 164.506(b) B Consent General Requirements**

In the final rule, we permit a covered health care provider to condition
the provision of treatment on the receipt of the individual=s consent
for the covered provider to use and disclose protected health
information to carry out treatment, payment, and health care operations.
Covered providers may refuse to treat individuals who do not consent to
uses and disclosures for these purposes. See \' 164.506(b)(1). We note
that there are exceptions to the consent requirements for covered health
care providers that are required by law to treat individuals. See \'
164.506(a)(3), described above.

Similarly, in the final rule, we permit health plans to condition an
individual=s enrollment in the health plan on the receipt of the
individual=s consent for the health plan to use and disclose protected
health information to carry out treatment, payment, and health care
operations, if the consent is sought in conjunction with the enrollment
process. If the health plan seeks the individual=s consent outside of
the enrollment process, the health plan may not condition any services
on obtaining such consent.

Under \' 164.520, covered entities must produce a notice of privacy
practices. A consent may not be combined in a single document with the
notice of privacy practices. See \' 164.506(b)(3).

Under \' 164.506(b)(4), consents for uses and disclosures of protected
health information to carry out treatment, payment, and health care
operations may be combined in a single document covering all three types
of activities and may be combined with other types of legal permission
from the individual. For example, a consent to use or disclose protected
health information under this rule may be combined with an informed
consent to receive treatment, a consent to assign payment of benefits to
a provider, or narrowly tailored consents required under state law for
the use or disclosure of specific types of protected health information
(e.g., state laws requiring specific consent for any sharing of
information related to HIV/AIDS).

Within a single consent document, the consent for use and disclosure of
protected health information required or permitted under this rule must
be visually and organizationally separate from the other consents or
authorizations and must be separately signed by the individual and
dated.

Where research includes treatment of the individual, a consent under
this rule may be combined with the authorization for the use or
disclosure of protected health information created for the research, in
accordance with \' 164.508(f). (This is the only case in which an
authorization under \' 164.508 of this rule may be combined with a
consent under \' 164.506 of this rule. See \' 164.508(b)(3).) The
covered entity that is creating protected health information for the
research may elect to combine the consent required under this section
with the research-related authorization required under \' 164.508(f).
For example, a covered health care provider that provides health care to
an individual for research purposes and for non-research purposes must
obtain a consent under this section for all of the protected health
information it maintains. In addition, it must obtain an authorization
in accordance with \' 164.508(f) which describes how it will use and
disclose the protected health information it creates for the research
for purposes of treatment, payment, and health care operations. Section
164.506(b)(4) permits the covered entity to satisfy these two
requirements with a single document. See \' 164.508(f) and the
corresponding preamble discussion for a more detailed description of
research authorization requirements.

Under \' 164.506(b)(5), individuals may revoke a consent in writing at
any time, except to the extent that the covered entity has taken action
in reliance on the consent. Upon receipt of the written revocation, the
covered entity must stop processing the information for use or
disclosure, except to the extent that it has taken action in reliance on
the consent. A covered health care provider may refuse, under this rule,
to continue to treat an individual that revokes his or her consent. A
health plan may disenroll an individual that revokes a consent that was
sought in conjunction with the individual=s enrollment in the health
plan.

Covered entities must document and retain any signed consent as required
by \' 164.530(j).

**Section 164.506(c) B Consent Content Requirements**

Under \' 164.506(c), the consent must be written in plain language. See
the preamble discussion regarding notice of privacy practices for a
description of plain language requirements. We do not provide a model
consent in this rule. We will provide further guidance on drafting
consent documents prior to the compliance date.

Under \' 164.506(c)(1), the consent must inform the individual that
protected health information may be used and disclosed by the covered
entity to carry out treatment, payment, or health care operations. The
covered entity must determine which of these elements (use and/or
disclosure; treatment, payment, and/or health care operations) to
include in the consent document, as appropriate for the covered entity=s
practices.

For covered health care providers that are required to obtain consent,
the requirement applies only to the extent the covered provider uses or
discloses protected health information. For example, if all of a covered
provider=s health care operations are conducted by members of the
covered provider=s own workforce, the covered provider may choose to
obtain consent only for uses, not disclosures, of protected health
information to carry out health care operations. If an individual pays
out of pocket for all services received from the covered provider and
the provider will not disclose any information about the patient to a
third party payor, the provider may choose not to obtain the
individual=s consent to disclose information for payment purposes. In
order for a covered provider to be able to use and disclose information
for all three purposes, however, all three purposes must be included in
the consent.

Under \'\' 164.506(c)(2) and (3), the consent must refer the individual
to the covered entity=s notice for additional information about the uses
and disclosures of information described in the consent. The consent
must also indicate that the individual has the right to review the
notice prior to signing the consent. If the covered entity has reserved
the right to change its privacy practices in accordance with \'
164.520(b)(1)(v)(C), the consent must indicate that the terms of the
notice may change and must describe how the individual may obtain a
revised notice. See \' 164.520 and the corresponding preamble discussion
regarding notice requirements.

Under \' 164.506(c)(4), the consent must inform individuals that they
have the right to request restrictions on uses and disclosures of
protected health information for treatment, payment, and health care
operations purposes. It must also state that the covered entity is not
required to agree to an individual=s request, but that if the covered
entity does agree to the request, the restriction is binding on the
covered entity. See \' 164.522(a) regarding the right to request
restrictions.

Under \' 164.506(c)(5), the consent must indicate that the individual
has the right to revoke the consent in writing, except to the extent
that the covered entity has taken action in reliance on the consent.

Under \' 164.506(c)(6), the consent must include the individual=s
signature and the date of signature. Once we adopt the standards for
electronic signature, another of the required administrative
simplification standards we are required to adopt under HIPAA, an
electronic signature that meets those standards will be sufficient under
this rule. We do not require any verification of the individual=s
identity or authentication of the individual=s signature. We expect
covered health care providers that are required to obtain consent to
employ the same level of scrutiny to these signatures as they do to the
signature obtained on a document regarding the individual=s consent to
undergo treatment by the provider.

**Section 164.506(d) B Defective Consents**

Under \' 164.506(d), there is no Aconsent@ within the meaning of the
rule if the completed document lacks a required element or if the
individual has revoked the consent in accordance with \' 164.506(b)(5).

**Section 164.506(e) B Resolving Conflicting Consents and
Authorizations**

Situations may arise where a covered entity that has obtained the
individual=s consent for the covered entity to use or disclose protected
health information to carry out treatment, payment, or health care
operations is asked to disclose protected health information pursuant to
another written legal permission from the individual, such as an
authorization, that was obtained by another person. Under \' 164.506(e),
when the terms of a covered entity=s consent conflict with the terms of
another written legal permission from the individual to use or disclose
protected health information (such as a consent obtained under state law
by another covered entity or an authorization), the covered entity must
adhere to the more restrictive document. By conflict, we mean that the
consent and authorization contain inconsistencies. In implementing this
section, we note that the consent under this section references the
notice provided to the individual and the individual=s right to request
restrictions. In determining whether the covered entity=s consent
conflicts with another written legal permission provided by the
individual, the covered entity must consider any limitations on its uses
or disclosures resulting from the notice provided to the individual or
from restrictions to which it has agreed. For example, a covered nursing
home may elect to ask the patient to sign an authorization for the
patient=s covered primary care physician to forward the patient=s
medical records to the nursing home. The physician may have previously
obtained the individual=s consent for disclosure for treatment purposes.
If the authorization obtained by the nursing home grants permission for
the physician to disclose particular types of information, such as
genetic information, but the consent obtained by the physician excludes
such information or the physician has agreed to a restriction on that
type of information, the physician may not disclose that information.
The physician must adhere to the more restrictive written legal
permission from the individual.

When a conflict between a consent and another written legal permission
from the individual exists, as described above, the covered entity may
attempt to resolve the conflict with the individual by either obtaining
a new consent from the individual or by having a discussion or otherwise
communicating with the individual to determine the individual=s
preference regarding the use or disclosure. If the individual=s
preference is communicated orally, the covered entity must document the
individual=s preference and act in accordance with that preference. In
the example described above, the primary care physician could ask the
patient to sign a new consent that would permit the disclosure of the
genetic information. Alternatively, the physician could ask the patient
whether the patient intended for the genetic information to be disclosed
to the nursing home. If the patient confirms that he or she intended for
the genetic information to be shared, the physician can document that
fact (e.g., by making a notation in the medical record) and disclose the
information to the nursing home.

We believe covered entities will rarely be faced with conflicts between
consents and other written legal permission from the individual for uses
and disclosures to carry out treatment, payment, and health care
operations. Under \' 164.506(a)(5), we specify that a consent only
permits the covered entity that obtains the consent to use or disclose
protected health information. A consent obtained by one covered entity
is not effective to permit another different covered entity to use or
disclose protected health information. Conflicting consents obtained by
covered entities, therefore, are not possible. We expect authorizations
that permit another covered entity to use and disclose protected health
information for treatment, payment, and health care operations purposes
will rarely be necessary, because we expect covered entities that
maintain protected health information to obtain consents that permit
them to make anticipated uses and disclosures for these purposes.
Nevertheless, covered entities are permitted under \' 164.508(e) to
obtain authorization for another covered entity to use or disclose
protected health information to carry out treatment, payment, and health
care operations. We recognize these authorizations may be useful to
demonstrate an individual=s intent and relationship to the intended
recipient of the information. For example, these authorizations may be
useful in situations where a health plan wants to obtain information
from one provider in order to determine payment of a claim for services
provided by a different provider (e.g., information from a primary care
physician that is necessary to determine payment of services provided by
a specialist) or where an individual=s new physician wants to obtain the
individual=s medical records from prior physicians. Other persons not
covered by this rule may also seek authorizations and state law may
require written permission for specific types of information, such as
information related to HIV/AIDS or to mental health. Because an
individual may sign conflicting documents over time, we clarify that the
covered entity maintaining the protected health information to be used
or disclosed must adhere to the more restrictive permission the
individual has granted, unless the covered entity resolves the conflict
with the individual.

**Section 164.506(f) B Joint Consents**

Covered entities that participate in an organized health care
arrangement and that develop a joint notice under \' 164.520(d) may
develop a joint consent in which the individual consents to the uses and
disclosures of protected health information by each of the covered
entities in the arrangement to carry out treatment, payment, and/or
health care operations. The joint consent must identify with reasonable
specificity the covered entities, or class of covered entities, to which
the joint consent applies and must otherwise meet the consent
requirements. If an individual revokes a joint consent, the covered
entity that receives the revocation must inform the other entities
covered by the joint consent of the revocation as soon as practicable.

If any one of the covered entities included in the joint consent obtains
the individual=s consent, as required above, the consent requirement is
met for all of the other covered entities to which the consent applies.
For example, a covered hospital and the clinical laboratory and
emergency departments with which it participates in an organized health
care arrangement may produce a joint notice and obtain a joint consent.
If the covered hospital obtains the individual=s joint consent upon
admission, and some time later the individual is readmitted through the
associated emergency department, the emergency department=s consent
requirement will already have been met. These joint consents are the
only type of consent by which one covered entity can obtain the
individual=s permission for another covered entity to use or disclose
protected health information to carry out treatment, payment, or health
care operations.

***Effect of Consent***

These consents, as well as the authorizations described in \' 164.508,
should not be construed to waive, directly or indirectly, any privilege
granted under federal, state, or local law or procedure. Consents
obtained under this regulation are not appropriate for the disposition
of more technical and legal proceedings and may not comport with
procedures and standards of federal, state, or local judicial practice.
For example, state courts and other decision-making bodies may choose to
examine more closely the circumstances and propriety of such consent and
may adopt more protective standards for application in their
proceedings. In the judicial setting, as in the legislative and
executive settings, states may provide for greater protection of
privacy. Additionally, both the Congress and the Secretary have
established a general approach to protecting from explicit preemption
state laws that are more protective of privacy than the protections set
forth in this regulation.

**SECTION 164.508 - USES AND DISCLOSURES FOR WHICH AN AUTHORIZATION IS
REQUIRED**

**Section 164.508(a) B Standard**

We proposed to require covered entities to obtain the individual=s
authorization for all uses and disclosures of protected health
information not otherwise permitted or required under the proposed rule.
Uses and disclosures that would have been permitted without individual
authorization included uses and disclosures for national priority
purposes such as public health, law enforcement, and research (see
proposed \' 164.510) and uses and disclosures of protected health
information, other than psychotherapy notes and research information
unrelated to treatment, for purposes of treatment, payment, and health
care operations (see proposed \' 164.506). We also proposed to require
covered entities to disclose protected health information to the
individual for inspection and copying (see proposed \' 164.514) and to
the Secretary as required for enforcement of the rule (see proposed \'
164.522). Individual authorization would not have been required for
these uses and disclosures.

We proposed to require covered entities to obtain the individual=s
authorization for all other uses and disclosures of protected health
information. Under proposed \' 164.508(a), uses and disclosures that
would have required individual authorization included, but were not
limited to, the following:

\$ use for marketing of health and non-health items and services by the
covered entity;

\$ disclosure by sale, rental, or barter;

\$ use and disclosure to non-health related divisions of the covered
entity, e.g., for use in marketing life or casualty insurance or banking
services;

\$ disclosure, prior to an individual=s enrollment in a health plan, to
the health plan or health care provider for making eligibility or
enrollment determinations relating to the individual or for underwriting
or risk rating determinations;

\$ disclosure to an employer for use in employment determinations; and

\$ use or disclosure for fundraising.

In the preamble to the proposed rule, we stated that covered entities
would be bound by the terms of authorizations. Uses or disclosures by
the covered entity for purposes inconsistent with the statements made in
the authorization would have constituted a violation of the rule.

In the final rule, under \' 164.508(a), as in the proposed rule, covered
entities must have authorization from individuals before using or
disclosing protected health information for any purpose not otherwise
permitted or required by this rule. Specifically, except for
psychotherapy notes (see below), covered entities are not required to
obtain the individual=s authorization to use or disclose protected
health information to carry out treatment, payment, and health care
operations. (Covered entities may, however, be required to obtain the
individual=s consent for these uses and disclosures. See the preamble
regarding \' 164.506 for a discussion of Aconsent@ versus
Aauthorization@.) We also do not require covered entities to obtain the
individual=s authorization for uses and disclosures of protected health
information permitted under \'\' 164.510 or 164.512, for disclosures to
the individual, or for required disclosures to the Secretary under
subpart C of part 160 of this subchapter for enforcement of this rule.

In the final rule, we clarify that covered entities are bound by the
statements provided on the authorization; use or disclosure by the
covered entity for purposes inconsistent with the statements made in the
authorization constitutes a violation of this rule.

Unlike the proposed rule, we do not include in the regulation examples
of the types of uses and disclosures that require individual
authorization. We eliminated two examples from the proposed list due to
potential confusion as to our intent: disclosure by sale, rental, or
barter and use and disclosure to non-health related divisions of the
covered entity. We recognize that covered entities sometimes make these
types of uses and disclosures for purposes that are permitted under the
rule without authorization. For example, a covered health care provider
may sell its accounts receivable to a collection agency for payment
purposes and a health plan may disclose protected health information to
its life insurance component for payment purposes. We do not intend to
require authorization for uses and disclosures made by sale, rental, or
barter or for disclosures made to non-health related divisions of the
covered entity, if those uses or disclosures could otherwise be made
without authorization under this rule. As with any other use or
disclosure, however, uses and disclosures of protected health
information for these purposes do require authorization if they are not
otherwise permitted under the rule.

We also eliminated the remaining proposed examples from the final rule
due to concern that these examples might be misinterpreted as an
exhaustive list of all of the uses and disclosures that require
individual authorization. We discuss the examples here, however, to
clarify the interaction of the authorization requirements and the
provisions of the rule that permit uses and disclosures without
authorization and/or with consent. Uses and disclosures for which
covered entities must have the individual=s authorization include, but
are not limited to, the following activities.

***Marketing***

As in the proposed rule, covered entities must obtain the individual=s
authorization before using or disclosing protected health information
for marketing purposes. In the final rule, we add a new definition of
marketing (see \' 164.501). For more detail on what activities
constitute marketing, see \' 164.501, definition of Amarketing,@ and \'
164.514(e).

***Pre-enrollment underwriting***

As in the proposed rule, covered entities must obtain the individual=s
authorization to use or disclose protected health information for the
purpose of making eligibility or enrollment determinations relating to
an individual or for underwriting or risk rating determinations, prior
to the individual=s enrollment in a health plan (that is, for purposes
of pre-enrollment underwriting). For example, if an individual applies
for new coverage with a health plan in the non-group market and the
health plan wants to review protected health information from the
individual=s covered health care providers before extending an offer of
coverage, the individual first must authorize the covered providers to
share the information with the health plan. If the individual applies
for renewal of existing coverage, however, the health plan would not
need to obtain an authorization to review its existing claims records
about that individual, because this activity would come within the
definition of health care operations and be permissible. We also note
that under \' 164.504(f), a group health plan and a health insurance
issuer that provides benefits with respect to a group health plan are
permitted in certain circumstances to disclose summary health
information to the plan sponsor for the purpose of obtaining premium
bids. Because these disclosures fall within the definition of health
care operations, they do not require authorization.

***Employment determinations***

As in the proposed rule, covered entities must obtain the individual=s
authorization to use or disclose protected health information for
employment determinations. For example, a covered health care provider
must obtain the individual=s authorization to disclose the results of a
pre-employment physical to the individual=s employer. The final rule
provides that a covered entity may condition the provision of health
care that is solely for the purpose of creating protected health
information for disclosure to a third party on the provision of
authorization for the disclosure of the information to the third party.

***Fundraising***

Under the proposed regulation, we would have required authorization
before a covered entity could have used or disclosed protected health
information for fundraising. In the final rule, we narrow the
circumstances under which covered entities must obtain the individual=s
authorization to use or disclose protected health information for
fundraising purposes. As provided in \' 164.514(f) and described in
detail in the corresponding preamble, authorization is not required when
a covered entity uses or discloses demographic information and
information about the dates of health care provided to an individual for
the purpose of raising funds for its own benefit, nor when it discloses
such information to an institutionally related foundation to raise funds
for the covered entity.

Any use or disclosure for fundraising purposes that does not meet the
requirements of \' 164.514(f) and does not fall within the definition of
health care operations (see \' 164.501), requires authorization.
Specifically, covered entities must obtain the individual=s
authorization to use or disclose protected health information to raise
funds for any entity other than the covered entity. For example, a
covered entity must have the individual=s authorization to use protected
health information about the individual to solicit funds for a
non-profit organization that engages in research, education, and
awareness efforts about a particular disease.

***Psychotherapy Notes***

In the NPRM, we proposed different rules with respect to psychotherapy
notes than we proposed with respect to all other protected health
information. The proposed rule would have required covered entities to
obtain an authorization for any use or disclosure of psychotherapy notes
to carry out treatment, payment, or health care operations, unless the
use was by the person who created the psychotherapy notes. With respect
to all other protected health information, we proposed to prohibit
covered entities from requiring authorization for uses and disclosures
for these purposes.

We significantly revise our approach to psychotherapy notes in the final
rule. With a few exceptions, covered entities must obtain the
individual=s authorization to use or disclose psychotherapy notes to
carry out treatment, payment, or health care operations. A covered
entity must obtain the individual=s consent, but not an authorization,
for the person who created the psychotherapy notes to use the notes to
carry out treatment and for the covered entity to use or disclose
psychotherapy notes for conducting training programs in which students,
trainees, or practitioners in mental health learn under supervision to
practice or improve their skills in group, joint, family, or individual
counseling. A covered entity may also use psychotherapy notes to defend
a legal action or other proceeding brought by the individual pursuant to
a consent, without a specific authorization. We note that, while this
provision allows disclosure of these records to the covered entity=s
attorney to defend against the action or proceeding, disclosure to
others in the course of a judicial or administrative proceeding is
governed by \' 164.512(e). This special provision is necessary because
disclosure of protected health information for purposes of legal
representatives may be made under the general consent as part of Ahealth
care operations.@ Because we require an authorization for disclosure of
psychotherapy notes for Ahealth care operations,@ an exception is needed
to allow covered entities to use protected health information about an
individual to defend themselves against an action threatened or brought
by that individual without asking that individual for authorization to
do so. Otherwise, a consent under \' 164.506 is not sufficient for the
use or disclosure of psychotherapy notes to carry out treatment,
payment, or health care operations. Authorization is required. We
anticipate these authorizations will rarely be necessary, since
psychotherapy notes do not include information that covered entities
typically need for treatment, payment, or other types of health care
operations.

In the NPRM, we proposed to permit covered entities to use and disclose
psychotherapy notes for all other purposes permitted or required under
the rule without authorization. In the final rule, we specify a more
limited set of uses and disclosures of psychotherapy notes that covered
entities are permitted to make without authorization. An authorization
is not required for use or disclosure of psychotherapy notes when
required for enforcement purposes, in accordance with subpart C of part
160 of this subchapter; when mandated by law, in accordance with \'
164.512(a); when needed for oversight of the health care provider who
created the psychotherapy notes, in accordance with \' 164.512(d); when
needed by a coroner or medical examiner, in accordance with \'
164.512(g)(1); or when needed to avert a serious and imminent threat to
health or safety, in accordance with \' 164.512(j)(1)(i). We also
provide transition provisions in \' 164.532 regarding the effect of
express legal permission obtained from an individual prior to the
compliance date of this rule.

**Section 164.508(b) B Implementation Specifications for
Authorizations**

***Valid and Defective Authorizations***

We proposed to require a minimum set of elements for authorizations
requested by the individual and an additional set of elements for
authorizations requested by a covered entity. We would have permitted
covered entities to use and disclose protected health information
pursuant to authorizations containing the applicable required elements.
We would have prohibited covered entities from acting on an
authorization if the submitted document had any of the following
defects:

\$ the expiration date had passed;

\$ the form had not been filled out completely;

\$ the covered entity knew the authorization had been revoked;

\$ the completed form lacked a required element; or

\$ the covered entity knew the information on the form was false.

In \' 164.508(b)(1) of the final rule, we specify that an authorization
containing the applicable required elements (as described below) is a
valid authorization. We clarify that a valid authorization may contain
additional, non-required elements, provided that these elements are not
inconsistent with the required elements. Covered entities are not
required to use or disclose protected health information pursuant to a
valid authorization. Our intent is to clarify that a covered entity that
uses or discloses protected health information pursuant to an
authorization meeting the applicable requirements will be in compliance
with this rule.

We retain the provision prohibiting covered entities from acting on an
authorization if the submitted document had any of the listed defects,
with a few changes. First, in \' 164.508(c)(1)(iv) we specify that an
authorization may expire upon a certain event or on a specific date. For
example, a valid authorization may state that it expires upon acceptance
or rejection of an application for insurance or upon the termination of
employment (for example, in an authorization for disclosure of protected
health information for fitness-for-duty purposes) or similar event. The
expiration event must, however, be related to the individual or the
purpose of the use or disclosure. An authorization that purported to
expire on the date when the stock market reached a specified level would
not be valid. Under \' 164.508(b)(2)(i), if the expiration event is
known by the covered entity to have occurred, the authorization is
defective. Second, we clarify that certain compound authorizations, as
described below, are defective. We also clarify that authorizations that
are not completely filled out with respect to the required elements are
defective. Finally, we clarify that an authorization with information
that the covered entity knows to be false is defective only if the
information is material.

As under the proposed regulation, an authorization that the covered
entity knows has been revoked is not a valid authorization. We note
that, although an authorization must be revoked in writing, the covered
entity may not always Aknow@ that an authorization has been revoked. The
writing required for an individual to revoke an authorization may not
always trigger the Aknowledge@ required for a covered entity to consider
an authorization defective. Conversely, a copy of the written revocation
is not required before a provider Aknows@ that an authorization has been
revoked.

Many authorizations will be obtained by persons other than the covered
entity. If the individual revokes an authorization by writing to that
other person, and neither the individual nor the other person informs
the covered entity of the revocation, the covered entity will not Aknow@
that the authorization has been revoked. For example, a government
agency may obtain an individual=s authorization for Aall providers who
have seen the individual in the past year@ to disclose protected health
information to the agency for purposes of determining eligibility for
benefits. The individual may revoke the authorization by writing to the
government agency requesting such revocation. We cannot require the
agency to inform all covered entities to whom it has presented the
authorization that the authorization has been revoked. If a covered
entity does not know of the revocation, the covered entity will not
violate this rule by acting pursuant to the authorization. At the same
time, if the individual does inform the covered entity of the
revocation, even orally, the covered entity Aknows@ that the
authorization has been revoked and can no longer treat the authorization
as valid under this rule. Thus, in this example, if the individual tells
a covered entity that the individual has revoked the authorization, the
covered entity Aknows@ of the revocation and must consider the
authorization defective under \' 164.508(b)(2).

***Compound Authorizations***

Except for authorizations requested in connection with a clinical trial,
we proposed to prohibit covered entities from combining an authorization
for use or disclosure of protected health information for purposes other
than treatment, payment, or health care operations with an authorization
or consent for treatment (e.g., an informed consent to receive care) or
payment (e.g., an assignment of benefits).

We clarify the prohibition on compound authorizations in the final rule.
Other than as described below, \' 164.508(b)(3) prohibits a covered
entity from acting on an authorization required under this rule that is
combined with any other document, including any other written legal
permission from the individual. For example, an authorization under this
rule may not be combined with a consent for use or disclosure of
protected health information under \' 164.506, with the notice of
privacy practices under \' 164.520, with any other form of written legal
permission for the use or disclosure of protected health information,
with an informed consent to participate in research, or with any other
form of consent or authorization for treatment or payment.

There are three exceptions to this prohibition. First, under \'
164.508(f) (described in more detail, below), an authorization for the
use or disclosure of protected health information created for research
that includes treatment of the individual may be combined with a consent
for the use or disclosure of that protected health information to carry
out treatment, payment, or health care operations under \' 164.506 and
with other documents as provided in \' 164.508(f). Second,
authorizations for the use or disclosure of psychotherapy notes for
multiple purposes may be combined in a single document, but may not be
combined with authorizations for the use or disclosure of other
protected health information. Third, authorizations for the use or
disclosure of protected health information other than psychotherapy
notes may be combined, provided that the covered entity has not
conditioned the provision of treatment, payment, enrollment, or
eligibility on obtaining the authorization. If a covered entity
conditions any of these services on obtaining an authorization from the
individual, as permitted in \' 164.508(b)(4) and described below, the
covered entity must not combine the authorization with any other
document.

The following are examples of valid compound authorizations: an
authorization for the disclosure of information created for clinical
research combined with a consent for the use or disclosure of other
protected health information to carry out treatment, payment, and health
care operations, and the informed consent to participate in the clinical
research; an authorization for disclosure of psychotherapy notes for
both treatment and research purposes; and an authorization for the
disclosure of the individual=s demographic information for both
marketing and fundraising purposes. Examples of invalid compound
authorizations include: an authorization for the disclosure of protected
health information for treatment, for research, and for determining
payment of a claim for benefits, when the covered entity will refuse to
pay the claim if the individual does not sign the authorization; or an
authorization for the disclosure of psychotherapy notes combined with an
authorization to disclose any other protected health information.

***Prohibition on Conditioning Treatment, Payment, Eligibility, or
Enrollment***

We proposed to prohibit covered entities from conditioning treatment or
payment on the provision by the individual of an authorization, except
when the authorization was requested in connection with a clinical
trial. In the case of authorization for use or disclosure of
psychotherapy notes or research information unrelated to treatment, we
proposed to prohibit covered entities from conditioning treatment,
payment, or enrollment in a health plan on obtaining such an
authorization.

We retain this basic approach but refine its application in the final
rule. In addition to the general prohibition on conditioning treatment
and payment, covered entities are also prohibited (with certain
exceptions described below) from conditioning eligibility for benefits
or enrollment in a health plan on obtaining an authorization. This
prohibition extends to all authorizations, not just authorizations for
use or disclosure of psychotherapy notes. This prohibition is intended
to prevent covered entities from coercing individuals into signing an
authorization for a use or disclosure that is not necessary to carry out
the primary services that the covered entity provides to the individual.
For example, a health care provider could not refuse to treat an
individual because the individual refused to authorize a disclosure to a
pharmaceutical manufacturer for the purpose of marketing a new product.

We clarify the proposed research exception to this prohibition. Covered
entities seeking authorization in accordance with \' 164.508(f) to use
or disclose protected health information created for the purpose of
research that includes treatment of the individual, including clinical
trials, may condition the research-related treatment on the individual=s
authorization. Permitting use of protected health information is part of
the decision to receive care through a clinical trial, and health care
providers conducting such trials should be able to condition
research-related treatment on the individual=s willingness to authorize
the use or disclosure of his or her protected health information for
research associated with the trial.

In addition, we permit health plans to condition eligibility for
benefits and enrollment in the health plan on the individual=s
authorization for the use or disclosure of protected health information
for purposes of eligibility or enrollment determinations relating to the
individual or for its underwriting or risk-rating determinations. We
also permit health plans to condition payment of a claim for specified
benefits on the individual=s authorization for the disclosure of
information maintained by another covered entity to the health plan, if
the disclosure is necessary to determine payment of the claim. These
exceptions do not apply, however, to authorization for the use or
disclosure of psychotherapy notes. Health plans may not condition
payment, eligibility, or enrollment on the receipt of an authorization
for the use or disclosure of psychotherapy notes, even if the health
plan intends to use the information for underwriting or payment
purposes.

Finally, when a covered entity provides treatment for the sole purpose
of providing information to a third party, the covered entity may
condition the treatment on the receipt of an authorization to use or
disclose protected health information related to that treatment. For
example, a covered health care provider may have a contract with an
employer to provide fitness-for-duty exams to the employer=s employees.
The provider may refuse to conduct the exam if an individual refuses to
authorize the provider to disclose the results of the exam to the
employer. Similarly, a covered health care provider may have a contract
with a life insurer to provide pre-enrollment physicals to applicants
for life insurance coverage. The provider may refuse to conduct the
physical if an individual refuses to authorize the provider to disclose
the results of the physical to the life insurer.

***Revocation of Authorizations***

We proposed to allow individuals to revoke an authorization at any time,
except to the extent that the covered entity had taken action in
reliance on the authorization.

We retain this provision, but specify that the individual must revoke
the authorization in writing. When an individual revokes an
authorization, a covered entity that knows of such revocation must stop
making uses and disclosures pursuant to the authorization to the
greatest extent practical. A covered entity may continue to use and
disclose protected health information in accordance with the
authorization only to the extent the covered entity has taken action in
reliance on the authorization. For example, a covered entity is not
required to retrieve information that it has already disclosed in
accordance with the authorization. (See above for discussion of how
written revocation of an authorization and knowledge of that revocation
may differ.)

We also include an additional exception. Under \' 164.508(b)(5),
individuals do not have the right to revoke an authorization if the
authorization was obtained as a condition of obtaining insurance
coverage and other applicable law provides the insurer that obtained the
authorization with the right to contest a claim under the policy. We
intend this exception to permit insurers to obtain necessary protected
health information during contestability periods under state law. For
example, an individual may not revoke an authorization for the
disclosure of protected health information to a life insurer for the
purpose of investigating material misrepresentation if the individual=s
policy is still subject to the contestability period.

***Documentation***

In the final rule, we clarify that a covered entity must document and
retain any signed authorization as required by \' 164.530(j) (see
below).

**Section 164.508(c) B Core Elements and Requirements**

We proposed to require authorizations requested by individuals to
contain a minimum set of elements: a description of the information to
be used or disclosed; the name of the covered entity, or class of
entities or persons, authorized to make the use or disclosure; the name
or types of recipient(s) of the information; an expiration date; the
individual=s signature and date of signature; if signed by a
representative, a description of the representative=s authority or
relationship to the individual; a statement regarding the individual=s
right to revoke the authorization; and a statement that the information
may no longer be protected by the federal privacy law. We proposed a
model authorization form that entities could have used to satisfy the
authorization requirements. If the model form was not used, we proposed
to require covered entities to use authorization forms written in plain
language.

We modify the proposed approach, by eliminating the distinction between
authorizations requested by the individuals and authorizations requested
by others. Instead, we prescribe a minimum set of elements for
authorizations and certain additional elements when the authorization is
requested by a covered entity for its own use or disclosure of protected
health information it maintains or for receipt of protected health
information from another covered entity to carry out treatment, payment,
or health care operations.

The core elements are required for all authorizations, not just
authorizations requested by individuals. Individuals seek disclosure of
protected health information about them to others in many circumstances,
such as when applying for life or disability insurance, when government
agencies conduct suitability investigations, and in seeking certain job
assignments when health status is relevant. Another common instance is
tort litigation, when an individual\'s attorney needs individually
identifiable health information to evaluate an injury claim and asks the
individual to authorize disclosure of records relating to the injury to
the attorney. In each of these situations, the individual may go
directly to the covered entity and ask it to send the relevant
information to the intended recipient. Alternatively, the intended
recipient may ask the individual to complete a form, which the recipient
will submit to the covered entity on the individual=s behalf, that
authorizes the covered entity to disclose the information. Whether the
authorization is submitted to the covered entity by the individual or by
another person on the individual=s behalf, the covered entity
maintaining protected health information may not use or disclose it
pursuant to an authorization unless the authorization meets the
following requirements.

First, the authorization must include a description of the information
to be used or disclosed, with sufficient specificity to allow the
covered entity to know which information the authorization references.
For example, the authorization may include a description of Alaboratory
results from July 1998@ or Aall laboratory results@ or Aresults of MRI
performed in July 1998.@ The covered entity can then use or disclose
that information and only that information. If the covered entity does
not understand what information is covered by the authorization, the use
or disclosure is not permitted unless the covered entity clarifies the
request.

There are no limitations on the information that can be authorized for
disclosure. If an individual wishes to authorize a covered entity to
disclose his or her entire medical record, the authorization can so
specify. In order for the covered entity to disclose the entire medical
record, the authorization must be specific enough to ensure that the
individual has a clear understanding that the entire record will be
disclosed. For example, if the Social Security Administration seeks
authorization for release of all health information to facilitate the
processing of benefit applications, then the description on the
authorization form must specify Aall health information@ or the
equivalent.

In some instances, a covered entity may be reluctant to undertake the
effort to review the record and select portions relevant to the request
(or redact portions not relevant). In such circumstances, covered
entities may provide the entire record to the individual, who may then
redact and release the more limited information to the requestor. This
rule does not require a covered entity to disclose information pursuant
to an individual\'s authorization.

Second, the authorization must include the name or other specific
identification of the person(s) or class of persons that are authorized
to use or disclose the protected health information. If an authorization
permits a class of covered entities to disclose information to an
authorized person, the class must be stated with sufficient specificity
so that a covered entity presented with the authorization will know with
reasonable certainty that the individual intended the covered entity to
release protected health information. For example, a covered licensed
nurse practitioner presented with an authorization for Aall physicians@
to disclose protected health information could not know with reasonable
certainty that the individual intended for the practitioner to be
included in the authorization.

Third, the authorization must include the name or other specific
identification of the person(s) or class of persons to whom the covered
entity is authorized to make the use or disclosure. The authorization
must identify these persons with sufficient specificity to reasonably
permit a covered entity responding to the authorization to identify the
authorized user or recipient of the protected health information. Often,
individuals provide authorizations to third parties, who present them to
one or more covered entities. For example, an authorization could be
completed by an individual and given to a government agency, authorizing
the agency to receive medical information from any health care provider
that has treated the individual within a defined period of time. Such an
authorization is permissible (subject to the other requirements of this
part) if it sufficiently identifies the government entity that is
authorized to receive the disclosed protected health information.

Fourth, the authorization must state an expiration date or event. This
expiration date or event must either be a specific date (e.g., January
1, 2001), a specific time period (e.g., one year from the date of
signature), or an event directly relevant to the individual or the
purpose of the use or disclosure (e.g., for the duration of the
individual=s enrollment with the health plan that is authorized to make
the use or disclosure). We note that the expiration date or event is
subject to otherwise applicable and more stringent law. For example, the
National Association of Insurance Commissioners= Insurance Information
and Privacy Protection Model Act, adopted in at least fifteen states,
specifies that authorizations signed for the purpose of collecting
information in connection with an application for a life, health, or
disability insurance policy are permitted to remain valid for no longer
than thirty months. In those states, the longest such an authorization
may remain in effect is therefore thirty months, regardless of the
expiration date or event indicated on the form.

Fifth, the authorization must state that the individual has the right to
revoke an authorization in writing, except to the extent that action has
been taken in reliance on the authorization or, if applicable, during a
contestability period. The authorization must include instructions on
how the individual may revoke the authorization. For example, the person
obtaining the authorization from the individual can include an address
where the individual can send a written request for revocation.

Sixth, the authorization must inform the individual that, when the
information is used or disclosed pursuant to the authorization, it may
be subject to re-disclosure by the recipient and may no longer be
protected by this rule.

Seventh, the authorization must include the individual=s signature and
the date of the signature. Once we adopt the standards for electronic
signature, another of the required administrative simplification
standards we are required to adopt under HIPAA, an electronic signature
that meets those standards will be sufficient under this rule. We do not
require verification of the individual=s identity or authentication of
the individual=s signature.

Finally, if the authorization is signed by a personal representative of
the individual, the representative must indicate his or her authority to
act for the individual.

As in the proposed rule, the authorization must be written in plain
language. See the preamble discussion regarding notice of privacy
practices (\' 164.520) for a discussion of the plain language
requirement. We do not provide a model authorization in this rule. We
will provide further guidance on this issue prior to the compliance
date.

**Section 164.508(d) B Authorizations Requested by a Covered Entity for
Its Own Uses and Disclosures**

We proposed to require covered entities to include additional elements
in authorizations initiated by the covered entity. Before a covered
entity could use or disclose protected health information of an
individual pursuant to a request the covered entity made, we proposed to
require the entity to obtain an authorization containing the minimum
elements described above and the following additional elements: except
for authorizations requested for clinical trials, a statement that the
entity will not condition treatment or payment on the individual=s
authorization; a description of the purpose of the requested use or
disclosure; a statement that the individual may inspect or copy the
information to be used or disclosed and may refuse to sign the
authorization; and, if the use or disclosure of the requested
information will result in financial gain to the entity, a statement
that such gain will result.

We additionally proposed to require covered entities, when requesting an
individual=s authorization, to request only the minimum amount of
information necessary to accomplish the purpose for which the request
was made. We also proposed to require covered entities to provide the
individual with a copy of the executed authorization.

We retain the proposed approach, but apply these additional requirements
when the covered entity requests the individual=s authorization for the
entity=s own use or disclosure of protected health information
maintained by the covered entity itself. For example, a health plan may
ask individuals to authorize the plan to disclose protected health
information to a subsidiary to market life insurance to the individual.
A pharmaceutical company may also ask a covered provider to recruit
patients for drug research; if the covered provider asks patients to
sign an authorization for the provider to disclose protected health
information to the pharmaceutical company for this research, this is
also an authorization requested by a covered entity for disclosure of
protected health information maintained by the covered entity. When
covered entities initiate the authorization by asking individuals to
authorize the entity to use or disclose protected health information
that the entity maintains, the authorization must include all of the
elements required above as well as several additional elements.

Authorizations requested by covered entities for the covered entity=s
own use or disclosure of protected health information must state, as
applicable under \' 164.508(b)(4), that the covered entity will not
condition treatment, payment, enrollment, or eligibility on the
individual=s authorization for the use or disclosure. For example, if a
health plan asks an individual to sign an authorization for the health
plan to disclose protected health information to a non-profit advocacy
group for the advocacy group=s fundraising purposes, the authorization
must contain a statement that the health plan will not condition
treatment, payment, enrollment in the health plan, or eligibility for
benefits on the individual providing the authorization.

Authorizations requested by covered entities for their own uses and
disclosures of protected health information must also identify each
purpose for which the information is to be used or disclosed. The
required statement of purpose(s) must provide individuals with the facts
they need to make an informed decision whether to allow release of the
information. We prohibit the use of broad or blanket authorizations
requesting the use or disclosure of protected health information for a
wide range of unspecified purposes. Both the information that is to be
used or disclosed and the specific purpose(s) for such uses or
disclosures must be stated in the authorization.

Authorizations requested by covered entities for their own uses and
disclosures must also advise individuals of certain rights available to
them under this rule. The authorization must state that the individual
may inspect or copy the information to be used or disclosed as provided
in \' 164.524 regarding access for inspection and copying and that the
individual may refuse to sign the authorization.

We alter the proposed requirements with respect to authorizations for
which the covered entity will receive financial gain. When the covered
entity initiates the authorization and the covered entity will receive
direct or indirect remuneration from a third party (rather than
financial gain, as proposed) in exchange for using or disclosing the
protected health information, the authorization must include a statement
that such remuneration will result. For example, a health plan may wish
to sell or rent its enrollee mailing list or a pharmaceutical company
may offer a covered provider a discount on its products if the provider
obtains authorization to disclose the demographic information of
patients with certain diagnoses so that the company can market new drugs
to them directly. In each case, the covered entity must obtain the
individual=s authorization, and the authorization must include a
statement that the covered entity will receive remuneration.

In \' 164.508(d)(2), we continue to require a covered entity that
requests an authorization for its own use or disclosure of protected
health information to provide the individual with a copy of the signed
authorization. While we eliminate from this section the provision
requiring covered entities to obtain authorization for use or disclosure
of the minimum necessary protected health information, \' 164.514(d)(4)
requires covered entities to request only the minimum necessary
protected health information to accomplish the purpose for which the
request is made. This requirement applies to these authorizations, as
well as other requests.

**Section 164.508(e) B Authorizations Requested by a Covered Entity for
Disclosures by Others**

In the proposed rule, we would have prohibited all covered entities from
requiring the individual=s written legal permission (as proposed, an
Aauthorization@) for the use or disclosure of protected health
information to carry out treatment, payment, or health care operations.
We generally eliminate this prohibition in the final rule, except to
specify that a consent obtained by one covered entity is not effective
to permit another covered entity to use or disclose protected health
information. See \' 164.506(a)(5) and the corresponding preamble
discussion.

In the final rule, if a covered entity seeks the individual=s written
legal permission to obtain protected health information about the
individual from another covered entity for any purpose, it must obtain
the individual=s authorization for the covered entity that maintains the
protected health information to make the disclosure. If the
authorization is for the purpose of obtaining protected health
information for purposes other than treatment, payment, or health care
operations, the authorization need only contain the core elements
required by \' 164.508(c) and described above.

If the authorization, however, is for the purpose of obtaining protected
health information to carry out treatment, payment, or health care
operations, the authorization must meet the requirements of \'
164.508(e). We expect such authorizations will rarely be necessary,
because we expect covered entities that maintain protected health
information to obtain consents that permit them to make anticipated uses
and disclosures for these purposes. An authorization obtained by another
covered entity that authorizes the covered entity maintaining the
protected health information to make a disclosure for the same purpose,
therefore, would be unnecessary.

We recognize, however, that these authorizations may be useful to
demonstrate an individual=s intent and relationship to the intended
recipient of the information when the intent or relationship is not
already clear. For example, a long term care insurer may need
information from an individual=s health care providers about the
individual=s ability to perform activities of daily living in order to
determine payment of a long term care claim. The providers that hold the
information may not be providing the long term care and may not,
therefore, be aware of the individual=s coverage under the policy or
that the individual is receiving long term care services. An
authorization obtained by the long term care insurer will help to
demonstrate these facts to the providers holding the information, which
will make them more confident that the individual intends for the
information to be shared. Similarly, an insurer with subrogation
obligations may need health information from the enrollee=s providers to
assess or prosecute the claim. A patient=s new physician may also need
medical records from the patient=s prior providers in order to treat the
patient. Without an authorization that demonstrates the patient=s intent
for the information to be shared, the covered entity that maintains the
protected health information may be reluctant to provide the
information, even if that covered entity=s consent permits such
disclosure to occur.

These authorizations may also be useful to accomplish clinical
coordination and integration among covered entities that do not meet the
definitions of affiliated covered entities or organized health care
arrangements. For example, safety-net providers that participate in the
Community Access Program (CAP) may not qualify as organized health care
arrangements but may want to share protected health information with
each other in order to develop and expand integrated systems of care for
uninsured people. An authorization under this section would permit such
providers to receive protected health information from other CAP
participants to engage in such activities.

Because of such concerns, we permit a covered entity to request the
individual=s authorization to obtain protected health information from
another covered entity to carry out treatment, payment, and health care
operations. In these situations, the authorization must contain the core
elements described above and must also describe each purpose of the
requested disclosure.

With one exception, the authorization must also indicate that the
authorization is voluntary. It must state that the individual may refuse
to sign the authorization and that the covered entity requesting the
authorization will not condition the provision of treatment, payment,
enrollment in the health plan, or eligibility for benefits on obtaining
the individual=s authorization. If the authorization is for a disclosure
of information that is necessary to determine payment of a claim for
specified benefits, however, the health plan requesting the
authorization may condition the payment of the claim on obtaining the
authorization from the individual. See \' 164.508(b)(4)(iii). In this
case, the authorization does not have to state that the health plan will
not condition payment on obtaining the authorization.

The covered entity requesting the authorization must provide the
individual with a copy of the signed authorization. We note that the
covered entity requesting the authorization is also subject to the
requirements in \' 164.514 to request only the minimum necessary
information needed for the purpose of the authorization.

We additionally note that, when the covered entity that maintains the
protected health information has already obtained a consent for
disclosure of protected health information to carry out treatment,
payment, and/or health care operations under \' 164.506, and that
consent conflicts with an authorization obtained by another covered
entity under \' 164.508(e), the covered entity maintaining the protected
health information is bound by the more restrictive document. See \'
164.506(e) and the corresponding preamble discussion for further
explanation.

**Section 164.508(f) B Authorizations for Uses and Disclosures of
Protected Health Information Created for Research that Includes
Treatment of Individuals**

In the proposed rule, we would have required individual authorization
for any use or disclosure of research information unrelated to
treatment. In the final rule, we eliminate the special rules for this
category of information and, instead, require covered entities to obtain
an authorization for the use or disclosure of protected health
information the covered entity creates for the purpose of research that
includes treatment of individuals, except as otherwise permitted by \'
164.512(i).

The intent of this provision is to permit covered entities that conduct
research involving treatment to bind themselves to a more limited scope
of uses and disclosures of research information than they would
otherwise be permitted to make with non-research information. Rather
than creating a single definition of Aresearch information,@ we allow
covered entities the flexibility to define that subset of protected
health information they create during clinical research that is not
necessary for treatment, payment, or health care operations and that the
covered entity will use or disclose under more limited circumstances
than it uses or discloses other protected health information. In
designing their authorizations, we expect covered entities to be mindful
of the often highly sensitive nature of research information and the
impact of individuals= privacy concerns on their willingness to
participate in research.

Covered entities seeking authorization to use or disclose protected
health information they create for the purpose of research that includes
treatment of individuals, including clinical trials, must include in the
authorization (in addition to the applicable elements required above) a
description of the extent to which some or all of the protected health
information created for the research will also be used or disclosed for
purposes of treatment, payment, and health care operations. For example,
if the covered entity intends to seek reimbursement from the
individual=s health plan for the routine costs of care associated with
the research protocol, it must explain in the authorization the types of
information that it will provide to the health plan for this purpose.
This information, and the circumstances under which disclosures will be
made for treatment, payment, and health care operations, may be more
limited than the information and circumstances described in the covered
entity=s general consent and notice of privacy practices. To the extent
the covered entity limits itself to a subset of uses or disclosures that
are otherwise permissible under the rule and the covered entity=s
consent and notice, the covered entity is bound by the statements made
in the research-related authorization. In these circumstances, the
authorization must indicate that the authorization, not the general
consent and notice, controls.

If the covered entity=s primary interaction with the individual is
through the research, the covered entity may combine the general consent
for treatment, payment, and health care operations required under \'
164.506 with this research authorization and need not obtain an
additional consent under \' 164.506. If the entity has already obtained,
or intends to obtain, a separate consent as required under \' 164.506,
the research authorization must refer to that consent and state that the
practices described in the research-related authorization are binding on
the covered entity as to the information covered by the research-related
authorization. The research-related authorization may also be combined
in the same document as the informed consent for participation in the
research. This is an exception to the general rule in \' 164.508(b)(3)
that an authorization under this section may not be combined with any
other document (see above).

The covered entity must also include in the authorization a description
of the extent to which it will not use or disclose the protected health
information it obtains in connection with the research protocol for
purposes that are permitted without individual authorization under this
rule (under \'\' 164.510 and 164.512). To the extent that the entity
limits itself to a subset of uses or disclosures that are otherwise
permissible under the rule and the entity=s notice, the entity is bound
by the statements made in the research authorization. In these
circumstances, the authorization must indicate that the authorization,
not the notice, controls. The covered entity may not, however, purport
to preclude itself from making uses or disclosures that are required by
law or that are necessary to avert a serious and imminent threat to
health or safety.

In some instances, the covered entity may wish to make a use or
disclosure of the research information that it did not include in its
general consent or notice or for which authorization is required under
this rule. To the extent the entity includes uses or disclosures in the
research authorization that are otherwise not permissible under the rule
and the entity=s consent and notice of information practices, the entity
must include all of the elements required by \'\' 164.508(c) and (d) in
the research-related authorization. The covered entity is bound by these
statements.

Research that involves the delivery of treatment to participants
sometimes relies on existing health information, such as to determine
eligibility for the trial. We note that under \' 164.508(b)(3)(iii), the
covered entity may combine the research-related authorization required
under \' 164.508(f) with any other authorization for the use or
disclosure of protected health information (other than psychotherapy
notes), provided that the covered entity does not condition the
provision of treatment on the individual signing the authorization. For
example, a covered health care provider that had a treatment
relationship with an individual prior to the individual\'s enrollment in
a clinical trial, but that is now providing research-related treatment
to the individual, may elect to request a compound authorization from
the individual: an authorization under \' 164.508(d) for the provider to
use the protected health information it created prior to the initiation
of the research that involves treatment, combined with an authorization
under \' 164.508(f) regarding use and disclosure of protected health
information the covered provider will create for the purpose of the
clinical trial. This compound authorization would be valid, provided the
covered provider did not condition the research-related treatment on
obtaining the authorization required under \' 164.508(f), as permitted
in \' 164.508(b)(4)(i).

However, we anticipate that covered entities will almost always, if not
always, condition the provision of research-related treatment on the
individual signing the authorization under \' 164.508(f) for the covered
entity=s use or disclosure of protected health information created for
the research. Therefore, we expect that the vast majority of covered
providers who wish to use or disclose protected health information about
an individual that will be created for research that includes treatment
and wish to use existing protected health information about that
individual for the research that includes treatment, will be required to
obtain two authorizations from the individual: (1) an authorization for
the use and disclosure of protected health information to be created for
the research that involves treatment of the individual (as required
under \' 164.508(f)), and (2) an authorization for the use of existing
protected health information for the research that includes treatment of
the individual (as required under \' 164.508(d)).

***Effect of Authorization***

As noted in the discussion about consents in the preamble to \' 164.506,
authorizations under this rule should not be construed to waive,
directly or indirectly, any privilege granted under federal, state, or
local laws or procedures.

**SECTION 164.510CUSES AND DISCLOSURES REQUIRING AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE
INDIVIDUAL TO AGREE OR TO OBJECT**

**Introduction**

Section 164.510 of the NPRM proposed the uses and disclosures of
protected health information that covered entities could make for
purposes other than treatment, payment, or health care operations and
for which an individual authorization would not have been required.
These allowable uses and disclosures were designed to permit and promote
key national health care priorities, and to promote the smooth operation
of the health care system. In each of these areas, the proposal
permitted, but would not have required, covered entities to use or
disclose protected health information.

We proposed to require covered entities to obtain the individual=s oral
agreement before making a disclosure to a health care facility=s
directory or to the individual=s next-of-kin or to another person
involved in the individual=s health care. Because there is an
expectation in these two areas that individuals will have some input
into a covered entity=s decision to use or disclose protected health
information, we decided to place disclosures to health facility
directories and to persons involved in an individual=s care in a
separate section. In the final rule, requirements regarding disclosure
of protected health information for facility directories and to others
involved in an individual=s care are included in \' 164.510(a) and \'
164.510(b), respectively. In the final rule, we include in \' 164.510(b)
provisions to address a type of disclosure not addressed in the NPRM:
disclosures to entities providing relief and assistance in disasters
such as floods, fires, and terrorist attacks. Requirements for most of
the remaining categories of disclosures addressed in proposed \' 164.510
of the NPRM are included in a new \' 164.512 of the final rule, as
discussed below.

Section 164.510 of the final rule addresses situations in which the
interaction between the covered entity and the individual is relatively
informal and agreements are made orally, without written authorizations
for use or disclosure. In general, under the final rule, to disclose or
use protected health information for these purposes, covered entities
must inform individuals in advance and must provide a meaningful
opportunity for the individual to prevent or restrict the disclosure. In
exceptional circumstances, where even this informal discussion cannot
practicably take place, covered entities are permitted to make decisions
regarding disclosure or use based on the exercise of professional
judgment of what is in the individual=s best interest.

**Section 164.510(a)CUse and Disclosure for Facility Directories**

The NPRM proposed to allow covered health care providers to disclose
through an inpatient facility=s directory a patient=s name, location in
the facility, and general health condition, provided that the individual
had agreed to the disclosure. The NPRM would have allowed this agreement
to be oral. Pursuant to the NPRM, when making decisions about
incapacitated individuals, a covered health care provider could have
disclosed such information at the entity=s discretion and consistent
with good medical practice and any prior expressions of patient
preference of which the covered entity was aware.

The preamble to the NPRM listed several factors that we encouraged
covered entities to take into account when making decisions about
whether to include an incapacitated patient=s information in the
directory. These factors included: (1) whether disclosing that an
individual is in the facility could reasonably cause harm or danger to
the individual (e.g., if it appeared that an unconscious patient had
been abused and disclosing the information could give the attacker
sufficient information to seek out the person and repeat the abuse); (2)
whether disclosing a patient=s location within a facility implicitly
would give information about the patient=s condition (e.g., whether a
patient=s room number revealed that he or she was in a psychiatric
ward); (3) whether it was necessary or appropriate to give information
about patient status to family or friends (e.g., if giving information
to a family member about an unconscious patient could help a physician
administer appropriate medications); and (4) whether an individual had,
prior to becoming incapacitated, expressed a preference not to be
included in the directory. The preamble stated that if a covered entity
learned of such a preference, it would be required to act in accordance
with the preference.

The preamble to the NPRM said that when individuals entered a facility
in an incapacitated state and subsequently gained the ability to make
their own decisions, health facilities should ask them within a
reasonable time period for permission to include their information in
the facility=s directory.

In the final rule, we change the NPRM=s opt-in authorization requirement
to an opt-out approach for inclusion of patient information in a health
care facility=s directory. The final rule allows covered health care
providers B which in this case are health care facilities B to include
patient information in their directory only if: (1) they inform incoming
patients of their policies regarding the directory; (2) they give
patients a meaningful opportunity to opt out of the directory listing or
to restrict some or all of the uses and disclosures that can be included
in the directory; and (3) the patient does not object to being included
in the directory. A patient must be allowed, for example, to have his or
her name and condition included in the directory while not having his or
her religious affiliation included. The facility=s notice and the
individual=s opt-out or restriction may be oral.

Under the final rule, subject to the individual=s right to object, or
known prior expressed preferences, a covered health care provider may
disclose the following information to persons who inquire about the
individual by name: (1) the individual=s general condition in terms that
do not communicate specific medical information about the individual
(e.g., fair, critical, stable, etc.); and (2) location in the facility.
This approach represents a slight change to the NPRM, which did not
require members of the general public to ask for a patient by name in
order to obtain directory information and which, in fact, would have
allowed covered entities to disclose the individual=s name as part of
directory information.

Under the final rule, we also establish provisions for disclosure of
directory information to clergy that are slightly different from those
which apply for disclosure to the general public. Subject to the
individual=s right to object or restrict the disclosure, the final rule
permits a covered entity to disclose to a member of the clergy: (1) the
individual=s name; (2) the individual=s general condition in terms that
do not communicate specific medical information about the individual;
(3) the individual=s location in the facility; and (4) the individual=s
religious affiliation. A disclosure of directory information may be made
to members of the clergy even if they do not inquire about an individual
by name. We note that the rule in no way requires a covered health care
provider to inquire about the religious affiliation of an individual,
nor must individuals supply that information to the facility.
Individuals are free to determine whether they want their religious
affiliation disclosed to clergy through facility directories.

We believe that allowing clergy to access patient information pursuant
to this section does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment, which prohibits laws Arespecting an establishment of
religion.@ Courts traditionally turn to the *Lemon* test when evaluating
laws that might raise Establishment Clause concerns. A law does not
violate the Clause if it has a secular purpose, is not primarily to
advance religion, and does not cause excessive government entanglement
with religion. The privacy regulation passes this test because its
purpose is to protect the privacy of individuals B regardless of their
religious affiliation B and it does not cause excessive government
entanglement.

More specifically, although this section provides a special rule for
members of the clergy, it does so as an accommodation to patients who
seek to engage in religious conduct. For example, restricting the
disclosure of an individual=s religious affiliation, room number, and
health status to a priest could cause significant delay that would
inhibit the ability of a Catholic patient to obtain sacraments provided
during the last rites. We believe this accommodation does not violate
the Establishment Clause, because it avoids a government-imposed
restriction on the disclosure of information that could
disproportionately affect the practice of religion. In that way, it is
no different from accommodations upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, such
as exceptions to laws banning the use of alcohol in religious
ceremonies.

The final rule expands the circumstances under which health care
facilities can disclose specified health information to the patient
directory without the patient=s agreement. Besides allowing such
disclosures when patients are incapacitated, as the NPRM would have
allowed, the final rule allows such disclosures in emergency treatment
circumstances. For example, when a patient is conscious and capable of
making a decision, but is so seriously injured that asking permission to
include his or her information in the directory would delay treatment
such that the patient=s health would be jeopardized, health facilities
can make decisions about including the patient=s information in the
directory according to the same rules that apply when the patient is
incapacitated. The final rule modifies the NPRM requirements for cases
in which an incapacitated patient is admitted to a health care facility.
Whereas the NPRM would have allowed health care providers to disclose an
incapacitated patient=s information to the facility=s directory Aat its
discretion and consistent with good medical practice and any prior
expressions of preference of which the covered entity \[was\] aware,@
the final rule states that in these situations (and in other emergency
treatment circumstances), covered health care providers must make the
decision on whether to include the patient=s information in the
facility=s directory in accordance with professional judgment as to the
patient=s best interest. In addition, when making decisions involving
incapacitated patients and patients in emergency situations, covered
health care providers may decide to include some portions of the
patient=s information (such as name) but not other information (such as
location in the facility) in order to protect patient interests.

As in the preamble to the NPRM, we encourage covered health care
providers to take into account the four factors listed above when making
decisions about whether to include patient information in a health care
facility=s directory when patients are incapacitated or are in an
emergency treatment circumstance. In addition, we retain the requirement
stated in the preamble of the NPRM that if a covered health care
provider learns of an incapacitated patient=s prior expression of
preference not to be included in a facility=s directory, the facility
must not include the patient=s information in the directory. For cases
involving patients admitted to a health care facility in an
incapacitated or emergency treatment circumstance who during the course
of their stay become capable of decisionmaking, the final rule takes an
approach similar to that described in the NPRM. The final rule states
that when an individual who was incapacitated or in an emergency
treatment circumstance upon admission to an inpatient facility and whose
condition stabilizes such that he or she is capable of decisionmaking, a
covered health care provider must, when it becomes practicable, inform
the individual about its policies regarding the facility=s directory and
provide the opportunity to object to the use or disclosure of protected
health information about themselves for the directory.

**Section 164.510(b)CUses and Disclosures for Involvement in the
Individual=s Care and Notification Purposes**

In cases involving an individual with the capacity to make health care
decisions, the NPRM would have allowed covered entities to disclose
protected health information about the individual to a next-of-kin, to
other family members, or to close personal friends of the individual if
the individual had agreed orally to such disclosure. If such agreement
could not practicably or reasonably be obtained (e.g., when the
individual was incapacitated), the NPRM would have allowed disclosure of
protected health information that was directly relevant to the person=s
involvement in the individual=s health care, consistent with good health
professional practices and ethics. The NPRM defined next-of-kin as
defined under state law.

Under the final rule, we specify that covered entities may disclose to a
person involved in the current health care of the individual (such as a
family member, other relative, close personal friend, or any other
person identified by the individual) protected health information
directly related to the person=s involvement in the current health care
of an individual or payment related to the individual=s health care.
Such persons involved in care and other contact persons might include,
for example: blood relatives; spouses; roommates; boyfriends and
girlfriends; domestic partners; neighbors; and colleagues. Inclusion of
this list is intended to be illustrative only, and it is not intended to
change current practices with respect to: (1) involvement of other
persons in individuals= treatment decisions; (2) informal
information-sharing among individuals involved in a person=s care; or
(3) sharing of protected health information to contact persons during a
disaster. The final rule also includes new language stating that covered
entities may use or disclose protected health information to notify or
assist in notification of family members, personal representatives, or
other persons responsible for an individual=s care with respect to an
individual=s location, condition, or death. These provisions allow, for
example, covered entities to notify a patient=s adult child that his
father has suffered a stroke and to tell the person that the father is
in the hospital=s intensive care unit.

The final rule includes separate provisions for situations in which the
individual is present and for when the individual is not present at the
time of disclosure. When the individual is present and has the capacity
to make his or her own decisions, a covered entity may disclose
protected health information only if the covered entity: (1) obtains the
individual=s agreement to disclose to the third parties involved in
their care; (2) provides the individual with an opportunity to object to
such disclosure and the individual does not express an objection; or (3)
reasonably infers from the circumstances, based on the exercise of
professional judgment, that the individual does not object to the
disclosure. Situations in which covered providers may infer an
individual=s agreement to disclose protected health information pursuant
to option (3) include, for example, when a patient brings a spouse into
the doctor=s office when treatment is being discussed, and when a
colleague or friend has brought the individual to the emergency room for
treatment.

We proposed that when a covered entity could not practicably obtain oral
agreement to disclose protected health information to next-of-kin,
relatives, or those with a close personal relationship to the
individual, the covered entity could make such disclosures consistent
with good health professional practice and ethics. In such instances, we
proposed that covered entities could disclose only the minimum
information necessary for the friend or relative to provide the
assistance he or she was providing. For example, health care providers
could not disclose to a friend or relative simply driving a patient home
from the hospital extensive information about the patient=s surgery or
past medical history when the friend or relative had no need for this
information.

The final rule takes a similar approach. Under the final rule, when an
individual is not present (for example, when a friend of a patient seeks
to pick up the patient=s prescription at a pharmacy) or when the
opportunity to agree or object to the use or disclosure cannot
practicably be provided due to the individual=s incapacity or an
emergency circumstance, covered entities may, in the exercise of
professional judgment, determine whether the disclosure is in the
individual=s best interests and if so, disclose only the protected
health information that is directly relevant to the person=s involvement
with the individual=s health care. For example, this provision allows
covered entities to inform relatives or others involved in a patient=s
care, such as the person who accompanied the individual to the emergency
room, that a patient has suffered a heart attack and to provide updates
on the patient=s progress and prognosis when the patient is
incapacitated and unable to make decisions about such disclosures. In
addition, this section allows covered entities to disclose functional
information to individuals assisting in a patient=s care; for example,
it allows hospital staff to give information about a person=s mobility
limitations to a friend driving the patient home from the hospital. It
also allows covered entities to use professional judgment and experience
with common practice to make reasonable inferences of the individual=s
best interest in allowing a person to act on an individual=s behalf to
pick up filled prescriptions, medical supplies, X-rays, or other similar
forms of protected health information. Thus, under this provision,
pharmacists may release a prescription to a patient=s friend who is
picking up the prescription for him or her. Section 164.510(b) is not
intended to disrupt most covered entities= current practices or state
law with respect to these types of disclosures.

This provision is intended to allow disclosures directly related to a
patient=s current condition and should not be construed to allow, for
example, disclosure of extensive information about the patient=s medical
history that is not relevant to the patient=s current condition and that
could prove embarrassing to the patient. In addition, if a covered
entity suspects that an incapacitated patient is a victim of domestic
violence and that a person seeking information about the patient may
have abused the patient, covered entities should not disclose
information to the suspected abuser if there is reason to believe that
such a disclosure could cause the patient serious harm. In all of these
situations regarding possible disclosures of protected health
information about an patient who is not present or is unable to agree to
such disclosures due to incapacity or other emergency circumstance,
disclosures should be in accordance with the exercise of professional
judgment as to the patient=s best interest.

This section is not intended to provide a loophole for avoiding the
rule=s other requirements, and it is not intended to allow disclosures
to a broad range of individuals, such as journalists who may be curious
about a celebrity=s health status. Rather, it should be construed
narrowly, to allow disclosures to those with the closest relationships
with the patient, such as family members, in circumstances when a
patient is unable to agree to disclosure of his or her protected health
information. Furthermore, when a covered entity cannot practicably
obtain an individual=s agreement before disclosing protected health
information to a relative or to a person involved in the individual=s
care and is making decisions about such disclosures consistent with the
exercise of professional judgment regarding the individual=s best
interest, covered entities must take into account whether such a
disclosure is likely to put the individual at risk of serious harm.

Like the NPRM, the final rule does not require covered entities to
verify the identity of relatives or other individuals involved in the
individual=s care. Rather, the individual=s act of involving the other
persons in his or her care suffices as verification of their identity.
For example, the fact that a person brings a family member into the
doctor=s office when treatment information will be discussed constitutes
verification of the involved person=s identity for purposes of this
rule. Likewise, the fact that a friend arrives at a pharmacy and asks to
pick up a specific prescription for an individual effectively verifies
that the friend is involved in the individual=s care, and the rule
allows the pharmacist to give the filled prescription to the friend.

We also clarify that the final rule does not allow covered entities to
assume that an individual=s agreement at one point in time to disclose
protected health information to a relative or to another person
assisting in the individual=s care implies agreement to disclose
protected health information indefinitely in the future. We encourage
the exercise of professional judgment in determining the scope of the
person=s involvement in the individual=s care and the time period for
which the individual is agreeing to the other person=s involvement. For
example, if a friend simply picks up a patient from the hospital but has
played no other role in the individual=s care, hospital staff should not
call the friend to disclose lab test results a month after the initial
encounter with the friend. However, if a patient routinely brings a
spouse into the doctor=s office when treatment is discussed, a physician
can infer that the spouse is playing a long-term role in the patient=s
care, and the rule allows disclosure of protected health information to
the spouse consistent with his or her role in the patient=s care, for
example, discussion of treatment options.

The NPRM did not specifically address situations in which disaster
relief organizations may seek to obtain protected health information
from covered entities to help coordinate the individual=s care, or to
notify family or friends of an individual=s location or general
condition in a disaster situation. In the final rule, we account for
disaster situations in this paragraph. Specifically, we allow covered
entities to use or disclose protected health information without
individual agreement to federal, state, or local government agencies
engaged in disaster relief activities, as well as to private disaster
relief or disaster assistance organizations (such as the Red Cross)
authorized by law or by their charters to assist in disaster relief
efforts, to allow these organizations to carry out their
responsibilities in a specific disaster situation. Covered entities may
make these disclosures to disaster relief organizations, for example, so
that these organizations can help family members, friends, or others
involved in the individual=s care to locate individuals affected by a
disaster and to inform them of the individual=s general health
condition. This provision also allows disclosure of information to
disaster relief or disaster assistance organizations so that these
organizations can help individuals obtain needed medical care for
injuries or other health conditions caused by a disaster.

We encourage disaster relief organizations to protect the privacy of
individual health information to the extent practicable in a disaster
situation. However, we recognize that the nature of disaster situations
often makes it impossible or impracticable for disaster relief
organizations and covered entities to seek individual agreement or
authorization before disclosing protected health information necessary
for providing disaster relief. Thus, we note that we do not intend to
impede disaster relief organizations in their critical mission to save
lives and reunite loved ones and friends in disaster situations.

**SECTION 164.512CUSES AND DISCLOSURES FOR WHICH CONSENT, AN
AUTHORIZATION, OR OPPORTUNITY TO AGREE OR OBJECT IS NOT REQUIRED**

**Introduction**

The final rule=s requirements regarding disclosures for directory
information and to family members or others involved in an individual=s
care are in a section separate from that covering disclosures allowed
for other national priority purposes. In the final rule, we place most
of the other disclosures for national priority purposes in a new \'
164.512.

As in the NPRM, in \' 164.512 of the final rule, we allow covered
entities to make these national priority uses and disclosures without
individual authorization. As in the NPRM, these uses and disclosures are
discretionary. Covered entities are free to decide whether or not to use
or disclose protected health information for any or all of the permitted
categories. However, as in the NPRM, nothing in the final rule provides
authority for a covered entity to restrict or refuse to make a use or
disclosure mandated by other law.

The new \' 164.512 includes paragraphs on: uses and disclosures required
by law; uses and disclosures for public health activities; disclosures
about victims of abuse, neglect, or domestic violence; uses and
disclosures for health oversight activities; disclosures for judicial
and administrative proceedings; disclosures for law enforcement
purposes; uses and disclosures about decedents; uses and disclosures for
cadaveric donation of organs, eyes, or tissues; uses and disclosures for
research purposes; uses and disclosures to avert a serious threat to
health or safety (which we had called Aemergency circumstances@ in the
NPRM); uses and disclosures for specialized government functions
(referred to as Aspecialized classes@ in the NPRM); and disclosures to
comply with workers= compensation laws.

Section 164.512(c) in the final rule, which addresses uses and
disclosures regarding adult victims of abuse, neglect and domestic
violence, is new, although it incorporates some provisions from proposed
\' 164.510 of the NPRM. In the final rule we also eliminate proposed \'
164.510(g) on government health data systems and proposed \' 164.510(i)
on banking and payment processes. These changes are discussed below.

***Approach to Use of Protected Health Information***

Proposed \' 164.510 of the NPRM included specific subparagraphs
addressing uses of protected health information by covered entities that
were also public health agencies, health oversight agencies, government
entities conducting judicial or administrative proceedings, or
government heath data systems. Such covered entities could use protected
health information in all instances for which they could disclose the
information for these purposes. In the final rule, as discussed below,
we retain this language in the paragraphs on public health activities
and health oversight. However, we eliminate this clause with respect to
uses of protected health information for judicial and administrative
proceedings, because we no longer believe that there would be any
situations in which a covered entity would also be a judicial or
administrative tribunal. Proposed \' 164.510(e) of the NPRM, regarding
disclosure of protected health information to coroners, did not include
such a provision. In the final rule we have added it because we believe
there are situations in which a covered entity, for example, a public
hospital conducting post-mortem investigations, may need to use
protected health information for the same purposes for which it would
have disclosed the information to a coroner.

While the right to request restrictions under \' 164.522 and the
consents required under \' 164.506 do not apply to the use and
disclosure of protected health information under \' 164.512, we do not
intend to preempt any state or other restrictions, or any right to
enforce such agreements or consents under other law.

We note that a covered entity may use or disclose protected health
information as permitted by and in accordance with one of the paragraphs
of \' 164.512, regardless of whether that use or disclosure fails to
meet the requirements for use or disclosure under a different paragraph
in \' 164.512 or elsewhere in the rule.

***Verification for Disclosures under \' 164.512***

In \' 164.510(a) of the NPRM, we proposed that covered entities verify
the identity and authority of persons to whom they made disclosure under
the section. In the final rule, we generally have retained the proposed
requirements. Verification requirements are discussed in \' 164.514 of
the final rule.

**Section 164.512(a)CUses and Disclosures Required by Law**

In the NPRM we would have allowed covered entities to use or disclose
protected health information without individual authorization where such
use or disclosure was required by other law, as long as the use or
disclosure met all relevant requirements of such law. However, a legally
mandated use or disclosure which fell into one or more of the national
priority purposes expressly identified in proposed \' 164.510 of the
NPRM would have been subject to the terms and conditions specified by
the applicable paragraph of proposed \' 164.510. Thus, a disclosure
required by law would have been allowed only to the extent it was not
otherwise prohibited or restricted by another provision in proposed \'
164.510. For example, mandatory reporting to law enforcement officials
would not have been allowed unless such disclosures conformed to the
requirements of proposed \' 164.510(f) of the NPRM, on uses and
disclosures for law enforcement purposes. As explained in the NPRM, this
provision was not intended to obstruct access to information deemed
important enough by federal, state or other government authorities to
require it by law.

In \' 164.512(a) of the final rule, we retain the proposed approach, and
we permit covered entities to comply with laws requiring the use or
disclosure of protected health information, provided the use or
disclosure meets and is limited to the relevant requirements of such
other laws. To more clearly address where the substantive and procedural
requirements of other provisions in this section apply, we have deleted
the general sentence from the NPRM which stated that the provision Adoes
not apply to uses or disclosures that are covered by paragraphs (b)
through (m)@ of proposed \' 164.510. Instead, in \' 164.512 (a)(2) we
list the specific paragraphs that have additional requirements with
which covered entities must comply. They are disclosures about victims
of abuse, neglect or domestic violence (\' 164.512(c)), for judicial and
administrative proceedings (\' 164.512(e)), and for law enforcement
purposes (\' 164.512(f)). We include a new definition of Arequired by
law.@ See \' 164.501. We clarify that the requirements provided for in
\' 164.514(h) relating to verification apply to disclosures under this
paragraph. Those provisions require covered entities to verify the
identity and authority of persons to whom they make disclosures. We note
that the minimum necessary requirements of \' 164.514(d) do not apply to
disclosures made under this paragraph.

We note that this rule does not affect what is required by other law,
nor does it compel a covered entity to make a use or disclosure of
protected health information required by the legal demands or reporting
requirements listed in the definition of Arequired by law.@ Covered
entities will not be sanctioned under this rule for responding in good
faith to such legal process and reporting requirements. However, nothing
in this rule affects, either by expanding or contracting, a covered
entity=s right to challenge such process or reporting requirements under
other laws. The only disclosures of protected health information
compelled by this rule are disclosures to an individual (or the personal
representative of an individual) or to the Secretary for the purposes of
enforcing this rule.

Uses and disclosures permitted under this paragraph must be limited to
the protected health information necessary to meet the requirements of
the law that compels the use or disclosure. For example, disclosures
pursuant to an administrative subpoena are limited to the protected
health information authorized to be disclosed on the face of the
subpoena.

**Section 164.512(b)CUses and Disclosures for Public Health Activities**

The NPRM would have allowed covered entities to disclose protected
health information without individual authorization to: (1) a public
health authority authorized by law to collect or receive such
information for the purpose of preventing or controlling disease,
injury, or disability, including, but not limited to, the reporting of
disease, injury, vital events such as birth or death, and the conduct of
public health surveillance, public health investigations, and public
health interventions; (2) a public health authority or other appropriate
authority authorized by law to receive reports of child abuse or
neglect; (3) a person or entity other than a governmental authority that
could demonstrate or demonstrated that it was acting to comply with
requirements or direction of a public health authority; or (4) a person
who may have been exposed to a communicable disease or may otherwise be
at risk of contracting or spreading a disease or condition and was
authorized by law to be notified as necessary in the conduct of a public
health intervention or investigation.

In the final rule, we broaden the scope of permissible disclosures
pursuant to item (1) listed above. We narrow the scope of disclosures
permissible under item (3) of this list, and we add language to clarify
the scope of permissible disclosures with respect to item (4) on the
list. We broaden the scope of allowable disclosures regarding item (1)
by allowing covered entities to disclose protected health information
not only to U.S. public health authorities but also, at the direction of
a public health authority, to an official of a foreign government agency
that is acting in collaboration with a public health authority. For
example, we allow covered entities to disclose protected health
information to a foreign government agency that is collaborating with
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to limit the spread of
infectious disease.

We narrow the conditions under which covered entities may disclose
protected health information to non-government entities. We allow
covered entities to disclose protected health information to a person
subject to the FDA=s jurisdiction, for the following activities: to
report adverse events (or similar reports with respect to food or
dietary supplements), product defects or problems, or biological product
deviations, if the disclosure is made to the person required or directed
to report such information to the FDA; to track products if the
disclosure is made to a person required or directed by the FDA to track
the product; to enable product recalls, repairs, or replacement,
including locating and notifying individuals who have received products
regarding product recalls, withdrawals, or other problems; or to conduct
post-marketing surveillance to comply with requirements or at the
direction of the FDA.

The terms included in \' 164.512(b)(iii) are intended to have both their
commonly understood meanings, as well as any specialized meanings,
pursuant to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321 et seq.) or
the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.). For example,
Apost-marketing surveillance@ is intended to mean activities related to
determining the safety or effectiveness of a product after it has been
approved and is in commercial distribution, as well as certain Phase IV
(post-approval) commitments by pharmaceutical companies. With respect to
devices, Apost-marketing surveillance@ can be construed to refer to
requirements of section 522 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
regarding certain implanted, life-sustaining, or life-supporting
devices. The term Atrack@ includes, for example, tracking devices under
section 519(e) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, units of blood or
other blood products, as well as trace-backs of contaminated food.

In \' 164.512(b)(iii), the term Arequired@ refers to requirements in
statute, regulation, order, or other legally binding authority exercised
by the FDA. The term Adirected,@ as used in this section, includes other
official agency communications such as guidance documents.

We note that under this provision, a covered entity may disclose
protected health information to a non-governmental organization without
individual authorization for inclusion in a private data base or
registry only if the disclosure is otherwise for one of the purposes
described in this provision (e.g., for tracking products pursuant to FDA
direction or requirements, for post-marketing surveillance to comply
with FDA requirements or direction.)

To make a disclosure that is not for one of these activities, covered
entities must obtain individual authorization or must meet the
requirements of another provision of this rule. For example, covered
entities may disclose protected health information to employers for
inclusion in a workplace surveillance database only: with individual
authorization; if the disclosure is required by law; if the disclosure
meets the requirements of \' 164.512(b)(v); or if the disclosure meets
the conditions of another provision of this regulation, such as \'
154.512(i) relating to research. Similarly, if a pharmaceutical company
seeks to create a registry containing protected health information about
individuals who had taken a drug that the pharmaceutical company had
developed, covered entities may disclose protected health information
without authorization to the pharmaceutical company pursuant to FDA
requirements or direction. If the pharmaceutical company=s registry is
not for any of these purposes, covered entities may disclose protected
health information to it only with patient authorization, if required by
law, or if disclosure meets the conditions of another provision of this
rule.

The final rule continues to permit covered entities to disclose
protected health information without individual authorization directly
to public health authorities, such as the Food and Drug Administration,
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, as well as state and local public health
departments, for public health purposes as specified in the NPRM.

The final rule retains the NPRM provision allowing covered entities to
disclose protected health information to public health authorities or
other appropriate government authorities authorized by law to receive
reports of child abuse or neglect. In addition, we clarify the NPRM=s
provision regarding disclosure of protected health information to
persons who may have been exposed to a communicable disease or who may
otherwise be at risk of contracting or spreading a disease or condition.
Under the final rule, covered entities may disclose protected health
information to such individuals when the covered entity or public health
authority is authorized by law to notify these individuals as necessary
in the conduct of a public health intervention or investigation.

In addition, as in the NPRM, under the final rule, a covered entity that
is acting as a public health authority B for example, a public hospital
conducting infectious disease surveillance in its role as an arm of the
public health department B may use protected health information in all
cases for which it is allowed to disclose such information for public
health activities as described above.

The proposed rule did not contain a specific provision relating to
disclosures by covered health care providers to employers concerning
work-related injuries or illnesses or workplace medical surveillance.
Under the proposed rule, a covered entity would have been permitted to
disclose protected health information without individual authorization
for public health purposes to private person if the person could
demonstrate that it was acting to comply with requirements or at the
direction of a public health authority.

As discussed above, in the final rule we narrow the scope of this
paragraph as it applies to disclosures to persons other than public
health authorities. To ensure that covered health care providers may
make disclosures of protected health information without individual
authorization to employers when appropriate under federal and state laws
addressing work-related injuries and illnesses or workplace medical
surveillance, we include a new provision in the final rule. The
provision permits covered health care providers who provide health care
as a workforce member of or at the request of an employer to disclose to
that employer protected health information concerning work-related
injuries or illnesses or workplace medical surveillance in situations
where the employer has a duty under the Occupational Safety and Health
Act, the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act, or under a similar state
law, to keep records on or act on such information. For example, OSHA
regulations in 29 CFR Part 1904 require employers to record work-related
injuries and illnesses if medical treatment is necessary; MSHA
regulations at 30 CFR Part 50 require mine operators to report injuries
and illnesses experienced by miners. Similarly, OSHA rules require
employers to monitor employees= exposure to certain substances and to
remove employees from exposure when toxic thresholds have been met. To
obtain the relevant health information necessary to determine whether an
injury or illness should be recorded, or whether an employee must be
medically removed from exposure at work, employers must refer employees
to health care providers for examination and testing.

OSHA and MSHA rules do not impose duties directly upon health care
providers to disclose health information pertaining to recordkeeping and
medical monitoring requirements to employers. Rather, these rules
operate on the presumption that health care providers who provide
services at the request of an employer will be able to disclose to the
employer work-related health information necessary for the employer to
fulfill its compliance obligations. This new provision permits covered
entities to make disclosures necessary for the effective functioning of
OSHA and MSHA requirements, or those of similar state laws, by
permitting a health care provider to make disclosures without the
authorization of the individual concerning work-related injuries or
illnesses or workplace medical surveillance in situations where the
employer has a duty under OSHA and MSHA requirements, or under a similar
state laws, to keep records on or act on such information.

We require health care providers who make disclosures to employers under
this provision to provide notice to individuals that it discloses
protected health information to employers relating to the medical
surveillance of the workplace and work‑related illnesses and injuries.
The notice required under this provision is separate from the notice
required under \' 164.520. The notice required under this provision may
be met giving a copy of the notice to the individual at the time it
provides the health care services, or, if the health care services are
provided on the work site of the employer, by posting the notice in a
prominent place at the location where the health care services are
provided.

This provision applies only when a covered health care provider provides
health care services as a workforce member of or at the request of an
employer and for the purposes discussed above. The provision does not
affect the application of this rule to other health care provided to
individuals or to their relationship with health care providers that
they select.

**Section 164.512(c)CDisclosures about Victims of Abuse, Neglect or
Domestic Violence**

The NPRM included two provisions related to disclosures about persons
who are victims of abuse. In the NPRM, we would have allowed covered
entities to report child abuse to a public health authority or other
appropriate authority authorized by law to receive reports of child
abuse or neglect. In addition, under proposed \' 164.510(f)(3) of the
NPRM, we would have allowed covered entities to disclose protected
health information about a victim of a crime, abuse or other harm to a
law enforcement official under certain circumstances. The NPRM
recognized that most, if not all, states had laws that mandated
reporting of child abuse or neglect to the appropriate authorities.
Moreover, HIPAA expressly carved out state laws on child abuse and
neglect from preemption or any other interference. The NPRM further
acknowledged that most, but not all, states had laws mandating the
reporting of abuse, neglect or exploitation of the elderly or other
vulnerable adults. We did not intend to impede reporting in compliance
with these laws.

The final rule includes a new paragraph, \' 164.512(c), which allows
covered entities to report protected health information to specified
authorities in abuse situations other than those involving child abuse
and neglect. In the final rule, disclosures of protected health
information related to child abuse continues to be addressed in the
paragraph allowing disclosure for public health activities (\'
164.512(b)), as described above. Because HIPAA addresses child abuse
specifically in connection with a state=s public health activities, we
believe it would not be appropriate to include child abuse-related
disclosures in this separate paragraph on abuse. State laws continue to
apply with respect to child abuse, and the final rule does not in any
way interfere with a covered entity=s ability to comply with these laws.

In the final rule, we address disclosures about other victims of abuse,
neglect and domestic violence in \' 164.512(c) rather than in the law
enforcement paragraph. Section 164.512(c) establishes conditions for
disclosure of protected health information in cases involving domestic
violence other than child abuse (e.g., spousal abuse), as well as those
involving abuse or neglect (e.g., abuse of nursing home residents or
residents of facilities for the mentally retarded). This paragraph
addresses reports to law enforcement as well as to other authorized
public officials. The provisions of this paragraph supersede the
provisions of \' 164.512(a) and \' 164.512(f)(1)(i) to the extent that
those provisions address the subject matter of this paragraph.

Under the circumstances described below, the final rule allows covered
entities to disclose protected health information about an individual
whom the covered entity reasonably believes to be a victim of abuse,
neglect, or domestic violence. In this paragraph, references to
Aindividual@ should be construed to mean the individual believed to be
the victim. The rule allows such disclosure to any governmental
authority authorized by law to receive reports of such abuse, neglect,
or domestic violence. These entities may include, for example, adult
protective or social services agencies, state survey and certification
agencies, ombudsmen for the aging or those in long-term care facilities,
and law enforcement or oversight.

The final rule specifies three circumstances in which disclosures of
protected health information is allowed in order to report abuse,
neglect or domestic violence. First, this paragraph allows disclosure of
protected health information related to abuse if required by law and the
disclosure complies with and is limited to the relevant requirements of
such law. As discussed below, the final rule requires covered entities
that make such disclosures pursuant to a state=s mandatory reporting law
to inform the individual of the report.

Second, this paragraph allows covered entities to disclose protected
health information related to abuse if the individual has agrees to such
disclosure. When considering the possibility of disclosing protected
health information in an abuse situation pursuant to this section, we
encourage covered entities to seek the individual=s agreement whenever
possible.

Third, this paragraph allows covered entities to disclose protected
health information about an individual without the individual=s
agreement if the disclosure is expressly authorized by statute or
regulation and either: (1) the covered entity, in the exercise of its
professional judgment, believes that the disclosure is necessary to
prevent serious harm to the individual or to other potential victims; or
(2) if the individual is unable to agree due to incapacity, a law
enforcement or other public official authorized to received the report
represents that the protected health information for which disclosure is
sought is not intended to be used against the individual, and that an
immediate enforcement activity that depends on the disclosure would be
materially and adversely affected by waiting until the individual is
able to agree to the disclosure.

We emphasize that disclosure under this third part of the paragraph also
may be made only if it is expressly authorized by statute or regulation.
We use this formulation, rather than the broader Arequired by law,@
because of the heightened privacy and safety concerns in these
situations. We believe it appropriate to defer to other public
determinations regarding reporting of this information only where a
legislative or executive body has determined the reporting to be of
sufficient importance to warrant enactment of a law or promulgation of a
regulation. Law and regulations reflect a clear decision to authorize
the particular disclosure of protected health information, and reflect
greater public accountability (e.g., through the required public comment
process or because enacted by elected representatives).

For example, a Wisconsin law (Wis. Stat \'46.90(4)) states that any
person may report to a county agency or state official that he or she
believes that abuse or neglect has occurred. Pursuant to \'
164.512(c)(1)(iii), a covered entity may make a report only if the
specific type or subject matter of the report (e.g., abuse or neglect of
the elderly) is included in the law authorizing the report, and such a
disclosure may only be made to a public authority specifically
identified in the law authorizing the report. Furthermore, we note that
disclosures under this part of the paragraph are further limited to two
circumstances. In the first case, a covered entity, in the exercise of
professional judgment, must believe that the disclosure is necessary to
prevent serious harm to the individual or to other potential victims.
The second case addresses situations in which an individual who is a
victim of abuse, neglect or domestic violence is unable to agree due to
incapacity and a law enforcement or other public official authorized to
receive the report represents that the protected health information for
which disclosure is sought is not intended to be used against the
individual and that an immediate law enforcement activity that depends
on the disclosure would be materially and adversely affected by waiting
until the individual if able to agree to the disclosure. We note that,
in this second case, a covered entity may exercise discretion,
consistent with professional judgment as to the patient=s best interest,
in deciding whether to make the requested disclosure.

The rules governing disclosure in this third set of circumstances are
different from those governing disclosures pursuant to \' 164.512(f)(3)
regarding disclosure to law enforcement about victims of crime and other
harm. We believe that in abuse situations B to a greater extent than in
situations involving crime victims in general B there is clear potential
for abusers to cause further serious harm to the victim or to others,
such as other family members in a household or other residents of a
nursing home. The provisions allowing reporting of abuse when authorized
by state law, as described above, are consistent with principles
articulated by the AMA=s Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, which
state that when reporting abuse is voluntary under state law, it is
justified when necessary to prevent serious harm to a patient. Through
the provisions of \' 164.512(c), we recognize the unique circumstances
surrounding abuse and domestic violence, and we seek to provide an
appropriate balance between individual privacy interests and important
societal interests such as preventing serious harm to other individuals.
We note that here we are relying on covered entities, in the exercise of
professional judgment, to determine what is in the best interests of the
patient.

Finally, we require covered entities to inform the individual in all of
the situations described above that the covered entity has disclosed
protected health information to report abuse, neglect, or domestic
violence. We allow covered entities to provide this information orally.
We do not require written notification, nor do we encourage it, due to
the sensitivity of abuse situations and the potential for the abuser to
cause further harm to the individual if, for example, a covered entity
sends written notification to the home of the individual and the abuser.
Whenever possible, covered entities should inform the individual at the
same time that they determine abuse has occurred and decide that the
abuse should be reported. In cases involving patient incapacity, we
encourage covered entities to inform the individual of such disclosures
as soon as it is practicable to do so.

The rule provides two exceptions to the requirement to inform the victim
about a report to a government authority, one based on concern for
future harm and one based on past harm. First, a covered entity need not
inform the victim if the covered entity, in the exercise of professional
judgment, believes that informing the individual would place the
individual at risk of serious harm. We believe that this exception is
necessary to address the potential for future harm, either physical or
emotional, that the individual may face from knowing that the report has
been made. Second, a covered entity may choose not to meet the
requirement for informing the victim, if the covered entity actually
would be informing a personal representative (such as a parent of a
minor) and the covered entity reasonably believes that such person is
responsible for the abuse, neglect, or other injury that has already
occurred and that informing that person would not be in the individual=s
best interests.

**Section 164.512(d)CUses and Disclosures for Health Oversight
Activities**

Under \' 164.510(c) of the NPRM, we proposed to permit covered entities
to disclose protected health information to health oversight agencies
for oversight activities authorized by law, including audit,
investigation, inspection, civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding
or action, or other activity necessary for appropriate oversight of: (i)
the health care system; (ii) government benefit programs for which
health information is relevant to beneficiary eligibility; or (iii)
government regulatory programs for which health information is necessary
for determining compliance with program standards.

In \' 164.512(d) of the final rule, we modify the proposed language to
include civil and criminal investigations. In describing Aother
activities necessary for oversight@ of particular entities, we add the
phrase Aentities subject to civil rights laws for which health
information is necessary for determining compliance.@ In addition, in
the final rule, we add Alicensure or disciplinary actions@ to the list
of oversight activities authorized by law for which covered entities may
disclose protected health information to health oversight agencies. The
NPRM=s definition of Ahealth oversight agency@ (in proposed \' 164.504)
included this phrase, but it was inadvertently excluded from the
regulation text at proposed \' 164.510(c). We make this change in the
regulation text of the final rule to conform to the NPRM=s definition of
health oversight agency and to reflect the full range of activities for
which we intend to allow covered entities to disclose protected health
information to health oversight agencies.

The NPRM would have allowed, but would not have required, covered
entities to disclose protected health information to public oversight
agencies and to private entities acting under grant of authority from or
under contract with oversight agencies for oversight purposes without
individual authorization for health oversight activities authorized by
law. When a covered entity was also an oversight agency, it also would
have been permitted to use protected health information in all cases in
which it would have been allowed to disclose such information for health
oversight purposes. The NPRM would not have established any new
administrative or judicial process prior to disclosure for health
oversight, nor would it have permitted disclosures forbidden by other
law. The proposed rule also would not have created any new right of
access to health records by oversight agencies, and it could not have
been used as authority to obtain records not otherwise legally available
to the oversight agency.

The final rule retains this approach to health oversight. As in the
NPRM, the final rule provides that when a covered entity is also an
oversight agency, it is allowed to use protected health information in
all cases in which it is allowed to disclose such information for health
oversight purposes. For example, if a state insurance department is
acting as a health plan in operating the state=s Medicaid managed care
program, the final rule allows the insurance department to use protected
health information in all cases for which the plan can disclose the
protected health information for health oversight purposes. For example,
the state insurance department in its capacity as the state Medicaid
managed care plan can use protected health information in the process of
investigating and disciplining a state Medicaid provider for attempting
to defraud the Medicaid system. As in the NPRM, the final rule does not
establish any new administrative or judicial process prior to disclosure
for health oversight, nor does it prohibit covered entities from making
any disclosures for health oversight that are otherwise required by law.
Like the NPRM, it does not create any new right of access to health
records by oversight agencies and it cannot be used as authority to
obtain records not otherwise legally available to the oversight agency.

***Overlap Between Law Enforcement and Oversight***

Under the NPRM, the proposed definitions of law enforcement and
oversight, and the rules governing disclosures for these purposes
overlapped. Specifically, this overlap occurred because: (1) the NPRM
preamble, but not the NPRM regulation text, indicated that agencies
conducting both oversight and law enforcement activities would be
subject to the oversight requirements when conducting oversight
activities; and (2) the NPRM addressed some disclosures for
investigations of health care fraud in the law enforcement paragraph
(proposed \' 164.510(f)(5)(i)), while health care fraud investigations
are central to the purpose of health care oversight agencies (covered
under proposed \' 164.510(c)). In the final rule, we make substantial
changes to these provisions, in an attempt to prevent confusion.

In \' 164.512(d)(2), we include explicit decision rules indicating when
an investigation is considered law enforcement and when an investigation
is considered oversight under this regulation. An investigation or
activity is not considered health oversight for purposes of this rule
if: (1) the individual is the subject of the investigation or activity;
and (2) the investigation or activity does not arise out of and is not
directly related to: (a) the receipt of health care; (b) a claim for
public benefits related to health; or (c) qualification for, or receipt
of public benefits or services where a patient=s health is integral to
the claim for benefits or services. In such cases, where the individual
is the subject of the investigation and the investigation does not
relate to issues (a) through (c), the rules regarding disclosure for law
enforcement purposes (see \' 164.512(f)) apply. For the purposes of this
rule, we intend for investigations regarding issues (a) through (c)
above to mean investigations of health care fraud.

Where the individual is not the subject of the activity or
investigation, or where the investigation or activity relates to the
subject matter in (a) through (c) of the preceding sentence, a covered
entity may make a disclosure pursuant to \' 164.512(d)(1). For example,
when the U.S. Department of Labor=s Pension and Welfare Benefits
Administration (PWBA) needs to analyze protected health information
about health plan enrollees in order to conduct an audit or
investigation of the health plan (i.e., the enrollees are not subjects
of the investigation) to investigate potential fraud by the plan, the
health plan may disclose protected health information to the PWBA under
the health oversight rules. These rules and distinctions are discussed
in greater detail in our responses to comments.

To clarify further that health oversight disclosure rules apply
generally in health care fraud investigations (subject to the exception
described above), in the final rule, we eliminate proposed \'
164.510(f)(5)(i), which would have established requirements for
disclosure related to health care fraud for law enforcement purposes.
All disclosures of protected health information that would have been
permitted under proposed \' 164.510(f)(5)(i) are permitted under \'
164.512(d).

In the final rule, we add new language (\' 164.512(d)(3)) to address
situations in which health oversight activities are conducted in
conjunction with an investigation regarding a claim for public benefits
not related to health (e.g., claims for Food Stamps). In such
situations, for example, when a state Medicaid agency is working with
the Food Stamps program to investigate suspected fraud involving
Medicaid and Food Stamps, covered entities may disclose protected health
information to the entities conducting the joint investigation under the
health oversight provisions of the rule.

In the proposed rule, the definitions of Alaw enforcement proceeding@
and Aoversight activity@ both included the phrase Acriminal, civil, or
administrative proceeding.@ For reasons explained below, the final rule
retains this phrase in both definitions. The final rule does not attempt
to distinguish between these activities based on the agency undertaking
them or the applicable enforcement procedures. Rather, as described
above, the final rule carves out certain activities which must always be
considered law enforcement for purposes of disclosure of protected
health information under this rule.

***Additional Considerations***

We note that covered entities are permitted to initiate disclosures that
are permitted under this paragraph. For example, a covered entity could
disclose protected health information in the course of reporting
suspected health care fraud to a health oversight agency.

We delete language in the NPRM that would have allowed disclosure under
this section only to law enforcement officials conducting or supervising
an investigation, official inquiry, or a criminal, civil or
administrative proceeding authorized by law. In some instances, a
disclosure by a covered entity under this section will initiate such an
investigation or proceeding, but it will not already be ongoing at the
time the disclosure is made.

**Section 164.512(e)CDisclosures and Uses for Judicial and
Administrative Proceedings**

Section 164.512(e) addresses when a covered entity is permitted to
disclose protected health information in response to requests for
protected health information that are made in the course of judicial and
administrative proceedings B for example, when a non-party health care
provider receives a subpoena (under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule
45 or similar provision) for medical records from a party to a law suit.
In the NPRM we would have allowed covered entities to disclose protected
health information in the course of any judicial or administrative
proceeding: (1) in response to an order of a court or administrative
tribunal; or (2) where an individual was a party to the proceeding and
his or her medical condition or history was at issue and the disclosure
was pursuant to lawful process or otherwise authorized by law. Under the
NPRM, if the request for disclosure of protected health information was
accompanied by a court order, a covered entity could have disclosed that
protected health information which the court order authorized to be
disclosed. If the request for disclosure of protected health information
were not accompanied by a court order, covered entities could not have
disclosed the information requested unless a request authorized by law
had been made by the agency requesting the information or by legal
counsel representing a party to litigation, with a written statement
certifying that the protected health information requested concerned a
litigant to the proceeding and that the health condition of the litigant
was at issue at the proceeding.

In \' 164.512(e) of the final rule, we permit covered entities to
disclose protected health information in a judicial or administrative
proceeding if the request for such protected health information is made
through or pursuant to an order from a court or administrative tribunal
or in response to a subpoena or discovery request from, or other lawful
process by a party to the proceeding. When a request is made pursuant to
an order from a court or administrative tribunal, a covered entity may
disclose the information requested without additional process. For
example, a subpoena issued by a court constitutes a disclosure which is
required by law as defined in this rule, and nothing in this rule is
intended to interfere with the ability of the covered entity to comply
with such subpoena.

However, absent an order of, or a subpoena issued by, a court or
administrative tribunal, a covered entity may respond to a subpoena or
discovery request from, or other lawful process by, a party to the
proceeding only if the covered entity obtains either: (1) satisfactory
assurances that reasonable efforts have been made to give the individual
whose information has been requested notice of the request; or (2)
satisfactory assurances that the party seeking such information has made
reasonable efforts to secure a protective order that will guard the
confidentiality of the information. In meeting the first test, a covered
entity is considered to have received satisfactory assurances from the
party seeking the information if that party demonstrates that it has
made a good faith effort (such as by sending a notice to the
individual\'s last known address) to provide written notice to the
individual whose information is the subject of the request, that the
written notice included sufficient information about the proceeding to
permit the individual to raise an objection, and that the time for the
individual to raise objections to the court or administrative tribunal
has elapsed and no objections were filed or any objections filed by the
individual have been resolved.

Unless required to do so by other law, the covered entity is not
required to explain the procedures (if any) available for the individual
to object to the disclosure. Under the rule, the individual exercises
the right to object before the court or other body having jurisdiction
over the proceeding, and not to the covered entity. The provisions in
this paragraph are not intended to disrupt current practice whereby an
individual who is a party to a proceeding and has put his or her medical
condition at issue will not prevail without consenting to the production
of his or her protected health information. In such cases, we presume
that parties will have ample notice and an opportunity to object in the
context of the proceeding in which the individual is a party.

As described above, in this paragraph we also permit a covered entity to
disclose protected health information in response to a subpoena,
discovery request, or other lawful process if the covered entity
receives satisfactory assurances that the party seeking the information
has made reasonable efforts to seek a qualified protective order that
would protect the privacy of the information. A Aqualified protective
order@ means an order of a court or of an administrative tribunal or a
stipulation that: (1) prohibits the parties from using or disclosing the
protected health information for any purpose other than the litigation
or proceeding for which the records are requested; and (2) requires the
return to the covered entity or destruction of the protected health
information (including all copies made) at the end of the litigation or
proceeding. Satisfactory assurances of reasonable efforts to secure a
qualified protective order are a statement and documentation that the
parties to the dispute have agreed to a protective order and that it has
been submitted to the court or administrative tribunal with
jurisdiction, or that the party seeking the protected health information
has requested a qualified protective order from such court or tribunal.
We encourage the development of Amodel@ protective orders that will
facilitate adherence with this subpart.

In the final rule we also permit the covered entity itself to satisfy
the requirement to make reasonable efforts to notify the individual
whose information has been requested or to seek a qualified protective
order. We intend this to be a permissible activity for covered entities:
we do not require covered entities to undertake these efforts in
response to a subpoena, discovery request, or similar process (other
than an order from a court or administrative tribunal). If a covered
entity receives such a request without receiving the satisfactory
assurances described above from the party requesting the information,
the covered entity is free to object to the disclosure and is not
required to undertake the reasonable efforts itself.

We clarify that the provisions of this paragraph do not supersede or
otherwise invalidate other provisions of this rule that permit uses and
disclosures of protected health information. For example, the fact that
protected health information is the subject of a matter before a court
or tribunal does not prevent its disclosure under another provision of
the rule, such as \'\' 164.512(b), 164.512(d), or 164.512(f), even if a
public agency=s method of requesting the information is pursuant to an
administrative proceeding. For example, where a public agency commences
a disciplinary action against a health professional, and requests
protected health information as part of its investigation, the
disclosure made be made to the agency under paragraph (d) of this
section (relating to health oversight) even if the method of making the
request is through the proceeding. As with any request for disclosure
under this section, the covered entity will need to verify the authority
under which the request is being made, and we expect that public
agencies will identify their authority when making such requests. We
note that covered entities may reasonably rely on assertions of
authority made by government agencies.

***Additional Considerations***

Where a disclosure made pursuant to this paragraph is required by law,
such as in the case of an order from a court or administrative tribunal,
the minimum necessary requirements in \' 164.514(d) do not apply to
disclosures made under this paragraph. A covered entity making a
disclosure under this paragraph, however, may of course disclose only
that protected health information that is within the scope of the
permitted disclosure. For instance, in response to an order of a court
or administrative tribunal, the covered entity may disclose only the
protected health information that is expressly authorized by such an
order. Where a disclosure is not considered under this rule to be
required by law, the minimum necessary requirements apply, and the
covered entity must make reasonable efforts to limit the information
disclosed to that which is reasonably necessary to fulfill the request.
A covered entity is not required to second guess the scope or purpose of
the request, or take action to resist the request because they believe
that it is over broad. In complying with the request, however, the
covered entity must make reasonable efforts not to disclose more
information than is requested. For example, a covered entity may not
provide a party free access to its medical records under the theory that
the party can identify the information necessary for the request. In
some instances, it may be appropriate for a covered entity, presented
with a relatively broad discovery request, to permit access to a
relatively large amount of information in order for a party to identify
the relevant information. This is permissible as long as the covered
entity makes reasonable efforts to circumscribe the access as
appropriate.

The NPRM indicated that when a covered entity was itself a government
agency, the covered entity could use protected health information in all
cases in which it would have been allowed to disclose such information
in the course of any judicial or administrative proceeding. As explained
above, the final rule does not include this provision.

**Section 164.512(f)CDisclosure for Law Enforcement Purposes**

***Disclosures Pursuant to Process and as Otherwise Required by Law***

In the NPRM we would have allowed covered entities to disclose protected
health information without individual authorization as required by other
law. However, as explained above, if a legally mandated use or
disclosure fell into one or more of the national priority purposes
expressly identified in other paragraphs of proposed \' 164.510, the
disclosure would have been subject to the terms and conditions specified
by the applicable paragraph of proposed \' 164.510. For example,
mandatory reporting to law enforcement officials would not have been
allowed unless such disclosures conformed to the requirements of
proposed \' 164.510(f) of the NPRM. Proposed \' 164.510(f) did not
explicitly recognize disclosures required by other laws, and it would
not have permitted covered entities to comply with some state and other
mandatory reporting laws that require covered entities to disclose
protected health information to law enforcement officials, such as the
reporting of gun shot wounds, stab wounds, and/or burn injuries.

We did not intend to preempt generally state and other mandatory
reporting laws, and in \' 164.512(f)(1)(i) of the final rule, we
explicitly permit covered entities to disclose protected health
information for law enforcement purposes as required by other law. This
provision permits covered entities to comply with these state and other
laws. Under this provision, to the extent that a mandatory reporting law
falls under the provisions of \' 164.512(c)(1)(i) regarding reporting of
abuse, neglect, or domestic violence, the requirements of those
provisions supersede.

In the final rule, we specify that covered entities may disclose
protected health information pursuant to this provision in compliance
with and as limited by the relevant requirements of legal process or
other law. In the NPRM, for the purposes of this portion of the law
enforcement paragraph, we proposed to define Alaw enforcement inquiry or
proceeding@ as an investigation or official proceeding inquiring into a
violation of or failure to comply with law; or a criminal, civil or
administrative proceeding arising from a violation of or failure to
comply with law. In the final rule, we do not include this definition in
\' 164.512(f), because it is redundant with the definition of Alaw
enforcement official@ in \' 164.501.

Proposed \' 164.510(f)(1) of the NPRM would have authorized disclosure
of protected health information to a law enforcement official conducting
or supervising a law enforcement inquiry or proceeding authorized by law
pursuant to process, under three circumstances.

First, we proposed to permit such disclosures pursuant to a warrant,
subpoena, or other order issued by a judicial officer that documented a
finding by the officer. The NPRM did not specify requirements for the
nature of the finding. In the final rule, we eliminate the requirement
for a Afinding,@ and we make changes to the list of orders in response
to which covered entities may disclose under this provision. Under the
final rule, covered entities may disclose protected health information
in compliance with and as limited by relevant requirements of: a court
order or court-ordered warrant, or a subpoena or summons issued by a
judicial officer. We made this change to the list to conform to the
definition of Arequired by law@ in \' 164.501.

Second, we proposed to permit such disclosures pursuant to a state or
federal grand jury subpoena. In the final rule, we leave this provision
of the NPRM unchanged.

Third, we proposed to permit such disclosures pursuant to an
administrative request, including an administrative subpoena or summons,
a civil investigative demand, or similar process, under somewhat
stricter standards than exist today for such disclosures. We proposed to
permit a covered entity to disclose protected health information
pursuant to an administrative request only if the request met three
conditions, as follows: (i) the information sought was relevant and
material to a legitimate law enforcement inquiry; (ii) the request was
as specific and narrowly drawn as reasonably practicable; and (iii)
de-identified information could not reasonably have been used to meet
the purpose of the request.

The final rules generally adopts this provision of the NPRM. In the
final rule, we modify the list of orders in response to which covered
entities may disclose protected health information, to include
administrative subpoenas or summons, civil or authorized investigative
demands, or similar process authorized by law. We made this change to
the list to conform with the definition of Arequired by law@ in \'
164.501. In addition, we slightly modify the second of the three
conditions under which covered entities may respond to such requests, to
allow disclosure if the request is specific and is limited in scope to
the extent reasonably practicable in light of the purpose for which the
information is sought.

***Limited Information for Identification and Location Purposes***

The NPRM would have allowed covered entities to disclose \"limited
identifying information\" for purposes of identifying a suspect,
fugitive, material witness, or missing person, in response to a law
enforcement request. We proposed to define Alimited identifying
information@ as (i) name; (ii) address; (iii) Social Security number;
(iv) date of birth; (v) place of birth; (vi) type of injury or other
distinguishing characteristic; and (vii) date and time of treatment.

The final rules generally adopts this provision of the NPRM with a few
modifications. In the final rule, we expand the circumstances under
which limited information about suspects, fugitives, material witnesses,
and missing persons may be disclosed, to include not only cases in which
law enforcement officials are seeking to identify such individuals, but
also cases in which law enforcement officials are seeking to locate such
individuals. In addition, the final rule modifies the list of data
elements that may be disclosed under this provision, in several ways. We
expand the list of elements that may be disclosed under these
circumstances, to include ABO blood type and Rh factor, as well as date
and time of death, if applicable. We remove Aother distinguishing
characteristic@ from the list of items that may be disclosed for the
location and identification purposes described in this paragraph, and
instead allow covered entities to disclose only a description of
distinguishing physical characteristics, such as scars and tattoos,
height, weight, gender, race, hair and eye color, and the presence or
absence of facial hair such as a beard or moustache. In addition, in the
final rule, protected health information associated with the following
cannot be disclosed pursuant to \' 164.512(f)(2): DNA data and analyses;
dental records; or typing, samples or analyses of tissues or bodily
fluids other than blood (e.g., saliva). If a covered entity discloses
additional information under this provision, the covered entity will be
out of compliance and subject to sanction.

We clarify our intent not to allow covered entities to initiate
disclosures of limited identifying information to law enforcement in the
absence of a law enforcement request; a covered entity may disclose
protected health information under this provision only in response to a
request from law enforcement. We allow a A law enforcement official=s
request@ to be made orally or in writing, and we intend for it to
include requests by a person acting on behalf of law enforcement, for
example, requests by a media organization making a television or radio
announcement seeking the public=s assistance in identifying a suspect.
Such a request also may include a AWanted@ poster and similar postings.

***Disclosure about a Victim of Crime***

The NPRM would have allowed covered entities to disclose protected
health information about a victim of a crime, abuse or other harm to a
law enforcement official, if the law enforcement official represented
that: (i) the information was needed to determine whether a violation of
law by a person other than the victim had occurred; and (ii) immediate
law enforcement activity that depended on obtaining the information may
have been necessary.

The final rule modifies the conditions under which covered entities can
disclose protected health information about victims. In addition, as
discussed above, the final rule includes a new \' 164.512(c), which
establishes conditions for disclosure of protected health information
about victims of abuse, neglect or domestic violence. In addition, as
discussed above, we have added \' 164.512(f)(1)(i) to this paragraph to
explicitly recognize that in some cases, covered entities= disclosure of
protected health information is mandated by state or other law. The
rule=s requirements for disclosure in situations not covered under
mandatory reporting laws are different from the rule=s provisions
regarding disclosure pursuant to a mandatory reporting law.

The final rule requires covered entities to obtain individual agreement
as a condition of disclosing the protected health information about
victims to law enforcement, unless the disclosure is permitted under \'
164.512(b) or (c) or \' 164.512(f)(1) above. The required agreement may
be obtained orally, and does not need to meet the requirements of \'
164.508 of this rule (regarding authorizations). The rule waives the
requirement for individual agreement if the victim is unable to agree
due to incapacity or other emergency circumstance and: (1) the law
enforcement official represents that the protected health information is
needed to determine whether a violation of law by a person other than
the victim has occurred and the information is not intended to be used
against the victim; (2) the law enforcement official represents that
immediate law enforcement activity that depends on such disclosure would
be materially and adversely affected by waiting until the individual is
able to agree to the disclosure; and (3) the covered entity, in the
exercise of professional judgment, determines that the disclosure is in
the individual=s best interests. We intend that assessing the
individual=s best interests includes taking into account any further
risk of harm to the individual. This provision does not allow covered
entities to initiate disclosures of protected health information to law
enforcement; the disclosure must be in response to a request from law
enforcement.

We do not intend to create a new legal duty on the part of covered
entities with respect to the safety of their patients. Rather, we intend
to ensure that covered entities can continue to exercise their
professional judgment in these circumstances, on a case-by-case basis,
as they do today.

In some cases, a victim may also be a fugitive or suspect. For example,
an individual may receive a gunshot wound during a robbery and seek
treatment in a hospital emergency room. In such cases, when law
enforcement officials are requesting protected health information
because the individual is a suspect (and thus the information may be
used against the individual), covered entities may disclose the
protected health information pursuant to \' 164.512(f)(2) regarding
suspects and not pursuant to \' 164.512(f)(3) regarding victims. Thus,
in these situations, covered entities may disclose only the limited
identifying information listed in \' 164.512(f)(2) B not all of the
protected health information that may be disclosed under \'
164.512(f)(3).

The proposed rule did not address whether a covered entity could
disclose protected health information to a law enforcement official to
alert the official of the individual=s death.

***Disclosures About Decedents***

In the final rule, we add a new provision \' 164.512(f)(4) in which we
permit covered entities to disclose protected health information about
an individual who has died to a law enforcement official for the purpose
of alerting law enforcement of the death if the covered entity has a
suspicion that such death may have resulted from criminal conduct. In
such circumstances consent of the individual is not available and it may
be difficult to determine the identity of a personal representative and
gain consent for disclosure of protected health information. Permitting
disclosures in this circumstance will permit law enforcement officials
to begin their investigation into the death more rapidly, increasingly
the likelihood of success.

***Intelligence and National Security Activities***

Section 164.510(f)(4) of the NPRM would have allowed covered entities to
disclose protected health information to a law enforcement official
without individual authorization for the conduct of lawful intelligence
activities conducted pursuant to the National Security Act of 1947 (50
U.S.C. 401 et seq.) or in connection with providing protective services
to the President or other individuals pursuant to section 3056 of Title
18, United States Code. In the final rule, we move provisions regarding
disclosures of protected health information for intelligence and
protective services activities to \' 164.512(k) regarding uses and
disclosures for specialized government functions.

***Criminal Conduct on the Premises of a Covered Entity***

The NPRM would have allowed covered entities on their own initiative to
disclose to law enforcement officials protected health information that
the covered entity believed in good faith constituted evidence of
criminal conduct that arose out of and was directly related to: (A) the
receipt of health care or payment for health care, including a
fraudulent claim for health care; (B) qualification for or receipt of
benefits, payments, or services based on a fraudulent statement or
material misrepresentation of the health of the individual; that
occurred on the covered entity=s premises or was witnessed by a member
of the covered entity=s workforce.

In the final rule, we modify this provision substantially, by
eliminating language allowing disclosures already permitted in other
sections of the regulation. The proposed provision overlapped with other
sections of the NPRM, in particular proposed \' 164.510(c) regarding
disclosure for health oversight activities. In the final regulation, we
clarify that this provision applies only to disclosures to law
enforcement officials of protected health information that the covered
entity believes in good faith constitutes evidence of a crime committed
on the premises. We eliminate proposed \' 164.510(f)(5)(i) regarding
health care fraud from the law enforcement section, because all
disclosures that would have been allowed under that provision are
allowed under \' 164.512(d) of the final rule (health oversight).
Similarly, in the final rule, we eliminate proposed \'
164.510(f)(5)(iii) on disclosure of protected health information to law
enforcement officials regarding criminal activity witnessed by a member
of a health plan workforce. All disclosures that would have been
permitted by that provision are included in \' 164.512(f)(5), which
allows disclosure of information to report a crime committed on the
covered entity=s premises, and by \' 164.502, which provides that a
covered entity is not in violation of the rule when a member of its
workforce or person working for a business associate uses or discloses
protected health information while acting as a Awhistle blower.@ Thus,
\' 164.512(f)(5) allows covered entities to disclose health information
only on the good faith belief that it constitutes evidence of a crime on
their premises. The preamble to the NPRM said that if the covered entity
disclosed protected health information in good faith but was wrong in
its belief that the information was evidence of a violation of law, the
covered entity would not be subject to sanction under this regulation.
The final rule retains this approach.

***Reporting Crime in Emergencies***

The proposed rule did not address disclosures by emergency medical
personnel to a law enforcement official intended to alert law
enforcement about the commission of a crime. Because the provisions of
proposed rule were limited to individually identifiable health
information that was reduced to electronic form, many communications
that occur between emergency medical personnel and law enforcement
officials at the scene of a crime would not have been covered by the
proposed provisions.

In the final rule we include a new provision \' 164.512(f)(6) that
addresses A911@ calls for emergency medical technicians as well as other
emergency health care in response to a medical emergency. The final rule
permits a covered health care provider providing emergency health care
in response to a medical emergency, other than such emergency on the
premises of the covered health care provider, to disclose protected
health information to a law enforcement official if such disclosure
appears necessary to alert law enforcement to (1) the commission and
nature of a crime, (2) the location of such crime or of the victim(s) of
such crime, and (3) the identity, description, and location of the
perpetrator of such crime. A disclosure is not permitted under this
section if health care provider believes that the medical emergency is
the result of abuse, neglect, or domestic violence of the individual in
need of emergency health care. In such cases, disclosures to law
enforcement would be governed by paragraph (c) of this section.

This added provision recognizes the special role of emergency medical
technicians and other providers who respond to medical emergencies. In
emergencies, emergency medical personnel often arrive on the scene
before or at the same time as police officers, firefighters, and other
emergency response personnel. In these cases, providers may be in the
best position, and sometimes be the only ones in the position, to alert
law enforcement about criminal activity. For instance, providers may be
the first persons aware that an individual has been the victim of a
battery or an attempted murder. They may also be in the position to
report in real time, through use of radio or other mechanism,
information that may immediately contribute to the apprehension of a
perpetrator of a crime.

We note that disclosure under this provision is at the discretion of the
health care provider. Disclosures in some instances may be governed more
strictly, such as by applicable ethical standards and state and local
laws.

Finally, the NPRM also included a proposed \' 164.510(f)(5), which
duplicated proposed \' 164.510(f)(3). The final rule does not include
this duplicate provision.

***Additional Considerations***

As stated in the NPRM, this paragraph is not intended to limit or
preclude a covered entity from asserting any lawful defense or otherwise
contesting the nature or scope of the process when the procedural rules
governing the proceeding so allow. At the same time, it is not intended
to create a basis for appealing to federal court concerning a request by
state law enforcement officials. Each covered entity will continue to
have available legal procedures applicable in the appropriate
jurisdiction to contest such requests where warranted.

As was the case with the NPRM, this rule does not create any new
affirmative requirement for disclosure of protected health information.
Similarly, this section is not intended to limit a covered entity from
disclosing protected health information to law enforcement officials
where other sections of the rule permit such disclosure, e.g., as
permitted by \' 164.512(j) to avert an imminent threat to health or
safety, for health oversight activities, to coroners or medical
examiners, and in other circumstances permitted by the rule. For
additional provisions permitting covered entities to disclose protected
health information to law enforcement officials, see \' 164.512(j)(1)(i)
and (ii).

Under the NPRM and under the final rule, to obtain protected health
information, law enforcement officials must comply with whatever other
law is applicable. In certain circumstances, while this provision could
authorize a covered entity to disclose protected health information to
law enforcement officials, there could be additional applicable statutes
or rules that further govern the specific disclosure. If the preemption
provisions of this regulation do not apply, the covered entity must
comply with the requirements or limitations established by such other
law, regulation or judicial precedent. See \'\' 160.201 through 160.205.
For example, if state law permits disclosure only after compulsory
process with court review, a provider or payor is not allowed to
disclose information to state law enforcement officials unless the
officials have complied with that requirement. Similarly, disclosure of
substance abuse patient records subject to, 42 U.S.C. 290dd-2, and the
implementing regulations, 42 CFR part 2, continue to be governed by
those provisions.

In some instances, disclosure of protected health information to law
enforcement officials will be compelled by other law, for example, by
compulsory judicial process or compulsory reporting laws (such as laws
requiring reporting of wounds from violent crimes, suspected child
abuse, or suspected theft of controlled substances). As discussed above,
disclosure of protected health information under such other mandatory
law is permitted under \' 164.512(a).

In the responses to comments we clarify that items such as cells and
tissues are not protected health information, but that analyses of them
is. The same treatment would be given other physical items, such as
clothing, weapons, or a bloody knife. We note, however, that while these
items are not protected health information and may be disclosed, some
communications that could accompany the disclosure will be protected
health information under the rule. For example, if a person provides
cells to a researcher, and tells the researcher that these are an
identified individual=s cancer cells, that accompanying statement is
protected health information about that individual. Similarly, if a
person provides a bullet to law enforcement, and tells law enforcement
that the bullet was extracted from an identified individual, the person
has disclosed the fact that the individual was treated for a wound, and
the additional statement is a disclosure of protected health
information.

To be able to make the additional statement accompanying the provision
of the bullet, a covered entity must look to the rule to find a
provision under which a disclosure may be made to law enforcement.
Section 164.512(f) of the rule addresses disclosures for law enforcement
purposes. Under \' 164.512(f)(1), the additional statement may be
disclosed to a law enforcement official if required by law or with
appropriate process. Under \' 164.512(f)(2), we permit covered entities
to disclose limited identifying information without legal process in
response to a request from a law enforcement official for the purpose of
identifying or locating a suspect, fugitive, material witness, or
missing person. Thus, in the case of bullet described above, the covered
entity may, in response to a law enforcement request, provide the
extracted bullet and such additional limited identifying information as
is permitted under \' 164.512(f)(2).

**Section 164.512(g)CUses and Disclosures About Decedents**

In the NPRM we proposed to allow covered entities to disclose protected
health information without individual authorization to coroners and
medical examiners, consistent with applicable law, for identification of
a deceased person or to determine cause of death.

In \' 164.512(g) of the final rule, we permit covered entities to
disclose protected health information to coroners, medical examiners,
and funeral directors as part of a new paragraph on disclosures related
to death. The final rule retains the NPRM approach regarding disclosure
of protected health information to coroners and medical examiners, and
it allows the information disclosed to coroners and medical examiners to
include identifying information about other persons that may be included
in the individual=s medical record. Redaction of such names is not
required prior to disclosing the individual=s record to coroners or
medical examiners. Since covered entities may also perform duties of a
coroner or medical examiner, where a covered entity is itself a coroner
or medical examiner, the final rule permits the covered entity to use
protected health information in all cases in which it is permitted to
disclose such information for its duties as a coroner or medical
examiner.

Section 164.512(g) allows covered entities to disclose protected health
information to funeral directors, consistent with applicable law, as
necessary to carry out their duties with respect to a decedent. For
example, the rule allows hospitals to disclose to funeral directors the
fact that an individual has donated an organ or tissue, because this
information has implications for funeral home staff duties associated
with embalming. When necessary for funeral directors to carry out their
duties, covered entities may disclose protected health information prior
to and in reasonable anticipation of the individual=s death.

Whereas the NPRM did not address the issue of disclosure of
psychotherapy notes without individual authorization to coroners and
medical examiners, the final rule allows such disclosures.

The NPRM did not include in proposed \' 164.510(e) language stating that
where a covered entity was itself a coroner or medical examiner, it
could use protected health information for the purposes of engaging in a
coroner=s or a medical examiner=s activities. The final rule includes
such language to address situations such as where a public hospital
performs medical examiner functions. In such cases, the hospital=s
on-staff coroners can use protected health information while conducting
post-mortem investigations, and other hospital staff can analyze any
information associated with these investigations, for example, as part
of the process of determining the cause of the individual=s death.

**Section 164.512(h)CUses and Disclosures for Cadaveric Donation of
Organs, Eyes, or Tissues**

In the NPRM we proposed to include the procurement or banking of blood,
sperm, organs, or any other tissue for administration to patients in the
definition of Ahealth care@ (described in proposed \' 160.103). The
NPRM=s proposed approach did not differentiate between situations in
which the donor was competent to consent to the donation B for example,
when an individual is donating blood, sperm, a kidney, or a liver or
lung lobe B and situations in which the donor was deceased, for example,
when cadaveric organs and tissues were being donated. We also proposed
to allow use and disclosure of protected health information for
treatment without consent.

In the final rule, we take a different approach. In \' 164.512(h), we
permit covered entities to disclose protected health information without
individual authorization to organ procurement organizations or other
entities engaged in the procurement, banking, or transplantation of
cadaveric organs, eyes, or tissue for donation and transplantation. This
provision is intended to address situations in which an individual has
not previously indicated whether he or she seeks to donate organs, eyes,
or tissues (and therefore authorized release of protected health
information for this purpose). In such situations, this provision is
intended to allow covered entities to initiate contact with organ and
tissue donation and transplantation organizations to facilitate
transplantation of cadaveric organs, eyes, and tissues.

**Disclosures and Uses for Government Health Data Systems**

In the NPRM we proposed to permit covered entities to disclose protected
health information to a government agency, or to a private entity acting
on behalf of a government agency, for inclusion in a government health
data system collecting health data for analysis in support of policy,
planning, regulatory, or management functions authorized by law. The
NPRM stated that when a covered entity was itself a government agency
collecting health data for these functions, it could use protected
health information in all cases for which it was permitted to disclose
such information to government health data systems.

In the final rule, we eliminate the provision that would have allowed
covered entities to disclose protected health information to government
health data systems without authorization. Thus, under the final rule,
covered entities cannot disclose protected health information without
authorization to government health data systems B or to private health
data systems B unless the disclosure is permissible under another
provision of the rule.

**Disclosures for Payment Processes**

In the NPRM we proposed to permit covered entities to disclose, in
connection with routine banking activities or payment by debit, credit,
or other payment card, or other payment means, the minimum amount of
protected health information necessary to complete a banking or payment
activity to financial institutions or to entities acting on behalf of
financial institutions to authorize, process, clear, settle, bill,
transfer, reconcile, or collect payments for financial institutions.

The preamble to the NPRM clarified the proposed rule=s intent regarding
disclosure of diagnostic and treatment information along with payment
information to financial institutions. The preamble to the proposed rule
said that diagnostic and treatment information never was necessary to
process a payment transaction. The preamble said we believed that in
most cases, the permitted disclosure would include only: (1) the name
and address of the account holder; (2) the name and address of the payor
or provider; (3) the amount of the charge for health services; (4) the
date on which health services were rendered; (5) the expiration date for
the payment mechanism, if applicable; and (6) the individual=s
signature. The preamble noted that the proposed regulation text did not
include an exclusive list of information that could lawfully be
disclosed to process payments, and it solicited comments on whether more
elements would be needed for banking and payment transactions and on
whether including a specific list of protected health information that
could be disclosed was an appropriate approach.

The preamble also noted that under section 1179 of HIPAA, certain
activities of financial institutions were exempt from this rule, to the
extent that these activities constituted authorizing, processing,
clearing, settling, billing, transferring, reconciling, or collecting
payments for health care or health plan premiums.

In the final rule, we eliminate the NPRM=s provision on Abanking and
payment processes.@ All disclosures that would have been allowed
pursuant to proposed \' 164.510(i) are allowed under \' 164.502(a) of
the final rule, regarding disclosure for payment purposes.

**Section 164.512(i)CUses and Disclosures for Research Purposes**

The NPRM would have permitted covered entities to use and disclose
protected health information for researchBregardless of funding
sourceBwithout individual authorization, provided that the covered
entity obtained documentation of the following:

\(1\) a waiver, in whole or in part, of authorization for the use or
disclosure of protected health information was approved by an
Institutional Review Board (IRB) or a privacy board that was composed as
stipulated in the proposed rule;

\(2\) the date of approval of the waiver, in whole or in part, of
authorization by an IRB or privacy board;

\(3\) the IRB or privacy board had determined that the waiver, in whole
or in part satisfied the following criteria:

\(i\) the use or disclosure of protected health information involves no
more than minimal risk to the subjects;

\(ii\) the waiver will not adversely affect the rights and welfare of
the subjects;

\(iii\) the research could not practicably be conducted without the
waiver;

\(iv\) whenever appropriate, the subjects will be provided with
additional pertinent information after participation;

\(v\) the research could not practicably be conducted without access to
and use of the protected health information;

\(vi\) the research is of sufficient importance so as to outweigh the
intrusion of the privacy of the individual whose information is subject
to the disclosure;

\(vii\) there is an adequate plan to protect the identifiers from
improper use and disclosure; and

\(viii\) there is an adequate plan to destroy the identifiers at the
earliest opportunity consistent with the conduct of the research, unless
there is a health or research justification for retaining the
identifiers; and

\(4\) the written documentation was signed by the chair of, as
applicable, the IRB or the privacy board.

The NPRM also proposed that IRBs and privacy boards be permitted to
adopt procedures for Aexpedited review@ similar to those provided in the
Common Rule (Common Rule \' \_\_\_\_.110) for records research that
involved no more than minimal risk. However, this provision for
expedited review was not included in the proposed regulation text.

The board that would determine whether the research protocol met the
eight specified criteria for waiving the patient authorization
requirements (described above), could have been an IRB constituted as
required by the Common Rule, or a privacy board, whose proposed
composition is described below. The NPRM proposed no requirements for
the location or sponsorship of the IRB or privacy board. Under the NPRM,
the covered entity could have created such a board and could have relied
on it to review research proposals for uses and disclosures of protected
health information for research. A covered entity also could have relied
on the necessary documentation from an outside researcher=s own
university IRB or privacy board. In addition, a covered entity could
have engaged the services of an outside IRB or privacy board to obtain
the necessary documentation.

Absent documentation that the requirements described above had been met,
the NPRM would have required individuals= authorization for the use or
disclosure of protected health information for research, pursuant to the
authorization requirements in proposed \' 164.508. For research
conducted with patient authorization, documentation of IRB or privacy
board approval would not have been required.

The final rule retains the NPRM=s proposed framework for permitting uses
and disclosures of protected health information for research purposes,
although we are making several important changes for the final rule.
These changes are discussed below:

***Documentation Requirements of IRB or Privacy Board Approval of
Waiver***

The final rule retains these documentation requirements, but modifies
some of them and includes two additional documentation requirements. The
final rule=s modifications to the NPRM=s proposed documentation
requirements are described first, followed by a description of the three
documentation requirements added in the final rule.

The final rule makes the following modifications to the NPRM=s proposed
documentation requirements for the waiver of individual authorization:

1\. *IRB and privacy board membership*. The NPRM stipulated that to meet
the requirements of proposed \' 164.510(j), the documentation would need
to indicate that the IRB had been composed as required by the Common
Rule (\' \_\_\_.107), and the privacy board had been composed as
follows: A(A) Has members with varying backgrounds and appropriate
professional competency as necessary to review the research protocol;
(B) Includes at least one member who is not affiliated with the entity
conducting the research, or related to a person who is affiliated with
such entity; and (C) Does not have any member participating in a review
of any project in which the member has a conflict of interest@ (\'
164.510(j)(1)(ii)).

The final rule modifies the first of the requirements for the
composition of a privacy board to focus on the effect of the research
protocol on the individual=s privacy rights and related interests.
Therefore, under the final rule, the required documentation must
indicate that the privacy board has members with varying backgrounds and
appropriate professional competency as necessary to review the effect of
the research protocol on the individual=s privacy rights and related
interests.

In addition, the final rule further restricts the NPRM=s proposed
requirement that the privacy board include at least one member who was
not affiliated with the entity conducting the research, or related to a
person who is affiliated with such entity. Under the final rule, the
board must include at least one member who is not affiliated with the
covered entity, not affiliated with any entity conducting or sponsoring
the research, and not related to any person who is affiliated with such
entities.

The other documentation requirements for the composition of an IRB and
privacy board remain the same.

2\. *Waiver of authorization criteria*. The NPRM proposed to prohibit
the use or disclosure of protected health information for research
without individual authorization as stipulated in proposed \' 164.508
unless the covered entity had documentation indicating that an IRB or
privacy board had determined that the following waiver criteria had been
met:

\(i\) the use or disclosure of protected health information involves no
more than minimal risk to the subjects;

\(ii\) the waiver will not adversely affect the rights and welfare of
the subjects;

\(iii\) the research could not practicably be conducted without the
waiver;

\(iv\) whenever appropriate, the subjects will be provided with
additional pertinent information after participation;

\(v\) the research could not be practicably be conducted without access
to and use of the protected health information;

\(vi\) the research is of sufficient importance so as to outweigh the
intrusion of the privacy of the individual whose information is subject
to the disclosure;

\(vii\) there is an adequate plan to protect the identifiers from
improper use and disclosure; and

\(viii\) there is an adequate plan to destroy the identifiers at the
earliest opportunity consistent with the conduct of the research, unless
there is a health or research justification for retaining the
identifiers.

The final rule continues to permit the documentation of IRB or privacy
board approval of a waiver of an authorization as required by \'
164.508, to indicate that only some or all of the \' 164.508
authorization requirements have been waived. In addition, the final rule
clarifies that the documentation of IRB or privacy board approval may
indicate that the authorization requirements have been altered. Also,
for all of the proposed waiver of authorization criteria that used the
term Asubject,@ we replace this term with the term Aindividual@ in the
final rule.

In addition, the final rule (1) eliminates proposed waiver criterion iv,
(2) modifies proposed waiver criteria ii, iii, vi, and viii, and (3)
adds a waiver criterion.

Proposed waiver criterion ii (waiver criterion \' 164.512(i)(2)(ii)(B)
in the final rule) is revised as follows to focus more narrowly on the
privacy interests of individuals, and to clarify that it also pertains
to alterations of individual authorization: Athe alteration or waiver
will not adversely affect the privacy rights and the welfare of the
individuals.@ Under criterion \' 164.512(i)(2)(ii)(B), the question is
whether the alteration or waiver of individual authorization would
adversely affect the privacy rights and the welfare of individuals, not
whether the research project itself would adversely affect the privacy
rights or the welfare of individuals.

Proposed waiver criterion iii (waiver criterion \' 164.512(i)(2)(ii)(C)
in the final rule) is revised as follows to clarify that it also
pertains to alterations of individual authorization: Athe research could
not practicably be conducted without the alteration or waiver.@

Proposed waiver criterion vi (waiver criterion \' 164.512(i)(2)(ii)(E)
in the final rule) is revised as follows to be more consistent with one
of the Common Rule=s requirements for the approval of human subjects
research (Common Rule, \' \_\_\_.111(a)(2)): Athe privacy risks to
individuals whose protected health information is to be used or
disclosed are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits if any to
individuals, and the importance of the knowledge that may reasonably be
expected to result from the research.@ Under criterion \'
164.512(i)(2)(ii)(E), the question is whether the risks to an
individual=s privacy from participating in the research are reasonable
in relation to the anticipated benefits from the research. This
criterion is unlike waiver criterion \' 164.512(i)(2)(ii)(B) in that it
focuses on the privacy risks and benefits of the research project more
broadly, not on the waiver of individual authorization.

Proposed waiver criterion viii (waiver criterion \' 164.512(i)(2)(ii)(G)
in the final rule) is revised as follows: Athere is an adequate plan to
destroy the identifiers at the earliest opportunity consistent with the
conduct of the research, unless there is a health or research
justification for retaining the identifiers, or such retention is
otherwise required by law.@

In addition, the final rule includes another waiver criterion: waiver
criterion \' 164.512(i)(2)(ii)(H). The NPRM proposed no restriction on a
researchers= further use or disclosure of protected health information
that had been received under proposed \' 164.510(j). The final rule
requires that the covered entity obtain written agreement from the
person or entity receiving protected health information under \'
164.512(i) not to re-use or disclose protected health information to any
other person or entity, except: (1) as required by law, (2) for
authorized oversight of the research project, or (3) for other research
for which the use or disclosure of protected health information would be
permitted by this subpart. For instance, in assessing whether this
criterion has been met, we encourage IRBs and privacy boards to obtain
adequate assurances that the protected health information will not be
disclosed to an individual=s employer for employment decisions without
the individual=s authorization.

3\. *Required signature.* The rule broadens the types of individuals who
are permitted to sign the required documentation of IRB or privacy board
approval. The final rule requires the documentation of the alteration or
waiver of authorization to be signed by (1) the chair of, as applicable,
the IRB or the privacy board, or (2) a member of the IRB or privacy
board, as applicable, who is designated by the chair to sign the
documentation.

Furthermore, the final rule makes the following three additions to the
proposed documentation requirements for the alteration or waiver of
authorization:

1\. *Identification of the IRB or privacy board.* The NPRM did not
propose that the documentation of waiver include a statement identifying
the IRB or privacy board that approved the waiver of authorization. In
the final rule we require that such a statement be included in the
documentation of alteration or waiver of individual authorization. By
this requirement we mean that the name of the IRB or privacy board must
be included in such documentation, not the names of individual members
of the board.

2\. *Description of protected health information approved for use or
disclosure*. The NPRM did not propose that the documentation of waiver
include a description of the protected health information that the IRB
or privacy board had approved for use or disclosure without individual
authorization. In considering waiver of authorization criterion \'
164.512(i)(2)(ii)(D), we expect the IRB or privacy board to consider the
amount of information that is minimally needed for the study. The final
rule requires that the documentation of IRB or privacy board approval of
the alteration or waiver of authorization describe the protected health
information for which use or access has been determined to be necessary
for the research by the IRB or privacy board. For example, if the IRB or
privacy board approves only the use or disclosure of certain information
from patients= medical records, and not patients= entire medical record,
this must be stated on the document certifying IRB or privacy board
approval.

3\. *Review and approval procedures.* The NPRM would not have required
documentation of IRBs= or privacy boards= review and approval
procedures. In the final rule, the documentation of the alteration or
waiver of authorization must state that the alteration or waiver has
been reviewed and approved by: (1) an IRB that has followed the voting
requirements stipulated in the Common Rule (\' \_\_\_.108(b)), or the
expedited review procedures as stipulated in \' \_\_\_.110(b); or (2) a
privacy board that has reviewed the proposed research at convened
meetings at which a majority of the privacy board members are present,
including at least one member who is not affiliated with the covered
entity, not affiliated with any entity conducting or sponsoring the
research, and not related to any person who is affiliated with any such
entities, and the alteration or waiver of authorization is approved by
the majority of privacy board members present at the meeting, unless an
expedited review procedure is used.

For documentation of IRB approval that used an expedited review
procedure, the covered entity must ensure that the documentation
indicates that the IRB followed the expedited review requirements of the
Common Rule (\' \_\_\_.110). For documentation of privacy board approval
that used an expedited review procedure, the covered entity must ensure
that the documentation indicates that the privacy board met the
expedited review requirements of the privacy rule. In the final rule, a
privacy board may use an expedited review procedure if the research
involves no more than minimal risk to the privacy of the individuals who
are the subject of the protected health information for which disclosure
is being sought. If a privacy board elects to use an expedited review
procedure, the review and approval of the alteration or waiver of
authorization may be carried out by the chair of the privacy board, or
by one or more members of the privacy board as designated by the chair.
Use of the expedited review mechanism permits review by a single member
of the IRB or privacy board, but continues to require that the covered
entity obtain documentation that all of the specified waiver criteria
have been met.

***Reviews Preparatory to Research***

Under the NPRM, if a covered entity used or disclosed protected health
information for research, but the researcher did not record the
protected health information in a manner that persons could be
identified, such an activity would have constituted a research use or
disclosure that would have been subject to either the individual
authorization requirements of proposed \' 164.508 or the documentation
of the waiver of authorization requirements of proposed \' 164.510(j).

The final rule permits the use and disclosure of protected health
information for research without requiring authorization or
documentation of the alteration or waiver of authorization, if the
research is conducted in such a manner that only de-identified protected
health information is recorded by the researchers and the protected
health information is not removed from the premises of the covered
entity. For such uses and disclosures of protected health information,
the final rule requires that the covered entity obtain from the
researcher representations that use or disclosure is sought solely to
review protected health information as necessary to prepare a research
protocol or for similar purposes preparatory to research, no protected
health information is to be removed from the covered entity by the
researcher in the course of the review, and the protected health
information for which use or access is sought is necessary for the
research purposes. The intent of this provision is to permit covered
entities to use and disclose protected health information to assist in
the development of a research hypothesis and aid in the recruitment of
research participants. We understand that researchers sometimes require
access to protected health information to develop a research protocol,
and to determine whether a specific covered entity has protected health
information of prospective research participants that would meet the
eligibility criteria for enrollment into a research study. Therefore,
this provision permits covered entities to use and disclose protected
health information for these preliminary research activities without
individual authorization and without documentation that an IRB or
privacy board has altered or waived individual authorization.

***Research on Protected Health Information of the Deceased***

The NPRM would have permitted the use and disclosure of protected health
information of deceased persons for research without the authorization
of a legal representative, and without the requirement for written
documentation of IRB or privacy board approval in proposed \'
164.510(j). In the final rule, we retain the exception for uses and
disclosures for research purposes but in addition require that the
covered entity take certain protective measures prior to release of the
decedent=s protected health information for such purposes. Specifically,
the final rule requires that the covered entity obtain representation
that the use or disclosure is sought solely for research on the
protected health information of decedent, and representation that the
protected health information for which use or disclosure is sought is
necessary for the research purposes. In addition, the final rule allows
covered entities to request from the researcher documentation of the
death of the individuals about whom protected health information is
being sought.

***Good Faith Reliance***

The final rule clarifies that covered entities are allowed to rely on
the IRB=s or privacy board=s representation that the research proposal
meets the documentation requirements of \' 164.512(i)(1)(i) and the
minimum necessary requirements of \' 164.514.

In addition, when using or disclosing protected health information for
reviews preparatory to research (\' 164.512(i)(1)(ii)) or for research
solely on the protected health information of decedents (\'
164.512)(1)(iii)), the final rule clarifies that the covered entity may
rely on the requesting researcher=s representation that the purpose of
the request is for one of these two purpose, and that the request meets
the minimum necessary requirements of \' 164.514. Therefore, the covered
entity has not violated the rule if the requesting researcher
misrepresents his or her intended use of the protected health
information to the covered entity.

***Additional Research Provisions***

*Research Including Treatment*

To the extent that a researcher provided treatment to persons as part of
a research study, the NPRM would have covered such researchers as health
care providers for purposes of that treatment, and required that the
researcher comply with all of the provisions of the rule that would be
applicable to health care providers. The final rule retains this
requirement.

*Individual Access to Research Information*

Under proposed \' 164.514, the NPRM would have applied the proposed
provision regarding individuals= access to records to research that
includes the delivery of treatment. The NPRM proposed an exception to
individuals= right to access protected health information for clinical
trials, where (1) protected health information was obtained by a covered
entity in the course of clinical trial, (2) the individual agreed to the
denial of access when consenting to participate in the trial (if the
individual=s consent to participate was obtained), and (3) the trial was
still in progress.

Section 164.524 of the final rule retains this exception to access for
research that includes treatment. In addition, the final rule requires
that participants in such research be informed that their right of
access to protected health information about them will be reinstated
once the research is complete.

*Obtaining the Individual=s Authorization for Research*

The NPRM would have required covered entities obtaining individuals=
authorization for the use or disclosure of information for research to
comply with the requirements applicable to individual authorization for
the release of protected health information (proposed \' 164.508(a)(2)).
If an individual had initiated the use or disclosure of his/her
protected health information for research, or any other purpose, the
covered entity would have been required to obtain a completed
authorization for the use or disclosure of protected health information
as proposed in \' 164.508(c).

The final rule retains these requirements for research conducted with
authorization, as required by \' 164.508. In addition, for the use and
disclosure of protected health information created by a covered entity
for the purpose, in whole or in part, of research that includes
treatment of the individual, the covered entity must meet the
requirements of \' 164.508(f).

*Interaction with the Common Rule*

The NPRM stated that the proposed rule would not override the Common
Rule. Where both the NPRM and the Common Rule would have applied to
research conducted by the covered entityBeither with or without
individuals= authorizationBboth sets of regulations would have needed to
be followed. This statement remains true in the final rule. In addition,
we clarify that FDA=s human subjects regulations must also be followed
if applicable.

**Section 164.512(j)CUses and Disclosures to Avert a Serious Threat to
Health or Safety**

In the NPRM we proposed to allow covered entities to use or disclose
protected health information without individual authorization B
consistent with applicable law and ethics standards B based on a
reasonable belief that use or disclosure of the protected health
information was necessary to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent
threat to health or safety of an individual or of the public. Pursuant
to the NPRM, covered entities could have used or disclosed protected
health information in these emergency circumstances to a person or
persons reasonably able to prevent or lessen the threat, including the
target of the threat. The NPRM stated that covered entities that made
disclosures in these circumstances were presumed to have acted under a
reasonable belief if the disclosure was made in good faith, based on
credible representation by a person with apparent knowledge or
authority. The NPRM did not include verification requirements specific
to this paragraph.

In \' 164.512(j) of the final rule, we retain the NPRM=s approach to
uses and disclosures made to prevent or lessen serious and imminent
threats to health or safety, as well as its language regarding the
presumption of good faith. We also clarify that: (1) rules governing
these situations, which the NPRM referred to as Aemergency
circumstances,@ are not intended to apply to emergency care treatment,
such as health care delivery in a hospital emergency room; and (2) the
Apresumption of good faith belief@ is intended to apply only to this
provision and not to all disclosures permitted without individual
authorization. The final rule allows covered entities to use or disclose
protected health information without an authorization on their own
initiative in these circumstances, when necessary to prevent or lessen a
serious and imminent threat, consistent with other applicable ethical or
legal standards.

The rule=s approach is consistent with the Aduty to warn@ third persons
at risk, which has been established through case law. In *Tarasoff v.
Regents of the University of California* (17 Cal. 3d 425 (1976)), the
Supreme Court of California found that when a therapist=s patient had
made credible threats against the physical safety of a specific person,
the therapist had an obligation to use reasonable care to protect the
intended victim of his patient against danger, including warning the
victim of the danger. Many states have adopted, through either statutory
or case law, versions of the *Tarasoff* duty to warn. The rule is not
intended to create a duty to warn or disclose. Rather, it permits
disclosure to avert a serious and imminent threat to health or safety
consistent with other applicable legal or ethical standards. If
disclosure in these circumstances is prohibited by state law, this rule
would not allow the disclosure.

As indicated above, in some situations (for example, when a person is
both a fugitive and a victim and thus covered entities could disclose
protected health information pursuant either to \' 164.512(f)(2)
regarding fugitives or to \' 164.512(f)(3) establishing conditions for
disclosure about victims), more than one section of this rule
potentially could apply with respect to a covered entity=s potential
disclosure of protected health information. Similarly, in situations
involving a serious and imminent threat to public health or safety, law
enforcement officials may be seeking protected health information from
covered entities to locate a fugitive. In the final rule, we clarify
that if a situation fits one section of the rule (for example, \'
164.512(j) on serious and imminent threats to health or safety), covered
entities may disclose protected health information pursuant to that
section, regardless of whether the disclosure also could be made
pursuant to another section (e.g., \' 164.512(f)), regarding disclosure
to law enforcement officials).

The proposed rule did not address situations in which covered entities
could make disclosures to law enforcement officials about oral
statements admitting participation in violent conduct or about escapees.

In the final rule we permit, but do not require, covered entities to use
or disclose protected health information, consistent with applicable law
and standards of ethical conduct, in specific situations in which the
covered entity, in good faith, believes the use or disclosure is
necessary to permit law enforcement authorities to identify or apprehend
an individual. Under paragraph (j)(1)(ii)(A) of this section, a covered
entity may take such action because of a statement by an individual
admitting participation in a violent crime that the covered entity
reasonably believes may have resulted in serious physical harm to the
victim. The protected health information that is disclosed in this case
is limited to the statement and to the protected health information
included under the limited identifying and location information in \'
164.512(f)(2), such as name, address, and type of injury. Under
paragraph (j)(1)(ii)(B) of this section, a covered entity may take such
action where it appears from all the circumstances that the individual
has escaped from a correctional institution or from lawful custody.

A disclosure may not be made under paragraph (j)(1)(ii)(A) for a
statement admitting participation in a violent crime if the covered
entity learns the information in the course of counseling or therapy.
Similarly, such a disclosure is not permitted if the covered entity
learns the information in the course of treatment to affect the
propensity to commit the violent crimes that are described in the
individual\'s statements. We do not intend to discourage individuals
from speaking accurately in the course of counseling or therapy
sessions, or to discourage other treatment that specifically seeks to
reduce the likelihood that someone who has acted violently in the past
will do so again in the future. This prohibition on disclosure is
triggered once an individual has made a request to initiate or be
referred to such treatment, therapy, or counseling.

The provision permitting use and disclosure has been added in light of
the broadened definition in the final rule of protected health
information. Under the NPRM, protected health information meant
individually identifiable health information that is or has been
electronically transmitted or electronically maintained by a covered
entity. Under the final rule, protected health information includes
information transmitted by electronic media as well as such information
transmitted or maintained in any other form or medium. The new
definition includes oral statements to covered entities as well as
individually identifiable health information transmitted \"in any other
form.\"

The definition of protected health information, for instance, would now
apply to a statement by a patient that is overheard by a hospital
security guard in a waiting room. Such a statement would have been
outside the scope of the proposed rule (unless it was memorialized in an
electronic record), but is within the scope of the final rule. For the
example with the hospital guard, the new provision permitting disclosure
of a statement by an individual admitting participation in a violent
crime would have the same effect as the proposed rule \-- the statement
could be disclosed to law enforcement, so long as the other aspects of
the regulation are followed. Similarly, where it appears from all the
circumstances that the individual has escaped from prison, the expanded
definition of protected health information should not prevent the
covered entity from deciding to report this information to law
enforcement.

The disclosures that covered entities may elect to make under this
paragraph are entirely at their discretion. These disclosures to law
enforcement are in addition to other disclosure provisions in the rule.
For example, under paragraph \' 164.512(f)(2) of this section, a covered
entity may disclose limited categories of protected health information
in response to a request from a law enforcement official for the purpose
of identifying or locating a suspect, fugitive, material witness, or
missing person. Paragraph \' 164.512(f)(1) of this section permits a
covered entity to make disclosures that are required by other laws, such
as state mandatory reporting laws, or are required by legal process such
as court orders or grand jury subpoena.

**Section 164.512(k)CUses and Disclosures for Specialized Government
Functions**

***Application to Military Services***

In the NPRM we would have permitted a covered entity providing health
care to Armed Forces personnel to use and disclose protected health
information for activities deemed necessary by appropriate military
command authorities to assure the proper execution of the military
mission, where the appropriate military authority had published by
notice in the *Federal Register* (In the NPRM, we proposed that the
Department of Defense would publish this *Federal Register* notice in
the future.) The final rule takes a similar approach while making some
modifications to the NPRM. One modification concerns the information
that will be required in the *Federal Register* notice. The NPRM would
have required a listing of (i) appropriate military command authorities;
(ii) the circumstances for which use or disclosure without individual
authorization would be required; and (iii) activities for which such use
or disclosure would occur in order to assure proper execution of the
military mission. In the final rule, we eliminate the third category and
also slightly modify language in the second category to read: Athe
purposes for which the protected health information may be used or
disclosed.@

An additional modification concerns the rule=s application to foreign
military and diplomatic personnel. The NPRM would have excluded foreign
diplomatic and military personnel, as well as their dependents, from the
proposed definition of Aindividual,@ thereby excluding any protected
health information created about these personnel from the NPRM=s privacy
protections. Foreign military and diplomatic personnel affected by this
provision include, for example, allied military personnel who are in the
United States for training. The final rule applies a more limited
exemption to foreign military personnel only (Foreign diplomatic
personnel will have the same protections granted to all other
individuals under the rule). Under the final rule, foreign military
personnel are not excluded from the definition of Aindividual.@ Covered
entities will be able to use and disclose protected health information
of foreign military personnel to their appropriate foreign military
authority for the same purposes for which uses and disclosures are
permitted for U.S. Armed Forces personnel under the notice to be
published in the *Federal Register*. Foreign military personnel do have
the same rights of access, notice, right to request privacy protection,
copying, amendment, and accounting as do other individuals pursuant to
\'\' 164.520-164.526 (sections on access, notice, right to request
privacy protection for protected health information, amendment,
inspection, copying) of the rule.

The NPRM likewise would have exempted overseas foreign national
beneficiaries from the proposed rule=s requirements by excluding them
from the definition of Aindividual.@ Under the final rule, these
beneficiaries no longer are exempt from the definition of Aindividual.@
However, the rule=s provisions do not apply to the individually
identifiable health information of overseas foreign nationals who
receive care provided by the Department of Defense, other federal
agencies, or by non-governmental organizations incident to U.S.
sponsored missions or operations.

The final rule includes a new provision to address separation or
discharge from military service. The preamble to the NPRM noted that
upon completion of individuals= military service, DOD and the Department
of Transportation routinely transfer entire military service records,
including protected health information to the Department of Veterans
Affairs so that the file can be retrieved quickly if the individuals or
their dependents apply for veterans benefits. The NPRM would have
required consent for such transfers. The final rule no longer requires
consent in such situations. Thus, under the final rule, a covered entity
that is a component of DOD or the Department of Transportation may
disclose to DVA the protected health information of an Armed Forces
member upon separation or discharge from military service for the
purpose of a determination by DVA of the individual=s eligibility for or
entitlement to benefits under laws administered by the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs.

*Department of Veterans Affairs*

Under the NPRM, a covered entity that is a component of the Department
of Veterans Affairs could have used and disclosed protected health
information to other components of the Department that determine
eligibility for, or entitlement to, or that provide benefits under the
laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. In the final
rule, we retain this approach.

*Application to Intelligence Community*

The NPRM would have provided an exemption from its proposed requirements
to the intelligence community. As defined in section 4 of the National
Security Act, 50 U.S.C. 401a, the intelligence community includes: the
Office of the Director of Central Intelligence Agency; the Office of the
Deputy Director of Central Intelligence; the National Intelligence
Council and other such offices as the Director may designate; the
Central Intelligence Agency; the National Security Agency; the Defense
Intelligence Agency; the National Imagery and Mapping Agency ; the
National Reconnaissance Office; other offices within the DOD for the
collection of specialized national intelligence through reconnaissance
programs; the intelligence elements of the Army, the Navy, the Air
Force, the Marine Corps, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the
Department of the Treasury, and the Department of Energy; the Bureau of
Intelligence and Research of the Department of State; and such other
elements of any other department or agency as may be designated by the
President, or designated jointly by the Director of Central Intelligence
and the head of the department or agency concerned, as an element of the
intelligence community. It would have allowed a covered entity to use
without individual authorization protected health information of
employees of the intelligence community, and of their dependents, if
such dependents were being considered for posting abroad. The final rule
does not include such an exemption. Rather, the final rule does not
except intelligence community employees and their dependents from the
general rule requiring an authorization in order for protected health
information to be used and disclosed.

***National Security and Intelligence Activities***

The NPRM included a provision, in \' 164.510(f) B Disclosure for Law
Enforcement Purposes B that would allow covered entities to disclose
protected health information without consent for the conduct of lawful
intelligence activities under the National Security Act, and in
connection with providing protective services to the President or to
foreign heads of state pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3056 and 22 U.S.C.
2709(a)(3) respectively. The final rule preserves these exemptions, with
slight modifications, but moves them from proposed \' 164.510(f) to \'
164.512(k). It also divides this area into two paragraphs B one called
\"National Security and Intelligence Activities\" and the second called
\"Protective services for the President and Others.\"

The final rule, with modifications, allows a covered entity to disclose
protected health information to an authorized federal official for the
conduct of lawful intelligence, counter-intelligence, and other national
security activities authorized by the National Security Act and
implementing authority (e.g., Executive Order 1233). The references to
Acounter-intelligence and other national security activities@ are new to
the final rule. The reference to Aimplementing authority (e.g. Executive
Order 12333)@ is also new. The final rule also adds specificity to the
provision on protective services. It states that a covered entity may
disclose protected health information to authorized federal officials
for the provision of protective services to the President or other
persons as authorized by 18 U.S.C. 3056, or to foreign heads of state or
other persons as authorized by 22 U.S.C. 2709(a)(3), or for the conduct
of investigations authorized by 18 U.S.C. 871 and 879.

***Application to the State Department***

The final rule creates a narrower exemption for Department of State for
uses and disclosures of protected health information (1) for purposes of
a required security clearance conducted pursuant to Executive Orders
10450 and 12698; (2) as necessary to meet the requirements of
determining worldwide availability or availability for mandatory service
abroad under Sections 101(a)(4) and 504 of the Foreign Service Act; and
(3) for a family member to accompany a Foreign Service Officer abroad,
consistent with Section 101(b)(5) and 904 of the Foreign Service Act.

Regarding security clearances, nothing prevents any employer from
requiring that individuals provide authorization for the purpose of
obtaining a security clearance. For the Department of the State,
however, the final rule provides a limited exemption that allows a
component of the Department of State without an authorization to (1) use
protected health information to make medical suitability determinations
and (2) to disclose whether or not the individual was determined to be
medically suitable to authorized officials in the Department of State
for the purpose of a security clearance investigation conducted pursuant
to Executive Order 10450 and 12698.

Sections 101(a)(4) and 504 of the Foreign Service Act require that
Foreign Service members be available to serve in assignments throughout
the world. The final rule permits disclosures to officials who need
protected health information to determine availability for duty
worldwide.

Section 101(b)(5) of the Foreign Service Act requires the Department of
State to mitigate the impact of hardships, disruptions, and other
unusual conditions on families of Foreign Service Officers. Section 904
requires the Department to establish a health care program to promote
and maintain the physical and mental health of Foreign Service member
family members. The final rule permits disclosure of protected health
information to officials who need protected health information for a
family member to accompany a Foreign Service member abroad.

This exemption does not permit the disclosure of specific medical
conditions, diagnoses, or other specific medical information. It permits
only the disclosure of the limited information needed to determine
whether the individual should be granted a security clearance or whether
the Foreign Service member of his or her family members should be posted
to a certain overseas assignment.

***Application to Correctional Facilities***

The NPRM would have excluded the individually identifiable health
information of correctional facility inmates and detention facility
detainees from the definition of protected health information. Thus,
none of the NPRM=s proposed privacy protections would have applied to
correctional facility inmates or to detention facility detainees while
they were in these facilities or after they had been released.

The final rule takes a different approach. First, to clarify that we are
referring to individuals who are incarcerated in correctional facilities
that are part of the criminal justice system or in the lawful custody of
a law enforcement official B and not to individuals who are Adetained@
for non-criminal reasons, for example, in psychiatric institutions B \'
164.512(k) covers disclosure of protected health information to
correctional institutions or law enforcement officials having such
lawful custody. In addition, where a covered health care provider is
also a health care component of a correctional institution, the final
rule permits the covered entity to use protected health information in
all cases in which it is permitted to disclose such information.

We define correctional institution as defined pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
13725(b)(1), as a Aprison, jail, reformatory, work farm, detention
center, or halfway house, or any other similar institution designed for
the confinement or rehabilitation of criminal offenders.@ The rules
regarding disclosure and use of protected health information specified
in \' 164.512(k) cover individuals who are in transitional homes, and
other facilities in which they are required by law to remain for
correctional reasons and from which they are not allowed to leave. This
section also covers individuals who are confined to psychiatric
institutions for correctional reasons and who are not allowed to leave;
however, it does not apply to disclosure of information about
individuals in psychiatric institutions for treatment purposes only, who
are not there due to a crime or under a mandate from the criminal
justice system. The disclosure rules described in this section do not
cover release of protected health information about individuals in
pretrial release, probation, or on parole, such persons are not
considered to be incarcerated in a correctional facility.

As described in \' 164.512(k), correctional facility inmates=
individually identifiable health information is not excluded from the
definition of protected health information. When individuals are
released from correctional facilities, they will have the same privacy
rights that apply to all other individuals under this rule.

Section 164.512(k) of the final rule states that while individuals are
in a correctional facility or in the lawful custody of a law enforcement
official, covered entities (for example, the prison=s clinic) can use or
disclose protected health information about these individuals without
authorization to the correctional facility or the law enforcement
official having custody as necessary for: (1) the provision of health
care to such individuals; (2) the health and safety of such individual
or other inmates; (3) the health and safety of the officers of employees
of or others at the correctional institution; and (4) the health and
safety of such individuals and officers or other persons responsible for
the transporting of inmates or their transfer from one institution or
facility to another; (5) law enforcement on the premises of the
correctional institution; and (6) the administration and maintenance of
the safety, security, and good order of the correctional institution.
This section is intended to allow, for example, a prison=s doctor to
disclose to a van driver transporting a criminal that the individual is
a diabetic and frequently has seizures, as well as information about the
appropriate action to take if the individual has a seizure while he or
she is being transported.

We permit covered entities to disclose protected health information
about these individuals if the correctional institution or law
enforcement official represents that the protected health information is
necessary for these purposes. Under 164.514(h), a covered entity may
reasonably rely on the representation of such public officials.

***Application to Public Benefits Programs Required to Share Eligibility
Information***

We create a new provision for covered entities that are a government
program providing public benefits. This provision allows the following
disclosures of protected health information.

First, where other law requires or expressly authorizes information
relating to the eligibility for, or enrollment in more than one public
program to be shared among such public programs and/or maintained in a
single or combined data system, a public agency that is administering a
health plan may maintain such a data base and may disclose information
relating to such eligibility or enrollment in the health plan to the
extent authorized by such other law.

Where another public entity has determined that the appropriate balance
between the need for efficient administration of public programs and
public funds and individuals= privacy interests is to allow information
sharing for these limited purposes, we do not upset that determination.
For example, section 1137 of the Social Security Act requires a variety
of public programs, including the Social Security program, state
medicaid programs, the food stamp program, certain unemployment
compensation programs, and others, to participate in a joint income and
eligibility verification system. Similarly, section 222 of the Social
Security Act requires the Social Security Administration to provide
information to certain state vocational rehabilitation programs for
eligibility purposes. In some instances, it is a covered entity that
first collects or creates the information that is then disclosed for
these systems. We do not prohibit those disclosures.

This does not authorize these entities to share information for claims
determinations or ongoing administration of these public programs. This
provision is limited to the agencies and activities described above.

Second, \' 164.512(k)(6) permits a covered entity that is a government
agency administering a government program providing public benefits to
disclose protected health information relating to the program to another
covered entity that is a government agency administering a government
program providing public benefits if the programs serve the same or
similar populations and the disclosure of protected health information
is necessary to coordinate the covered functions of such programs.

The second provision permits covered entities that are government
program providing public benefits that serve the same or similar
populations to share protected health information for the purposes of
coordinating covered functions of the programs and for general
management and administration relating to the covered functions of the
programs. Often, similar government health programs are administered by
different government agencies. For example, in some states, the Medicaid
program and the State Children=s Health Insurance Program are
administered by different agencies, although they serve similar
populations. Many states coordinate eligibility for these two programs,
and sometimes offer services through the same delivery systems and
contracts. This provision would permit the covered entities
administering these programs to share protected health information of
program participants to coordinate enrollment and services and to
generally improve the health care operations of the programs. We note
that this provision does not authorize the agencies to use or disclose
the protected health information that is shared for purposes other than
as provided for in this paragraph.

**Section 164.512(l)CDisclosures For Workers= Compensation**

The NPRM did not contain special provisions permitting covered entities
to disclose protected health information for the purpose of complying
with workers= compensation and similar laws. Under HIPAA, workers=
compensation and certain other forms of insurance (such as automobile or
disability insurance) are Aexcepted benefits.@ Insurance carriers that
provide this coverage are not covered entities even though they provide
coverage for health care services. To carry out their insurance
functions, these non-covered insurers typically seek individually
identifiable health information from covered health care providers and
group health plans. In drafting the proposed rule, the Secretary was
faced with the challenge of trying to carry out the statutory mandate of
safeguarding the privacy of individually identifiable health information
by regulating the flow of such information from covered entities while
at the same time respecting the Congressional intent to shield workers=
compensation carriers and other excepted benefit plans from regulation
as covered entities.

In the proposed rule we allowed covered entities to disclose protected
health information without individual consent for purposes of treatment,
payment or health care operations - even when the disclosure was to a
non-covered entity such as a workers= compensation carrier. In addition,
we allowed protected health information to be disclosed if required by
state law for purposes of determining eligibility for coverage or
fitness for duty. The proposed rule also required that whenever a
covered entity disclosed protected health information to a non-covered
entity, even though authorized under the rule, the individual who was
the subject of the information must be informed that the protected
health information was no longer subject to privacy protections.

Like other disclosures under the proposed rule, the information provided
to workers= compensation carriers for treatment, payment or health care
operations was subject to the minimum necessary standard. However, to
the extent that protected health information was disclosed to the
carrier because it was required by law, it was not subject to the
minimum necessary standard. In addition, individuals were entitled to an
accounting when protected health information was disclosed for purposes
other than treatment, payment or health care operations.

In the final rule, we include a new provision in this section that
clarifies the ability of covered entities to disclose protected health
information without authorization to comply with workers= compensation
and similar programs established by law that provide benefits for
work-related illnesses or injuries without regard to fault. Although
most disclosures for workers= compensation would be permissible under
other provisions of this rule, particularly the provisions that permit
disclosures for payment and as required by law, we are aware of the
significant variability among workers= compensation and similar laws,
and include this provision to ensure that existing workers= compensation
systems are not disrupted by this rule. We note that the minimum
necessary standard applies to disclosures under this paragraph.

Under this provision, a covered entity may disclose protected health
information regarding an individual to a party responsible for payment
of workers= compensation benefits to the individual, and to an agency
responsible for administering and /or adjudicating the individual=s
claim for workers= compensation benefits. For purposes of this
paragraph, workers= compensation benefits include benefits under
programs such as the Black Lung Benefits Act, the federal Employees=
Compensation Act, the Longshore and Harbor Workers= Compensation Act,
and the Energy Employees= Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act.

***Additional Considerations***

We have included a general authorization for disclosures under workers=
compensation systems to be consistent with the intent of Congress, which
defined workers= compensation carriers as excepted benefits under HIPAA.
We recognize that there are significant privacy issues raised by how
individually identifiable health information is used and disclosed in
workers= compensation systems, and believe that states or the federal
government should enact standards that address those concerns.

**SECTION 164.514COTHER PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO USES AND
DISCLOSURES OF PROTECTED HEALTH INFORMATION**

**Section 164.514(a)-(c)CDe-identification**

In \' 164.506(d) of the NPRM, we proposed that the privacy standards
would apply to Aindividually identifiable health information,@ and not
to information that does not identify the subject individual. The
statute defines individually identifiable health information as certain
health information:

\(i\) Which identifies the individual, or

> \(ii\) With respect to which there is a reasonable basis to believe
> that the information can be used to identify the individual.

As we pointed out in the NPRM, difficulties arise because, even after
removing obvious identifiers (e.g., name, social security number,
address), there is always some probability or risk that any information
about an individual can be attributed to that individual.

The NPRM proposed two alternative methods for determining when
sufficient identifying information has been removed from a record to
render the information de-identified and thus not subject to the rule.
First, the NPRM proposed the establishment of a Asafe harbor@: if all of
a list of 19 specified items of information had been removed, and the
covered entity had no reason to believe that the remaining information
could be used to identify the subject of the information (alone or in
combination with other information), the covered entity would have been
presumed to have created de-identified information. Second, the NPRM
proposed an alternative method so that covered entities with sufficient
statistical experience and expertise could remove or encrypt a
combination of information different from the enumerated list, using
commonly accepted scientific and statistical standards for disclosure
avoidance. Such covered entities would have been able to include
information from the enumerated list of 19 items if they (1) believed
that the probability of re-identification was very low, and (2) removed
additional information if they had a reasonable basis to believe that
the resulting information could be used to re-identify someone.

We proposed that covered entities and their business partners be
permitted to use protected health information to create de-identified
health information using either of these two methods. Covered entities
would have been permitted to further use and disclose such de-identified
information in any way, provided that they did not disclose the key or
other mechanism that would have enabled the information to be
re-identified, and provided that they reasonably believed that such use
or disclosure of de-identified information would not have resulted in
the use or disclosure of protected health information.

A number of examples were provided of how valuable such de-identified
information would be for various purposes. We expressed the hope that
covered entities, their business partners, and others would make greater
use of de-identified health information than they do today, when it is
sufficient for the purpose, and that such practice would reduce the
burden and the confidentiality concerns that result from the use of
individually identifiable health information for some of these purposes.

In \'\' 164.514(a)-(c) of this final rule, we make several modifications
to the provisions for de-identification. First, we explicitly adopt the
statutory standard as the basic regulatory standard for whether health
information is individually identifiable health information under this
rule. Information is not individually identifiable under this rule if it
does not identify the individual, or if the covered entity has no
reasonable basis to believe it can be used to identify the individual.
Second, in the implementation specifications we reformulate the two ways
in which a covered entity can demonstrate that it has met the standard.

One way a covered entity may demonstrate that it has met the standard is
if a person with appropriate knowledge and experience applying generally
accepted statistical and scientific principles and methods for rendering
information not individually identifiable makes a determination that the
risk is very small that the information could be used, either by itself
or in combination with other available information, by anticipated
recipients to identify a subject of the information. The covered entity
must also document the analysis and results that justify the
determination. We provide guidance regarding this standard in our
responses to the comments we received on this provision.

We also include an alternate, safe harbor, method by which covered
entities can demonstrate compliance with the standard. Under the safe
harbor, a covered entity is considered to have met the standard if it
has removed all of a list of enumerated identifiers, and if the covered
entity has no actual knowledge that the information could be used alone
or in combination to identify a subject of the information. We note that
in the NPRM, we had proposed that to meet the safe harbor, a covered
entity must have Ano reason to believe@ that the information remained
identifiable after the enumerated identifiers were removed. In the final
rule, we have changed the standard to one of actual knowledge in order
to provide greater certainty to covered entities using the safe harbor
approach.

In the safe harbor, we explicitly allow age and some geographic location
information to be included in the de-identified information, but all
dates directly related to the subject of the information must be removed
or limited to the year, and zip codes must be removed or aggregated (in
the form of most 3-digit zip codes) to include at least 20,000 people.
Extreme ages of 90 and over must be aggregated to a category of 90+ to
avoid identification of very old individuals. Other demographic
information, such as gender, race, ethnicity, and marital status are not
included in the list of identifiers that must be removed.

The intent of the safe harbor is to provide a means to produce some
de-identified information that could be used for many purposes with a
very small risk of privacy violation. The safe harbor is intended to
involve a minimum of burden and convey a maximum of certainty that the
rules have been met by interpreting the statutory \"reasonable basis to
believe that the information can be used to identify the individual\" to
produce an easily followed, cook book approach.

Covered entities may use codes and similar means of marking records so
that they may be linked or later re-identified, if the code does not
contain information about the subject of the information (for example,
the code may not be a derivative of the individual=s social security
number), and if the covered entity does not use or disclose the code for
any other purpose. The covered entity is also prohibited from disclosing
the mechanism for re-identification, such as tables, algorithms, or
other tools that could be used to link the code with the subject of the
information.

Language to clarify that covered entities may contract with business
associates to perform the de-identification has been added to the
section on business associates.

**Section 164.514(d)CMinimum Necessary**

The proposed rule required a covered entity to make all reasonable
efforts not to use or disclose more than the minimum amount of protected
health information necessary to accomplish the intended purpose of the
use or disclosure (proposed \' 164.506(b)).

The proposed minimum necessary standard did not apply to uses or
disclosures that were made by covered entities at the request of the
individual, either to allow the individual access to protected health
information about him or her or pursuant to an authorization initiated
by the individual. The requirement also did not apply to uses and
disclosures made: pursuant to the compliance and enforcement provisions
of the rule; as required by law and permitted by the regulation without
individual authorization; by a covered health care provider to a health
plan, when the information was requested for audit and related purposes.
Finally, the standard did not apply to the HIPAA administrative
simplification transactions.

The proposed implementation specifications would have required a covered
entity to have procedures to: (i) identify appropriate persons within
the entity to determine what information should be used or disclosed
consistent with the minimum necessary standard; (ii) ensure that those
persons make the minimum necessary determinations, when required; and
(iii) within the limits of the entity=s technological capabilities,
provide for the making of such determinations individually. The proposal
allowed a covered entity, when making disclosures to public officials
that were permitted without individual authorization but not required by
other law, to reasonably rely on the representations of such officials
that the information requested was the minimum necessary for the stated
purpose(s).

The preamble provided further guidance. The preamble explained that
covered entities could not have general policies of approving all
requests (or all requests of a particular type) without carefully
considering certain criteria (see ACriteria,@ below) as well as other
information specific to the request. The minimum necessary determination
would have needed to be consistent with and directly related to the
purpose of the use or disclosure. Where there was ambiguity regarding
the information to be used or disclosed, the preamble directed covered
entities to interpret the Aminimum necessary@ standard to Arequire@ the
covered entity to make some effort to limit the amount of protected
health information used/disclosed.

The proposal would have required the minimum necessary determination to
take into consideration the ability of a covered entity to delimit the
amount of information used or disclosed. The preamble noted that these
determinations would have to be made under a reasonableness standard:
covered entities would be required to make reasonable efforts and to
incur reasonable expense to limit the use or disclosure. The
Areasonableness@ of limiting particular uses or disclosures was to be
determined based on the following factors (which were not included in
the regulatory text):

a\. The extent to which the use or disclosure would extend the number of
persons with access to the protected health information.

b\. The likelihood that further uses or disclosures of the protected
health information could occur.

c\. The amount of protected health information that would be used or
disclosed.

d\. The importance of the use or disclosure.

e\. The potential to achieve substantially the same purpose with
de‑identified information. For disclosures, each covered entity would
have been required to have policies for determining when protected
health information must be stripped of identifiers.

f\. The technology available to limit the amount of protected health
information used/disclosed.

g\. The cost of limiting the use/disclosure.

h\. Any other factors that the covered entity believed were relevant to
the determination.

The proposal shifted the Aminimum necessary@ burden off of covered
providers when they were being audited by a health plan. The preamble
explained that the duty would have been shifted to the payor to request
the minimum necessary information for the audit purpose, although the
regulatory text did not include such a requirement. Outside of the audit
context, the preamble stated that a health plan would be required, when
requesting a disclosure, to limit its requests to the information
required to achieve the purpose of the request; the regulation text did
not include this requirement.

The preamble stated that disclosure of an entire medical record, in
response to a request for something other than the entire medical
record, would presumptively violate the minimum necessary standard.

This final rule significantly modifies the proposed requirements for
implementing the minimum necessary standard. For all uses and many
disclosures and requests for disclosures from other covered entities, we
require covered entities to implement policies and procedures for
Aminimum necessary@ uses and disclosures. Implementation of such
policies and procedures is required in lieu of making the Aminimum
necessary@ determination for each separate use or disclosure as
discussed in the proposal. Disclosures to or requests by a health care
provider for treatment purposes are not subject to the standard (see \'
164.502).

Specifically (and as further described below), the proposed requirement
for individual review of all uses of protected health information is
replaced with a requirement for covered entities to implement policies
and procedures that restrict access and uses based on the specific roles
of members of the covered entity=s workforce. Routine disclosures also
are not subject to individual review; instead, covered entities must
implement policies and procedures to limit the protected health
information in routine disclosures to the minimum necessary to achieve
the purpose of that type of disclosure. The proposed exclusion of
disclosures to health plans for audit purposes is deleted and replaced
with a general requirement that covered entities must limit requests to
other covered entities for individually identifiable health information
to what is reasonably necessary for the use or disclosure intended. The
other exclusions from the standard are unchanged from the proposed rule
(e.g., for individuals= access to information about themselves, pursuant
to an authorization initiated by the individual, for enforcement of this
rule, as required by law).

The language of the basic Astandard@ itself is largely unchanged;
covered entities must make reasonable efforts to use or disclose or to
request from another covered entity, only the minimum amount of
protected health information required to achieve the purpose of a
particular use or disclosure. We delete the word Aall@ from the
Areasonable efforts@ that covered entities must take in making a
Aminimum necessary@ determination. The implementation specifications are
significantly modified, and differ based on whether the activity is a
use or disclosure.

Similarly, a Aminimum necessary@ disclosure for oversight purposes in
accordance with \' 164.512(d) could include large numbers of records to
allow oversight agencies to perform statistical analyses to identify
deviations in payment or billing patterns, and other data analyses.

***Uses of Protected Health Information***

A covered entity must implement policies and procedures to identify the
persons or classes of persons in the entity=s workforce who need access
to protected health information to carry out their duties, the category
or categories of protected health information to which such persons or
classes need access, and the conditions, as appropriate, that would
apply to such access. Covered entities must also implement policies and
procedures to limit access to only the identified persons, and only to
the identified protected health information. The policies and procedures
must be based on reasonable determinations regarding the persons or
classes of persons who require protected health information, and the
nature of the health information they require, consistent with their job
responsibilities.

For example, a hospital could implement a policy that permitted nurses
access to all protected health information of patients in their ward
while they are on duty. A health plan could permit its underwriting
analysts unrestricted access to aggregate claims information for rate
setting purposes, but require documented approval from its department
manager to obtain specific identifiable claims records of a member for
the purpose of determining the cause of unexpected claims that could
influence renewal premium rate setting.

The Aminimum necessary@standard is intended to reflect and be consistent
with, not override, professional judgment and standards. For example, we
expect that covered entities will implement policies that allow persons
involved in treatment to have access to the entire record, as needed.

***Disclosures of Protected Health Information***

For any type of disclosure that is made on a routine, recurring basis, a
covered entity must implement policies and procedures (which may be
standard protocols) that permit only the disclosure of the minimum
protected health information reasonably necessary to achieve the purpose
of the disclosure. Individual review of each disclosure is not required.
Instead, under \' 164.514(d)(3), these policies and procedures must
identify the types of protected health information to be disclosed, the
types of persons who would receive the protected health information, and
the conditions that would apply for such access. We recognize that
specific disclosures within a type may vary, and require that the
policies address what is the norm for the type of disclosure involved.
For example, a covered entity may decide to participate in research
studies and therefore establish a protocol to minimize the information
released for such purposes, e.g., by requiring researchers requesting
disclosure of data contained in paper-based records to review the paper
records on-site and to abstract only the information relevant to the
research. Covered entities must develop policies and procedures (which
may be standard protocols) to apply to disclosures to routinely hired
types of business associates. For instance, a standard protocol could
describe the subset of information that may be disclosed to medical
transcription services.

For non-routine disclosures, a covered entity must develop reasonable
criteria for determining, and limiting disclosure to, only the minimum
amount of protected health information necessary to accomplish the
purpose of the disclosure. They also must establish and implement
procedures for reviewing such requests for disclosures on an individual
basis in accordance with these criteria.

Disclosures to health care providers for treatment purposes are not
subject to these requirements.

Covered entities= policies and procedures must provide that disclosure
of an entire medical record will not be made except pursuant to policies
which specifically justify why the entire medical record is needed. For
instance, disclosure of all protected health information to an
accreditation group would not necessarily violate the regulation,
because the entire record may be the Aminimum necessary@ for its
purpose; covered entities may establish policies allowing for and
justifying such a disclosure. Disclosure of the entire medical record
absent such documented justification is a presumptive violation of this
rule.

***Requests for Protected Health Information***

For requests for protected health information from other covered
entities made on a routine, recurring basis, the requesting covered
entities= policies and procedures may establish standard protocols
describing what information is reasonably necessary for the purposes and
limiting their requests to only that information, in lieu of making this
determination individually for each request. For all other requests, the
policies and procedures must provide for review of the requests on an
individualized basis. A request by a covered entity may be made in order
to obtain information that will subsequently be disclosed to a third
party, for example, to obtain information that will then be disclosed to
a business associate for quality assessment purposes; such requests are
subject to this requirement.

Covered entities= policies and procedures must provide that requests for
an entire medical record will not be made except pursuant to policies
which specifically justify why the entire medical record is needed. For
instance, a health plan=s request for all protected health information
from an applicant for insurance would not necessarily violate the
regulation, because the entire record may be the Aminimum necessary@ for
its purpose. Covered entities may establish policies allowing for and
justifying such a request. A request for the entire medical record
absent such documented justification is a presumptive violation of this
rule.

***Reasonable Reliance***

A covered entity may reasonably rely on the assertion of a requesting
covered entity that it is requesting the minimum protected health
information necessary for the stated purpose. A covered entity may also
rely on the assertions of a professional (such as attorneys and
accountants) who is a member of its workforce or its business associate
regarding what protected health information he or she needs in order to
provide professional services to the covered entity when such person
represents that the information requested is the minimum necessary. As
we proposed in the NPRM, covered entities making disclosures to public
officials that are permitted under \' 164.512 may rely on the
representation of a public official that the information requested is
the minimum necessary.

***Uses and Disclosures for Research***

In making a minimum necessary determination regarding the use or
disclosure of protected health information for research purposes, a
covered entity may reasonably rely on documentation from an IRB or
privacy board describing the protected health information needed for
research and consistent with the requirements of \' 164.512(i), AUses
and Disclosures for Research Purposes.@ A covered entity may also
reasonably rely on a representation made by the requestor that the
information is necessary to prepare a research protocol or for research
on decedents. The covered entity must ensure that the representation or
documentation of IRB or privacy board approval it obtains from a
researcher describes with sufficient specificity the protected health
information necessary for the research. Covered entities must use or
disclose such protected health information in a manner that minimizes
the scope of the use or disclosure.

***Standards for Electronic Transactions***

We clarify that under \' 164.502(b)(2)(v), covered entities are not
required to apply the minimum necessary standard to the required or
situational data elements specified in the implementation guides for
HIPAA administrative simplification standard transactions in the
Transactions Rule. The standard does apply for uses or disclosures in
standard transactions that are made at the option of the covered entity.

**Section 164.514(e)CMarketing**

In the proposed rule, we would have required covered entities to obtain
the individual=s authorization in order to use or disclose protected
health information to market health and non-health items and services.

We have made a number of changes in the final rule that relate to
marketing. In the final rule, we retain the general rule that covered
entities must obtain the individual=s authorization before making uses
or disclosures of protected health information for marketing. However,
we add a new definition of Amarketing@ that clarifies that certain
activities, such as communications made by a covered entity for the
purpose of describing the products and services it provides, are not
marketing. See \' 164.501 and the associated preamble regarding the
definition of marketing. In the final rule we also permit covered
entities to use and disclose protected health information for certain
marketing activities without individual authorization, subject to
conditions enumerated at \' 164.514(e).

First, \' 164.514(e) permits a covered entity to use or disclose
protected health information without individual authorization to make a
marketing communication if the communication occurs in a face-to-face
encounter with the individual. This provision would permit a covered
entity to discuss any services and products, including those of a
third-party, without restriction during a face-to-face communication. A
covered entity also could give the individual sample products or other
information in this setting.

Second, we permit a covered entity to use or disclose protected health
information without individual authorization to make marketing
communications involving products or services of only nominal value.
This provision ensures that covered entities do not violate the rule
when they distribute calendars, pens and other merchandise that
generally promotes the covered entity.

Third, we permit a covered entity to use or disclose protected health
information without individual authorization to make marketing
communications about the health-related products or services of the
covered entity or of a third party if the communication: (1) identifies
the covered entity as the party making the communication; (2) to the
extent that the covered entity receives direct or indirect remuneration
from a third-party for making the communication, prominently states that
fact; (3) except in the case of a general communication (such as a
newsletter), contains instructions describing how the individual may
opt-out of receiving future communications about health-related products
and services; and (4) where protected health information is used to
target the communication about a product or service to individuals based
on their health status or health condition, explains why the individual
has been targeted and how the product or service relates to the health
of the individual. The final rule also requires a covered entity to make
a determination, prior to using or disclosing protected health
information to target a communication to individuals based on their
health status or condition, that the product or service may be
beneficial to the health of the type or class of individual targeted to
receive the communication.

This third provision accommodates the needs of health care entities to
be able to discuss their own health-related products and services, or
those of third parties, as part of their everyday business and as part
of promoting the health of their patients and enrollees. The provision
is restricted to uses by covered entities or disclosures to their
business associates pursuant to a contract that requires
confidentiality, ensuring that protected health information is not
distributed to third parties. To provide individuals with a better
understanding of how their protected health information is being used
for marketing, the provision requires that the communication identify
that the covered entity is the source of the communication; a covered
entity may not send out information about the product of a third party
without disclosing to the individual where the communication originated.
We also require covered entities to disclose any direct or indirect
remuneration from third parties. This requirement permits individuals to
better understand why they are receiving a communication, and to weigh
the extent to which their information is being used to promote their
health or to enrich the covered entity. Covered entities also are
required to include in their communication (unless it is a general
newsletter or similar device) how the individual may prevent further
communications about health-related products and services. This
provision enhances individuals= control over how their information is
being used. Finally, where a covered entity targets communications to
individuals on the basis of their health status or condition, we require
that the entity make a determination that the product or service being
communicated may be beneficial to the health of the type of individuals
targeted, and that the communication to the targeted individuals explain
why they have been targeted and how the product or service relates to
their health. This final provision balances the advantages that accrue
from health care entities informing their patients and enrollees of new
or valuable health products with individuals= expectations that their
protected health information will be used to promote their health.

**Section 164.514(f)CFundraising**

We proposed in the NPRM to require covered entities to obtain
authorization from an individual in order to use the individual=s
protected health information for fundraising activities.

As noted in \' 164.501, in the final rule we define fundraising on
behalf of a covered entity to be a health care operation. In \' 164.514,
we permit a covered entity to use protected health information without
individual authorization for fundraising on behalf of itself, provided
that it limits the information that it uses to demographic information
about the individual and the dates that it has provided service to the
individual (see the \' 164.501 discussion of Ahealth care operations@).
In addition, we require fundraising materials to explain how the
individual may opt out of any further fundraising communications, and
covered entities are required to honor such requests. We permit a
covered entity to disclose the limited protected health information to a
business associate for fundraising on its own behalf. We also permit a
covered entity to disclose the information to an institutionally related
foundation.

By Ainstitutionally related foundation,@ we mean a foundation that
qualifies as a nonprofit charitable foundation under sec. 501(c)(3) of
the Internal Revenue Code and that has in its charter statement of
charitable purposes an explicit linkage to the covered entity. An
institutionally related foundation may, as explicitly stated in its
charter, support the covered entity as well as other covered entities or
health care providers in its community. For example, a covered hospital
may disclose for fundraising on its own behalf the specified protected
health information to a nonprofit foundation established for the
specific purpose of raising funds for the hospital or to a foundation
that has as its mission the support of the members of a particular
hospital chain that includes the covered hospital. The term does not
include an organization with a general charitable purpose, such as to
support research about or to provide treatment for certain diseases,
that may give money to a covered entity, because its charitable purpose
is not specific to the covered entity.

**Section 164.514(g)CUnderwriting**

As described under the definition of Ahealth care operations@ (\'
164.501), protected health information may be used or disclosed for
underwriting and other activities relating to the creation, renewal, or
replacement of a contract of health insurance or health benefits. This
final rule includes a requirement, not included in the NPRM, that health
plans receiving such information for these purposes may not use or
disclose it for any other purpose, except as may be required by law, if
the insurance or benefits contract is not placed with the health plan.

**Section 164.514(h)CVerification of Identity and Authority of Persons
Requesting Protected Health Information**

***Disclosure of Protected Health Information***

We reorganize the provision regarding verification of identity of
individuals requesting protected health information to improve clarity,
but we retain the substance of requirements proposed in the NPRM in \'
164.518(c), as follows.

The covered entity must establish and use written policies and
procedures (which may be standard protocols) that are reasonably
designed to verify the identity and authority of the requestor where the
covered entity does not know the person requesting the protected health
information. The knowledge of the person may take the form of a known
place of business, address, phone or fax number, as well a known human
being. Where documentation, statements or representations, whether oral
or written, from the person requesting the protected health information
is a condition of disclosure under this rule or other law, this
verification must involve obtaining such documentation statement, or
representation. In such a case, additional verification is only required
where this regulation (or other law) requires additional proof of
authority and identity.

The NPRM proposed that covered entities would be permitted to rely on
the required documentation of IRB or privacy board approval to
constitute sufficient verification that the person making the request
was a researcher and that the research is authorized. The final rule
retains this provision.

For most disclosures, verifying the authority for the request means
taking reasonable steps to verify that the request is lawful under this
regulation. Additional proof is required by other provisions of this
regulation where the request is made pursuant to \' 164.512 for national
priority purposes. Where the person requesting the protected health
information is a public official, covered entities must verify the
identity of the requester by examination of reasonable evidence, such as
a written statement of identity on agency letterhead, an identification
badge, or similar proof of official status. Similarly, covered entities
are required to verify the legal authority supporting the request by
examination of reasonable evidence, such as a written request provided
on agency letterhead that describes the legal authority for requesting
the release. Where \' 164.512 explicitly requires written evidence of
legal process or other authority before a disclosure may be made, a
public official\'s proof of identity and the official\'s oral statement
that the request is authorized by law are not sufficient to constitute
the required reasonable evidence of legal authority; under these
provisions, only the required written evidence will suffice.

In some circumstances, a person or entity acting on behalf of a
government agency may make a request for disclosure of protected health
information under these subsections. For example, public health agencies
may contract with a nonprofit agency to collect and analyze certain
data. In such cases, the covered entity is required to verify the
requestor\'s identity and authority through examination of reasonable
documentation that the requestor is acting on behalf of the government
agency. Reasonable evidence includes a written request provided on
agency letterhead that describes the legal authority for requesting the
release and states that the person or entity is acting under the
agency\'s authority, or other documentation, including a contract, a
memorandum of understanding, or purchase order that confirms that the
requestor is acting on behalf of the government agency.

In some circumstances, identity or authority will be verified as part of
meeting the underlying requirements for disclosure. For example, a
disclosure under \' 164.512(j)(1)(i) to avert an imminent threat to
safety is lawful only if made in the good faith belief that the
disclosure is necessary to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent
threat to the health or safety of a person or the public, and to a
person reasonably able to prevent or lessen the threat. If these
conditions are met, no further verification is needed. In such
emergencies, the covered entity is not required to demand written proof
that the person requesting the protected health information is legally
authorized. Reasonable reliance on verbal representations are
appropriate in such situations.

Similarly, disclosures permitted under \' 164.510(a) for facility
directories may be made to the general public; the covered entity=s
policies and procedures do not need to address verifying the identity
and authority for these disclosures. In \' 164.510(b) we do not require
verification of identity for persons assisting in an individual\'s care
or for notification purposes. For disclosures when the individual is not
present, such as when a friend is picking up a prescription, we allow
the covered entity to use professional judgment and experience with
common practice to make reasonable inferences.

Under \' 164.524, a covered entity is required to give individuals
access to protected health information about them (under most
circumstances). Under the general verification requirements of \'
164.514(h), the covered entity is required to take reasonable steps to
verify the identity of the individual making the request. We do not
mandate particular identification requirements (e.g., drivers licence,
photo ID), but rather leave this to the discretion of the covered
entity. The covered entity must also establish and document procedures
for verification of identity and authority of personal representatives,
if not known to the entity. For example, a health care provider can
require a copy of a power of attorney, or can ask questions to determine
that an adult acting for a young child has the requisite relationship to
the child.

In Subpart C of Part 160, we require disclosure to the Secretary for
purposes of enforcing this regulation. When a covered entity is asked by
the Secretary to disclose protected health information for compliance
purposes, the covered entity must verify the same information that it is
required to verify for any other law enforcement or oversight request
for disclosure.

***Use of Protected Health Information***

The proposed rule=s verification requirements applied to any person
requesting protected health information, whether for a use or a
disclosure. In the final regulation, the verification provisions apply
only to disclosures of protected health information. The requirements in
\' 164.514(d), for implementation of policies and procedures for
\>minimum necessary= uses of protected health information, are
sufficient to ensure that only appropriate persons within a covered
entity will have access to protected health information.

**SECTION 164.520CNOTICE OF PRIVACY PRACTICES FOR PROTECTED HEALTH
INFORMATION**

**Section 164.520(a)CRight to Notice**

We proposed to establish a right for individuals to receive adequate
notice of how covered health care providers and health plans use and
disclose protected health information, and of the individual=s rights
with respect to that information.

In the final regulation, we retain the general right for individuals to
receive and the requirement for covered entities to produce a notice of
privacy practices, with significant modifications to the content and
distribution requirements.

We also modify the requirements with respect to certain covered
entities. First, in \' 164.500(b)(2), we clarify that a health care
clearinghouse that creates or receives protected health information
other than as a business associate of a covered entity must produce a
notice. If a health care clearinghouse creates or receives protected
health information only as a business associate of other covered
entities, it is not required to produce a notice.

Second, in \' 164.520(a)(2), we clarify the notice requirements with
respect to group health plans. Individuals who receive health benefits
under a group health plan other than through insurance are entitled to a
notice from the group health plan; self-insured group health plans must
maintain a notice that meets the requirements of this section and must
provide the notice in accordance with the requirements of \' 164.520(c).
At a minimum, the self-insured group health plan=s notice must describe
the group health plan=s privacy practices with respect to the protected
health information it creates or receives through its self-insured
arrangements. For example, if a group health plan maintains both
fully-insured and self-insured arrangements, the group health plan must,
at a minimum, maintain and provide a notice that describes its privacy
practices with respect to protected health information it creates or
receives through the self-insured arrangements. This notice would be
distributed to all participants in the self-insured arrangements (in
accordance with \' 164.520(c)(1)) and would also be available on request
to other persons, including participants in the fully-insured
arrangements.

Individuals who receive health benefits under a group health plan
through an insurance contract (i.e., a fully-insured group health plan)
are entitled to a notice from the issuer or HMO through which they
receive their health benefits. The health insurance issuer or HMO must
maintain and provide the notice in accordance with \' 164.520(c)(1). In
addition, some fully-insured group health plans are required to maintain
and provide a notice of the group health plan=s privacy practices. If a
group health plan provides health benefits solely through an insurance
contract with a health insurance issuer or HMO, and the group health
plan creates or receives protected health information in addition to
summary information (as defined in \' 164.504(a)) and information about
individuals= enrollment in or disenrollment from a health insurance
issuer or HMO offered by the group health plan, the group health plan
must maintain a notice that meets the requirements of this section and
must provide the notice upon request of any person. The group health
plan is not required to meet the other distribution requirements of \'
164.520(c)(1). Individuals enrolled in such group health plans have the
right to notice of the health insurance issuer or HMO=s privacy
practices and, on request, to notice of the group health plan=s privacy
practices. If the group health plan, however, provides health benefits
solely through an insurance contract with a health insurance issuer or
HMO, and the only protected health information the group health plan
creates or receives is summary information (as defined in \' 164.504(a))
and information about individuals= enrollment in or disenrollment from a
health insurance issuer or HMO offered by the group health plan, the
group health plan is not required to maintain or provide a notice under
this section. In this case, the individuals enrolled in the group health
plan would receive notice of the health insurance issuer or HMO=s
privacy practices, but would not be entitled to notice of the group
health plan=s privacy practices.

Third, in \' 164.520(a)(3), we clarify that inmates do not have a right
to notice under this section and a correctional institution that is a
covered entity is not required to produce a notice. No person, including
a current or former inmate, has the right to notice of such a covered
entity=s privacy practices.

**Section 164.520(b)CContent of Notice**

We proposed to require the notice to be written in plain language and
contain each of the following elements: a description of the uses and
disclosures expected to be made without individual authorization;
statements that other uses and disclosures would be made only with the
individual=s authorization and that the individual could revoke such
authorization; descriptions of the rights to request restrictions,
inspect and copy protected health information, amend or correct
protected health information, and receive an accounting of disclosures
of protected health information; statements about the entity=s legal
requirements to protect privacy, provide notice, and adhere to the
notice; a statement about how individuals would be informed of changes
to the entity=s policies and procedures; instructions on how to make
complaints with the entity or Secretary; the name and telephone number
of a contact person or office; and the date the notice was produced. We
provided a model notice of information policies and procedures for
covered health care providers.

In \' 164.520(b), and immediately below in this preamble, we describe
the notice content requirements for the final rule. As described in
detail, below, we make substantial changes to the uses and disclosures
of protected health information that must be described in the notice.
Unlike the proposed rule, we do not include a model notice. We intend to
develop further guidance on notice requirements prior to the compliance
date of this rule. In this section of the final rule, we also refer to
the covered entity=s privacy Apractices,@ rather than its Apolicies and
procedures.@ The purpose of this change in vocabulary is to clarify that
a covered entity=s Apolicies and procedures@ is a detailed documentation
of all of the entity=s privacy practices as required under this rule,
not just those described in the notice. For example, we require covered
entities to have policies and procedures implementing the requirements
for Aminimum necessary@ uses and disclosures of protected health
information, but these policies and procedures need not be reflected in
the entity=s notice. Similarly, we require covered entities to have
policies and procedures for assuring individuals access to protected
health information about them. While such policies and procedures will
need to include documentation of the designated record sets subject to
access, who is authorized to determine when information will be withheld
from an individual, and similar details, the notice need only explain
generally that individuals have the right to inspect and copy
information about them, and tell individuals how to exercise that right.

A covered entity that adopts and follows the notice content and
distribution requirements described below will have provided adequate
notice. However, the requirements for the content of the notice are not
intended to be exclusive. As with the rest of the rule, we specify
minimum requirements, not best practices. Covered entities may want to
include more detail. We note that all federal agencies must still comply
with the Privacy Act of 1974. This means that federal agencies that are
covered entities or have covered health care components must comply with
the notice requirements of the Privacy Act as well as those included in
this rule.

In addition, covered entities may want or be required to produce more
than one notice in order to satisfy the notice content requirements
under this rule. For example, a covered entity that conducts business in
multiple states with different laws regarding the uses and disclosures
that the covered entity is permitted to make without authorization may
be required to produce a different notice for each state. A covered
entity that conducts business both as part of an organized health care
arrangement or affiliated covered entity and as an independent
enterprise (e.g., a physician who sees patients through an on-call
arrangement with a hospital and through an independent private practice)
may want to adopt different privacy practices with respect to each line
of business; such a covered entity would be required to produce a
different notice describing the practices for each line of business.
Covered entities must produce notices that accurately describe the
privacy practices that are relevant to the individuals receiving the
notice.

***Required Elements***

*Plain Language*

As in the proposed rule, we require the notice to be written in plain
language. A covered entity can satisfy the plain language requirement if
it makes a reasonable effort to: organize material to serve the needs of
the reader; write short sentences in the active voice, using Ayou@ and
other pronouns; use common, everyday words in sentences; and divide
material into short sections.

We do not require particular formatting specifications, such as
easy‑to‑read design features (e.g., lists, tables, graphics, contrasting
colors, and white space), type face, and font size. However, the purpose
of the notice is to inform the recipients about their rights and how
protected health information collected about them may be used or
disclosed. Recipients who cannot understand the covered entity=s notice
will miss important information about their rights under this rule and
about how the covered entity is protecting health information about
them. One of the goals of this rule is to create an environment of open
communication and transparency with respect to the use and disclosure of
protected health information. A lack of clarity in the notice could
undermine this goal and create misunderstandings. Covered entities have
an incentive to make their notice statements clear and concise. We
believe that the more understandable the notice is, the more confidence
the public will have in the covered entity=s commitment to protecting
the privacy of health information.

It is important that the content of the notice be communicated to all
recipients and therefore we encourage the covered entity to consider
alternative means of communicating with certain populations. We note
that any covered entity that is a recipient of federal financial
assistance is generally obligated under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 to provide material ordinarily distributed to the public in the
primary languages of persons with limited English proficiency in the
recipients= service areas. Specifically, this Title VI obligation
provides that, where a significant number or proportion of the
population eligible to be served or likely to be directly affected by a
federally assisted program needs service or information in a language
other than English in order to be effectively informed of or participate
in the program, the recipient shall take reasonable steps, considering
the scope of the program and the size and concentration of such
population, to provide information in languages appropriate to such
persons. For covered entities not subject to Title VI, the Title VI
standards provide helpful guidance for effectively communicating the
content of their notices to non‑English speaking populations.

We also encourage covered entities to be attentive to the needs of
individuals who cannot read. For example, an employee of the covered
entity could read the notice to individuals upon request or the notice
could be incorporated into a video presentation that is played in the
waiting area.

*Header*

Unlike the proposed rule, covered entities must include prominent and
specific language in the notice that indicates the importance of the
notice. This is the only specific language we require covered entities
to include in the notice. The header must read, ATHIS NOTICE DESCRIBES
HOW MEDICAL INFORMATION ABOUT YOU MAY BE USED AND DISCLOSED AND HOW YOU
CAN GET ACCESS TO THIS INFORMATION. PLEASE REVIEW IT CAREFULLY.@

*Uses and Disclosures*

We proposed to require covered entities to describe in plain language
the uses and disclosures of protected health information, and the
covered entity=s policies and procedures with respect to such uses and
disclosures, that the health plan or covered provider expected to make
without individual authorization. The covered provider or health plan
would have had to distinguish between those uses and disclosures
required by law and those permitted but not required by law.

We also proposed to require covered health care providers and health
plans to state in the notice that all other uses and disclosures would
be made only with the individual=s authorization and that such
authorization could be revoked. The notice would also have been required
to state that the individual could request restrictions on certain uses
and disclosures and that the covered entity would not be required to
agree to such a request.

We significantly modify these requirements in the final rule. Covered
entities must describe all uses and disclosures of protected health
information that they are permitted or required to make under this rule
without authorization, including those uses and disclosures subject to
the consent requirements under \' 164.506. If other applicable law
prohibits or materially limits the covered entity=s ability to make any
uses or disclosures that would otherwise be permitted under the rule,
the covered entity must describe only the uses and disclosures permitted
under the more stringent law.

Covered entities must separately describe each purpose for which they
are permitted to use or disclose protected health information under this
rule without authorization, and must do so in sufficient detail to place
the individual on notice of those uses and disclosures. With respect to
uses and disclosures to carry out treatment, payment, and health care
operations, the description must include at least one example of the
types of uses and disclosures that the covered entity is permitted to
make. This requirement is intended to inform individuals of all the uses
and disclosures that the covered entity is legally required or permitted
to make under applicable law, even if the covered entity does not
anticipate actually making such uses and disclosures. We do not require
covered entities to distinguish in their notices between those uses and
disclosures required by law and those permitted but not required by law.

Unlike the proposed rule, we additionally require covered entities that
wish to contact individuals for any of the following activities to list
these activities in the notice: providing appointment reminders,
describing or recommending treatment alternatives, providing information
about health-related benefits and services that may be of interest to
the individual, or soliciting funds to benefit the covered entity. If
the covered entity does not include these statements in its notice, it
is prohibited from using or disclosing protected health information for
these activities without authorization. See \' 164.502(i).

In addition, if a group health plan, or a health insurance issuer or HMO
with respect to a group health plan, wants the option to disclose
protected health information to a group health plan sponsor without
authorization as permitted under \' 164.504(f), the group health plan,
health insurance issuer or HMO must describe that practice in its
notice.

As in the proposed rule, the notice must state that all other uses and
disclosures will be made only with the individual=s authorization and
that the individual has the right to revoke such authorization.

We anticipate this requirement will lead to significant standardization
of the notice. This language could be the same for every covered entity
of a particular type within a state, territory, or other locale. We
encourage states, state professional associations, and other
organizations to develop model language to assist covered entities in
preparing their notices.

*Individual Rights*

As in the proposed rule, covered entities must describe individuals=
rights under the rule and how individuals may exercise those rights with
respect to the covered entity. Covered entities must describe each of
the following rights, as provided under the rule: the right to request
restrictions on certain uses and disclosures, including a statement that
the covered entity is not required to agree to a requested restriction
(\' 164.522(a)); the right to receive confidential communications of
protected health information (\' 164.522(b)); the right to inspect and
copy protected health information (\' 164.524); the right to amend
protected health information (\' 164.526); and the right to an
accounting of disclosures of protected health information (\' 164.528).
We additionally require the notice to describe the right of an
individual, including an individual that has agreed to receive the
notice electronically, to obtain a paper copy of the notice upon
request.

*Covered Entity=s Duties*

As in the proposed rule, covered entities must state in the notice that
they are required by law to maintain the privacy of protected health
information, to provide a notice of their legal duties and privacy
practices, and to abide by the terms of the notice currently in effect.
In the final rule, we additionally require the covered entity, if it
wishes to reserve the right to change its privacy practices and apply
the revised practices to protected health information previously created
or received, to make a statement to that effect and describe how it will
provide individuals with a revised notice. (See below for a more
detailed discussion of a covered entity=s responsibilities when it
changes its privacy practices.)

*Complaints*

As in the proposed rule, a covered entity=s notice must inform
individuals about how they can lodge complaints with the covered entity
if they believe their privacy rights have been violated. See \'
164.530(d) and the corresponding preamble discussion for the
requirements on covered entities for receiving complaints. The notice
must also state that individuals may file complaints with the Secretary.
In the final rule, we additionally require the notice to include a
statement that the individual will not suffer retaliation for filing a
complaint.

*Contact*

As in the proposed rule, the notice must identify a point of contact
where the individual can obtain additional information about any of the
matters identified in the notice.

*Effective Date*

The notice must include the date the notice went into effect, rather
than the proposed requirement to include the date the notice was
produced. The effective date cannot be earlier than the date on which
the notice was first printed or otherwise published. Covered entities
may wish to highlight or otherwise emphasize any material modifications
that it has made, in order to help the individual recognize such
changes.

***Optional Elements***

As described above, we proposed to require covered entities to describe
the uses and disclosures of protected health information that the
covered entity in fact expected to make without the individual=s
authorization. We did not specify any optional elements.

While the final rule requires covered entities to describe all of the
types of uses and disclosures permitted or required by law (not just
those that the covered entity intends to make), we also permit and
encourage covered entities to include optional elements that describe
the actual, more limited, uses and disclosures they intend to make
without authorization. We anticipate that some covered entities will
want to distinguish themselves on the basis of their more stringent
privacy practices. For example, covered health care providers who
routinely treat patients with particularly sensitive conditions may wish
to assure their patients that, even though the law permits them to
disclose information for a wide array of purposes, the covered health
care provider will only disclose information in very specific
circumstances, as required by law, and to avert a serious and imminent
threat to health or safety. A covered entity may not include statements
in the notice that purport to limit the entity=s ability to make uses or
disclosures that are required by law or necessary to avert a serious and
imminent threat to health or safety.

As described above, if the covered entity wishes to reserve the right to
change its privacy practices with respect to the more limited uses and
disclosures and apply the revised practices to protected health
information previously created or received, it must make a statement to
that effect and describe how it will provide individuals with a revised
notice. (See below for a more detailed discussion of a covered entity=s
responsibilities when it changes its privacy practices.)

***Revisions to the Notice***

We proposed to require a covered entity to adhere to the terms of its
notice, and would have permitted it to change its information policies
and procedures at any time. We would have required covered health care
providers and health plans to update the notice to reflect material
changes to the information policies and procedures described in the
notice. Changes to the notice would have applied to all protected health
information held by the covered entity, including information collected
under prior notices. That is, we would not have require covered entities
to segregate their records according to the notice in effect at the time
the record was created. We proposed to prohibit covered entities from
implementing a change to an information policy or procedure described in
the notice until the notice was updated to reflect the change, unless a
compelling reason existed to make a use or disclosure or take other
action that the notice would not have permitted. In these situations, we
proposed to require covered entities to document the compelling reason
and, within 30 days of the use, disclosure, or other action, change its
notice to permit the action.

As in the proposed rule, covered entities are required to adhere to the
terms of the notice currently in effect. See \' 164.502(i). When a
covered entity materially changes any of the uses or disclosures, the
individual=s rights, the covered entity=s legal duties, or other privacy
practices described in its notice, it must promptly revise its notice
accordingly. See \' 164.520(b)(3). (Pursuant to \' 164.530(i), it must
also revise its policies and procedures.) Except when required by law, a
material change to any term in the notice may not be implemented prior
to the effective date of the notice in which such material change is
reflected. In the final rule, however, we revise the circumstances under
and extent to which the covered entity may revise the practices stated
in the notice and apply the new practices to protected health
information it created or received under prior notice.

Under \' 164.530(i), a covered entity that wishes to change its
practices over time without segregating its records according to the
notice in effect at the time the records were created must reserve the
right to do so in its notice. For example, a covered hospital that
states in its notice that it will only make public health disclosures
required by law, and that does not reserve the right to change this
practice, is prohibited from making any discretionary public health
disclosures of protected health information created or received during
the effective period of that notice. If the covered hospital wishes at
some point in the future to make discretionary disclosures for public
health purposes, it must revise its notice to so state, and must
segregate its records so that protected health information created or
received under the prior notice is not disclosed for discretionary
public health purposes. This hospital may then make discretionary public
health disclosures of protected health information created or received
after the effective date of the revised notice.

If a second covered hospital states in its notice that it will only make
public health disclosures required by law, but does reserve the right to
change its practices, it is prohibited from making any discretionary
public health disclosures of protected health information created or
received during the effective period of that notice. If this hospital
wishes at some point in the future to make discretionary disclosures for
public health purposes, it must revise its notice to so state, but need
not segregate its records. As of the effective date of the revised
notice, it may disclose any protected health information, including
information created or received under the prior notice, for
discretionary public health purposes.

Section 164.530(i) and the corresponding discussion in this preamble
describes requirements for revision of a covered entity=s privacy
policies and procedures, including the privacy practices reflected in
its notice.

**Section 164.520(c)CProvision of Notice**

As in the proposed rule, all covered entities that are required to
produce a notice must provide the notice upon request of any person. The
requestor does not have to be a current patient or enrollee. We intend
the notice to be a public document that people can use in choosing
between covered entities.

For health plans, we proposed to require health plans to distribute the
notice to individuals covered by the health plan as of the compliance
date; after the compliance date, at enrollment in the health plan; after
enrollment, within 60 days of a material revision to the content of the
notice; and no less frequently than once every three years.

As in the proposed rule, under the final rule health plans must provide
the notice to all health plan enrollees as of the compliance date. After
the compliance date, health plans must provide the notice to all new
enrollees at the time of enrollment and to all enrollees within 60 days
of a material revision to the notice. Of course, the term Aenrollees@
includes participants and beneficiaries in group health plans.

Unlike the proposed rule, we do not require health plans to distribute
the notice every three years. Instead, health plans must notify
enrollees no less than once every three years about the availability of
the notice and how to obtain a copy.

We also clarify that, in each of these circumstances, if a named insured
and one or more dependents are covered by the same policy, the health
plan can satisfy the distribution requirement with respect to the
dependents by sending a single copy of the notice to the named insured.
For example, if an employee of a firm and her three dependents are all
covered under a single health plan policy, that health plan can satisfy
the initial distribution requirement by sending a single copy of the
notice to the employee rather than sending four copies, each addressed
to a different member of the family.

We further clarify that if a health plan has more than one notice, it
satisfies its distribution requirement by providing the notice that is
relevant to the individual or other person requesting the notice. For
example, a health insurance issuer may have contracts with two different
group health plans. One contract specifies that the issuer may use and
disclose protected health information about the participants in the
group health plan for research purposes without authorization (subject
to the requirements of this rule) and one contract specifies that the
issuer must always obtain authorizations for these uses and disclosures.
The issuer accordingly develops two notices reflecting these different
practices and satisfies its distribution requirements by providing the
relevant notice to the relevant group health plan participants.

We proposed to require covered health care providers with face-to-face
contact with individuals to provide the notice to all such individuals
at the first service delivery to the individual during the one year
period after the compliance date. After this one year period, covered
providers with face-to-face contact with individuals would have been
required to distribute the notice to all new patients at the first
service delivery. Covered providers without face-to-face contact with
individuals would have been required to provide the notice in a
reasonable period of time following first service delivery.

We proposed to require all covered providers to post the notice in a
clear and prominent location where it would be reasonable to expect
individuals seeking services from the covered provider to be able to
read the notice. We would have required revisions to be posted promptly.

In the final rule, we vary the distribution requirements according to
whether the covered health care provider has a direct treatment
relationship with an individual, rather than whether the covered health
care provider has face-to-face contact with an individual. See \'
164.501 and the corresponding discussion in this preamble regarding the
definition of indirect treatment relationship.

Covered health care providers that have direct treatment relationships
with individuals must provide the notice to such individuals as of the
first service delivery after the compliance date. This requirement
applies whether the first service is delivered electronically or in
person. Covered providers may satisfy this requirement by sending the
notice to all of their patients at once, by giving the notice to each
patient as he or she comes into the provider=s office or facility or
contacts the provider electronically, or by some combination of these
approaches. Covered providers that maintain a physical service delivery
site must prominently post the notice where it is reasonable to expect
individuals seeking service from the provider to be able to read the
notice. The notice must also be available on site for individuals to
take on request. In the event of a revision to the notice, the covered
provider must promptly post the revision and make it available on site.

Covered health care providers that have indirect treatment relationships
with individuals are only required to produce the notice upon request,
as described above.

The proposed rule was silent regarding electronic distribution of the
notice. Under the final rule, a covered entity that maintains a web site
describing the services and benefits it offers must make its privacy
notice prominently available through the site.

A covered entity may satisfy the applicable distribution requirements
described above by providing the notice to the individual
electronically, if the individual agrees to receiving materials from the
covered entity electronically and the individual has not withdrawn his
or her agreement. If the covered entity knows that the electronic
transmission has failed, the covered entity must provide a paper copy of
the notice to the individual.

If an individual=s first service delivery from a covered provider occurs
electronically, the covered provider must provide electronic notice
automatically and contemporaneously in response to the individual=s
first request for service. For example, the first time an individual
requests to fill a prescription through a covered internet pharmacy, the
pharmacy must automatically and contemporaneously provide the individual
with the pharmacy=s notice of privacy practices. An individual that
receives a covered entity=s notice electronically retains the right to
request a paper copy of the notice as described above. This right must
be described in the notice.

We note that the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce
Act (Pub. L. 106-229) may apply to documents required under this rule to
be provided in writing. We do not intend to affect the application of
that law to documents required under this rule.

**Section 164.520(d)CJoint Notice by Separate Covered Entities**

The proposed rule was silent regarding the ability of legally separate
covered entities to produce a single notice.

In the final rule, we allow covered entities that participate in an
organized health care arrangement to comply with this section by
producing a single notice that describes their combined privacy
practices. See \' 164.501 and the corresponding preamble discussion
regarding the definition of organized health care arrangement. (We note
that, under \' 164.504(d), covered entities that are under common
ownership or control may designate themselves as a single affiliated
covered entity. Joint notice requirements do not apply to such entities.
Single affiliated covered entities must produce a single notice,
consistent with the requirements described above for any other covered
entity. Covered entities under common ownership or control that elect
not to designate themselves as a single affiliated covered entity,
however, may elect to produce a joint notice if they meet the definition
of an organized health care arrangement.)

The joint notice must meet all of the requirements described above. The
covered entities must agree to abide by the terms of the notice with
respect to protected health information created or received by the
covered entities as part of their participation in the organized health
care arrangement. In addition, the joint notice must reasonably identify
the covered entities, or class of covered entities, to which the joint
notice applies and the service delivery sites, or classes of service
delivery sites, to which the joint notice applies. If the covered
entities participating in the organized health care arrangement will
share protected health information with each other as necessary to carry
out treatment, payment, or health care operations relating to the
arrangement, that fact must be stated in the notice.

Typical examples where this policy may be useful are health care
facilities where physicians and other providers who have offices
elsewhere also provide services at the facility (e.g. hospital staff
privileges, physicians visiting their patients at a residential
facility). In these cases, a single notice may cover both the physician
and the facility, if the above conditions are met. The physician is
required to have a separate notice covering the privacy practices at the
physician=s office if those practices are different than the practices
described in the joint notice.

If any one of the covered entities included in the joint notice
distributes the notice to an individual, as required above, the
distribution requirement is met for all of the covered entities included
in the joint notice.

**Section 164.520(e)CDocumentation**

As in the proposed rule, we establish documentation requirements for
covered entities subject to this provision. In the final rule, we
specify that covered entities must retain copies of the notice(s) they
issue in accordance with \' 164.530(j). See \' 164.530(j) and the
corresponding preamble discussion for further description of the
documentation requirements.

**SECTION 164.522CRIGHTS TO REQUEST PRIVACY PROTECTION FOR PROTECTED
HEALTH INFORMATION**

**Section 164.522(a)CRight of An Individual to Request Restriction of
Uses and Disclosures**

We proposed that individuals have the right to request that a covered
health care provider restrict the use or disclosure of protected health
information for treatment, payment, or health care operations. Providers
would not have been required to agree to requested restrictions.
However, a covered provider that agreed to a restriction could not use
or disclose protected health information inconsistent with the
restriction. The requirement would not have applied to permissible uses
or disclosures under proposed \' 164.510, including uses and disclosures
in emergency circumstances under proposed \' 164.510(k); when the health
care services provided were emergency services; or to required
disclosures to the Secretary under proposed \' 164.522. We would have
required covered providers to have procedures for individuals to request
restrictions, for agreed-upon restrictions to be documented, for the
provider to honor such restrictions, and for notification of the
existence of a restriction to others to whom such protected health
information is disclosed.

In the final rule, we retain the general right of an individual to
request that uses and disclosures of protected health information be
restricted and the requirement for covered entities to adhere to
restrictions to which they have agreed. However, we include some
significant changes and clarifications.

Under the final rule, we extend the right to request restrictions to
health plans and to health care clearinghouses that create or receive
protected health information other than as a business associate of
another covered entity. All covered entities must permit individuals to
request that uses and disclosures of protected health information to
carry out treatment, payment, and health care operations be restricted
and must adhere to restrictions to which they have agreed. A covered
entity is not required to agree to a restriction. We note that
restrictions between an individual and a covered entity for these or
other purposes may be otherwise enforceable under other law.

Under \' 164.522(a)(1)(i)(B), the right to request restrictions applies
to disclosures to persons assisting in the individual=s care under \'
164.510(b). An individual may request that a covered entity agree not to
disclose protected health information to persons assisting with the
individual=s care, even if such disclosure is permissible in accordance
with \' 164.510(b). For example, if an individual requests that a
covered entity never disclose protected health information to a
particular family member, and the covered entity agrees to that
restriction, the covered entity is prohibited from disclosing protected
health information to that family member, even if the disclosure would
otherwise be permissible under \' 164.510(b). We note that individuals
additionally have the opportunity to agree or object to disclosures to
persons assisting in the individual=s care under \' 164.510(b)(2). The
individual retains the right to agree or object to such disclosures
under \' 164.510(b)(2), in accordance with the standards of that
provision, regardless of whether the individual has requested a
restriction under \' 164.522(a). See \' 164.510(b) and the corresponding
preamble discussion regarding the individual=s right to agree or object
to disclosures to persons assisting in the individual=s care.

In \'\' 164.522(a)(1)(iii) and (iv) we clarify the requirements with
respect to emergency treatment situations. In emergency treatment
situations, a covered entity that has agreed to a restriction may use,
or disclose to a health care provider, restricted protected health
information that is necessary to provide the emergency treatment. If the
covered entity discloses restricted protected health information to a
health care provider for emergency treatment purposes, it must request
that the provider not further use or disclose the information. We expect
covered entities to consider the need for access to protected health
information for treatment purposes when considering a request for a
restriction, to discuss this need with the individual making the request
for restriction, and to agree to restrictions that will not foreseeably
impede the individual=s treatment. Therefore, we expect covered entities
will rarely need to use or disclose restricted protected health
information in emergency treatment situations. We do not intend,
however, to adversely impact the delivery of health care. We therefore
provide a means for the use and disclosure of restricted protected
health information in emergency treatment situations, where an
unexpected need for the information could arise and there is
insufficient time to secure the individual=s permission to use or
disclose the restricted information.

In \' 164.522(a)(1)(v) we clarify that restrictions are not effective
under this rule to prevent uses and disclosures required by \'
164.502(a)(2)(ii) or permitted under \' 164.510(a) (regarding facility
directories) or \' 164.512 (regarding uses and disclosures for which
consent, individual authorization, or opportunity to agree or object is
not required). Covered entities are permitted to agree to such
restrictions, but if they do so, the restrictions are not enforceable
under this rule. For example, a provider who makes a disclosure under \'
164.512(j)(1)(i) relating to serious and imminent threats will not be in
violation of this rule even if the disclosure is contrary to a
restriction agreed to under this paragraph.

In \' 164.522(a)(2) we clarify a covered entity=s ability to terminate a
restriction to which it has agreed. A covered entity may terminate a
restriction with the individual=s written or oral agreement. If the
individual=s agreement is obtained orally, the covered entity must
document that agreement. A note in the medical record or similar
notation is sufficient documentation. If the individual agrees to
terminate the restriction, the covered entity may use and disclose
protected health information as otherwise permitted under the rule. If
the covered entity wants to terminate the restriction without the
individual=s agreement, it may only terminate the restriction with
respect to protected health information it creates or receives after it
informs the individual of the termination. The restriction continues to
apply to protected health information created or received prior to
informing the individual of the termination. That is, any protected
health information that had been collected before the termination may
not be used or disclosed in a way that is inconsistent with the
restriction, but any information that is collected after informing the
individual of the termination of the restriction may be used or
disclosed as otherwise permitted under the rule.

In \' 164.522(a)(3), we clarify that a covered entity must document a
restriction to which it has agreed. We do not require a specific form of
documentation; a note in the medical record or similar notation is
sufficient. The documentation must be retained for six years from the
date it was created or the date it was last in effect, whichever is
later, in accordance with \' 164.530(j).

We eliminate the requirement from the NPRM for covered entities to
inform persons to whom they disclose protected health information of the
existence of any restriction on that information. A restriction is only
binding on the covered entity that agreed to the restriction. We
encourage covered entities to inform others of the existence of a
restriction when it is appropriate to do so. We note, however, that
disclosure of the existence of a restriction often amounts to a *de
facto* disclosure of the restricted information itself. If a restriction
does not permit a covered entity to disclose protected health
information to a particular person, the covered entity must carefully
consider whether disclosing the existence of the restriction to that
person would also violate the restriction.

**Section 164.522(b)CConfidential Communications Requirements**

In the NPRM, we did not directly address the issue of whether an
individual could request that a covered entity restrict the manner in
which it communicated with the individual. As described above, the NPRM
would have provided individuals with the right to request that health
care providers restrict uses and disclosures of protected health
information for treatment, payment and health care operations, but would
not have required providers to agree to such a restriction.

In the final rule, we require covered entities to permit individuals to
request that the covered entity provide confidential communications of
protected health information about the individual. The requirement
applies to communications from the covered entity to the individual, and
also communications from the covered entity that would otherwise be sent
to the named insured of an insurance policy that covers the individual
as a dependent of the named insured. Individuals may request that the
covered entity send such communications by alternative means or at
alternative locations. For example, an individual who does not want his
or her family members to know about a certain treatment may request that
the provider communicate with the individual about that treatment at the
individual=s place of employment, by mail to a designated address, or by
phone to a designated phone number. Similarly, an individual may request
that the provider send communications in a closed envelope rather than a
post card, as an Aalternative means.@ Covered health care providers must
accommodate all reasonable requests. Health plans must accommodate all
reasonable requests, if the individual clearly states that the
disclosure of all or part of the protected health information could
endanger the individual. For example, if an individual requests that a
health plan send explanations of benefits about particular services to
the individual=s work rather than home address because the individual is
concerned that a member of the individual=s household (e.g., the named
insured) might read the explanation of benefits and become abusive
towards the individual, the health plan must accommodate the request.

The reasonableness of a request made under this paragraph must be
determined by a covered entity solely on the basis of the administrative
difficulty of complying with the request and as otherwise provided in
this section. A covered health care provider or health plan cannot
refuse to accommodate a request based on its perception of the merits of
the individual=s reason for making the request. A covered health care
provider may not require the individual to provide a reason for the
request as a condition of accommodating the request. As discussed above,
a health plan is not required to accommodate a request unless the
individual indicates that the disclosure could endanger the individual.
If the individual indicates such endangerment, however, the covered
entity cannot further consider the individual=s reason for making the
request in determining whether it must accommodate the request.

A covered health care provider or health plan may refuse to accommodate
a request, however, if the individual has not provided information as to
how payment, if applicable, will be handled, or if the individual has
not specified an alternative address or method of contact.

**SECTION 164.524CACCESS OF INDIVIDUALS TO PROTECTED HEALTH
INFORMATION**

**Section 164.524(a)CRight of Access**

In the NPRM, we proposed to establish a right for individuals to access
(i.e., inspect and obtain a copy of) protected health information about
them maintained by a covered provider or health plan, or its business
partners, in a designated record set.

As in the proposed rule, in the final rule we provide that individuals
have a right of access to protected health information that is
maintained in a designated record set. This right applies to health
plans, covered health care providers, and health care clearinghouses
that create or receive protected health information other than as a
business associate of another covered entity (see \' 164.500(b)). In the
final rule, however, we modify the definition of designated record set.
For a discussion of the significant changes made to the definition of
designated record set, see \' 164.501 and the corresponding preamble.

Under the revised definition, individuals have a right of access to any
protected health information that is used, in whole or in part, to make
decisions about individuals. This information includes, for example,
information used to make health care decisions or information used to
determine whether an insurance claim will be paid. Covered entities
often incorporate the same protected health information into a variety
of different data systems, not all of which will be utilized to make
decisions about individuals. For example, information systems that are
used for quality control or peer review analyses may not be used to make
decisions about individuals. In that case, the information systems would
not fall within the definition of designated record set. We do not
require entities to grant an individual access to protected health
information maintained in these types of information systems.

***Duration of the Right of Access***

As in the proposed rule, covered entities must provide access to
individuals for as long as the protected health information is
maintained in a designated record set.

***Exceptions to the Right of Access***

In the NPRM, we proposed to establish a right for individuals to access
any protected health information maintained in a designated record set.
Though we proposed to permit covered entities to deny access in certain
situations relating to the particular individual requesting access, we
did not specifically exclude any protected health information from the
right of access.

In the final rule, we specify three types of information to which
individuals do not have a right of access, even if the information is
maintained in a designated record set. They are psychotherapy notes,
information compiled in reasonable anticipation of, or for use in, a
civil, criminal, or administrative action or proceeding, and certain
protected health information maintained by a covered entity that is
subject to or exempted from the Clinical Laboratory Improvements
Amendments of 1988 (CLIA). Covered entities may, but are not required
to, provide access to this information.

First, unlike the proposed rule, we specify that individuals do not have
a right of access to psychotherapy notes.

Second, individuals do not have a right of access to information
compiled in reasonable anticipation of, or for use in, a civil,
criminal, or administrative action or proceeding. In the NPRM, we would
have permitted covered entities to deny a request for access to
protected health information complied in reasonable anticipation of, or
for use in, a legal proceeding. We change the language in the final rule
to clarify that a legal proceeding includes civil, criminal, and
administrative actions and proceedings. In the final rule, we clarify
that an individual does not have a right to this information by
including it in the list of exceptions rather than stating that a
covered entity may deny access to this information. Under this
exception, the covered entity may deny access to any information that
relates specifically to legal preparations but may not deny access to
the individual=s underlying health information. We do not intend to
require covered entities to provide access to documents protected by
attorney work-product privilege nor do we intend to alter rules of
discovery.

Third, unlike the proposed rule, individuals do not have a right of
access to protected health information held by clinical laboratories if
CLIA prohibits such access. CLIA states that clinical laboratories may
provide clinical laboratory test records and reports only to Aauthorized
persons,@ as defined primarily by state law. The individual who is the
subject of the information is not always included in this set of
authorized persons. When an individual is not an authorized person, this
restriction effectively prohibits the clinical laboratory from providing
an individual access to this information. We do not intend to preempt
CLIA and, therefore, do not require covered clinical laboratories to
provide an individual access to this information if CLIA prohibits them
from doing so. We note, however, that individuals have the right of
access to this information if it is maintained by a covered health care
provider, clearinghouse, or health plan that is not subject to CLIA.

Finally, unlike the proposed rule, individuals do not have access to
protected health information held by certain research laboratories that
are exempt from the CLIA regulations. The CLIA regulations specifically
exempt the components or functions of Aresearch laboratories that test
human specimens but do not report patient specific results for the
diagnosis, prevention or treatment of any disease or impairment of, or
the assessment of the health of individual patients.@ 42 CFR
493.3(a)(2). If subject to the access requirements, these laboratories,
or the applicable components of them, would be forced to comply with the
CLIA regulations once they provided an individual with the access under
this privacy rule. Therefore, to alleviate this additional regulatory
burden, we have exempted these laboratories, or the relevant components
of them, from the access requirements of this regulation.

***Grounds for Denial of Access***

In the NPRM we proposed to permit covered health care providers and
health plans to deny an individual access to inspect and copy protected
health information about them for five reasons: 1) a licensed health
care professional determined the inspection and copying was reasonably
likely to endanger the life or physical safety of the individual or
another person; 2) the information was about another person (other than
a health care provider) and a licensed health care professional
determined the inspection and copying was reasonably likely to cause
substantial harm to that other person; 3) the information was obtained
under a promise of confidentiality from someone other than a health care
provider and the inspection and copying was likely to reveal the source
of the information; 4) the information was obtained by a covered
provider in the course of a clinical trial, the individual agreed to the
denial of access in consenting to participate in the trial, and the
trial was in progress; and 5) the information was compiled in reasonable
anticipation of, or for use in, a legal proceeding. In the NPRM, covered
entities would not have been permitted to use these grounds to deny
individuals access to protected health information that was also subject
to the Privacy Act.

In the final rule, we retain all of these grounds for denial, with some
modifications. One of the proposed grounds for denial (regarding legal
proceedings) is retained as an exception to the right of access. (See
discussion above.) We also include additional grounds for denial and
create a right for individuals to request review of certain denials.

There are five types of denials covered entities may make without
providing the individual with a right to have the denial reviewed.

First, a covered entity may deny an individual access to any information
that is excepted from the right of access under \' 164.524(a)(1). (See
discussion above.)

Second, we add a new provision that permits a covered entity that is a
correctional institution or covered health care provider acting under
the direction of a correctional institution to deny an inmate=s request
to obtain a copy of protected health information if obtaining a copy
would jeopardize the health, safety, security, custody, or
rehabilitation of the individual or other inmates or the safety of any
officer, employee or other person at the correctional institution or
responsible for the transporting of the inmate. This ground for denial
is restricted to an inmate=s request to obtain a copy of protected
health information. If an inmate requests inspection of protected health
information, the request must be granted unless one of the other grounds
for denial applies. The purpose for this exception, and the reason that
the exception is limited to denying an inmate a copy and not to denying
a right to inspect, is to give correctional institutions the ability to
maintain order in these facilities and among inmates without denying an
inmate the right to review his or her protected health information.

Third, as in the proposed rule, a covered entity may deny an individual
access to protected health information obtained by a covered provider in
the course of research that includes treatment of the research
participants, while such research is in progress. For this exception to
apply, the individual must have agreed to the denial of access in
conjunction with the individual=s consent to participate in the research
and the covered provider must have informed the individual that the
right of access will be reinstated upon completion of the research. If
either of these conditions is not met, the individual has the right to
inspect and copy the information (subject to the other exceptions we
provide here). In all cases, the individual has the right to inspect and
copy the information after the research is complete.

As with all the grounds for denial, covered entities are not required to
deny access under the research exception. We expect all researchers to
maintain a high level of ethical consideration for the welfare of
research participants and provide access in appropriate circumstances.
For example, if a participant has a severe adverse reaction, disclosure
of information during the course of the research may be necessary to
give the participant adequate information for proper treatment
decisions.

Fourth, we clarify the ability of a covered entity to deny individuals
access to protected health information that is also subject to the
Privacy Act. In the final rule, we specify that a covered entity may
deny an individual access to protected health information that is
contained in records that are subject to the Privacy Act if such denial
is permitted under the Privacy Act. This ground for denial exists in
addition to the other grounds for denial available under this rule. If
an individual requests access to protected health information that is
also subject to the Privacy Act, a covered entity may deny access to
that information for any of the reasons permitted under the Privacy Act
and for any of the reasons permitted under this rule.

Fifth, as in the proposed rule, a covered entity may deny an individual
access to protected health information if the covered entity obtained
the requested information from someone other than a health care provider
under a promise of confidentiality and such access would be reasonably
likely to reveal the source of the information. This provision is
intended to preserve a covered entity=s ability to maintain an implicit
or explicit promise of confidentiality. A covered entity may not,
however, deny access to protected health information when the
information has been obtained from a health care provider. An individual
is entitled to have access to all information about him or her generated
by the health care system (apart from the other exceptions we provide
here). Confidentiality promises to health care providers should not
interfere with that access.

As in the proposed rule, a covered entity may deny access to protected
health information under certain circumstances in which the access may
harm the individual or others. In the final rule, we specify that a
covered entity may only deny access for these reasons if the covered
entity provides the individual with a right to have the denial reviewed.
(See below for a discussion of the right to review.)

There are three types of denials for which covered entities must provide
the individual with a right to review. A denial under these provisions
requires a determination by a licensed health care professional (such as
a physician, physician=s assistant, or nurse) based on an assessment of
the particular circumstances and current professional medical standards
of harm. Therefore, when the request is made to a health plan or
clearinghouse, the covered entity will need to consult with a licensed
health care professional before denying access under this provision.

First, as in the proposed rule, covered entities may deny individuals
access to protected health information about them if a licensed health
care professional has determined, in the exercise of professional
judgment, that the access requested is reasonably likely to endanger the
life or physical safety of the individual or another person. The most
commonly cited example is when an individual exhibits suicidal or
homicidal tendencies. If a licensed health care professional determines
that an individual exhibits such tendencies and that permitting
inspection or copying of some of the individual=s protected health
information is reasonably likely to result in the individual committing
suicide, murder, or other physical violence, then the health care
professional may deny the individual access to that information. Under
this reason for denial, covered entities may not deny access on the
basis of the sensitivity of the health information or the potential for
causing emotional or psychological harm.

Second, as in the proposed rule, covered entities may deny an individual
access to protected health information if the information requested
makes reference to someone other than the individual (and other than a
health care provider) and a licensed health care professional has
determined, in the exercise of professional judgment, that the access
requested is reasonably likely to cause serious harm to that other
person. On some occasions when health information about one person is
relevant to the care of another, a physician may incorporate it into the
latter\'s record, such as information from group therapy sessions and
information about illnesses with a genetic component. This provision
permits a covered entity to withhold information in such cases if the
release of such information is reasonably likely to cause substantial
physical, emotional, or psychological harm.

Third, we add a new provision regarding denial of access requested by
personal representatives. Under \' 164.502(g), a person that is a
personal representative of an individual may exercise the rights of the
individual, including the right to inspect and copy protected health
information about the individual that is relevant to such person=s
representation. The provision permits covered entities to refuse to
treat a personal representative as the individual, generally, if the
covered entity has a reasonable belief that the individual has been or
will be subjected to domestic violence, abuse or neglect by the personal
representative, or that treating the personal representative as the
individual may endanger the individual and, in its professional
judgment, the covered entity decides that it is not in the best interest
of the individual to treat such person as the personal representative.

In addition to that provision, we add a new provision at \'
164.524(a)(3)(iii) to clarify that a covered entity may deny a request
to inspect or copy protected health information if the information is
requested by a personal representative of the individual and a licensed
health care professional has determined that, in the exercise of
professional judgment, such access is reasonably likely to cause
substantial harm to the individual who is the subject of the information
or to another person. The health care professional need not have a
reasonable belief that the personal representative has abused or
neglected the individuals and the harm that is likely to result need not
be limited to the individual who is the subject of the requested
protected health information. Therefore, a covered entity can recognize
a person as a personal representative but deny such person access to
protected health information as a personal representative.

We do not intend these provisions to create a legal duty for the covered
entity to review all of the relevant protected health information before
releasing it. Rather, we are preserving the flexibility and judgment of
covered entities to deny access under appropriate circumstances. Denials
are not mandatory; covered entities may always elect to provide
requested health information to the individual. For each request by an
individual, the covered entity may provide all of the information
requested or evaluate the requested information, consider the
circumstances surrounding the individual=s request, and make a
determination as to whether that request should be granted or denied, in
whole or in part, in accordance with one of the reasons for denial under
this rule. We intend to create narrow exceptions to the right of access
and we expect covered entities to employ these exceptions rarely, if at
all. Covered entities may only deny access for the reasons specifically
provided in the rule.

***Review of a Denial of Access***

In the NPRM, we proposed to require covered entities, when denying an
individual=s request for access, to inform the individual of how to make
a complaint to the covered entity and the Secretary.

We retain in the final rule the proposed approach (see below). In
addition, if the covered entity denies the request on the basis of one
of the reviewable grounds for denial described above, the individual has
the right to have the denial reviewed by a licensed health care
professional who is designated by the covered entity to act as a
reviewing official and who did not participate in the original decision
to deny access. The covered entity must provide access in accordance
with the reviewing official=s determination. ( See below for further
description of the covered entity=s requirements under \' 164.524(d)(4)
if the individual requests a review of denial of access.)

**Section 164.524(b)CRequests for Access and Timely Action**

In the NPRM, we proposed to require covered health care providers and
health plans to provide a means for individuals to request access to
protected health information about them. We proposed to require covered
health care providers and health plans to take action on a request for
access as soon as possible, but not later than 30 days following the
request.

As in the proposed rule, the final rule requires covered entities to
permit an individual to request access to inspect or to obtain a copy of
the protected health information about the individual that is maintained
in a designated record set. We additionally permit covered entities to
require individuals to make requests for access in writing, if the
individual is informed of this requirement.

In the final rule, we eliminate the requirement for the covered entity
to act on a request as soon as possible. We recognize that circumstances
may arise in which an individual will request access on an expedited
basis. We encourage covered entities to have procedures in place for
handling such requests. The time limitation is intended to be an outside
deadline, rather than an expectation.

In the final rule, covered entities must act on a request for access
within 30 days of receiving the request if the information is maintained
or accessible on-site. Covered entities must act on a request for access
within 60 days of receiving the request if the information is not
maintained or accessible on-site. If the covered entity is unable to act
on a request within the applicable deadline, it may extend the deadline
by no more than 30 days by providing the individual with a written
statement of the reasons for the delay and the date by which the covered
entity will complete its action on the request. This written statement
describing the extension must be provided within the standard deadline.
A covered entity may only extend the deadline once per request for
access. This provision permits a covered entity to take a total of up to
60 days to act on a request for access to information maintained on-site
and up to 90 days to act on a request for access to information
maintained off-site.

The requirements for a covered entity to comply with or deny a request
for access, in whole or in part, are described below.

**Section 164.524(c)CProvision of Access**

In the NPRM, we proposed to require covered health care providers and
health plans, upon accepting a request for access, to notify the
individual of the decision and of any steps necessary to fulfill the
request; to provide the information requested in the form or format
requested, if readily producible in such form or format; and to
facilitate the process of inspection and copying.

We generally retain the proposed approach in the final rule. If a
covered entity accepts a request, in whole or in part, it must notify
the individual of the decision and provide the access requested.
Individuals have the right both to inspect and to copy protected health
information in a designated record set. The individual may choose
whether to inspect the information, to copy the information, or to do
both.

In the final rule, we clarify that if the same protected health
information is maintained in more than one designated record set or at
more than one location, the covered entity is required to produce the
information only once per request for access. We intend this provision
to reduce covered entities= burden in complying with requests without
reducing individuals= access to protected health information. We note
that summary information and reports are not the same as the underlying
information on which the summary or report was based. Individuals have
the right to obtain access both to summaries and to the underlying
information. An individual retains the right of access to the underlying
information even if the individual requests access to, or production of,
a summary. (See below regarding requests for summaries.)

The covered entity must provide the information requested in the form or
format requested if it is readily producible in such form or format. For
example, if the covered entity maintains health information
electronically and the individual requests an electronic copy, the
covered entity must accommodate such request, if possible. Additionally,
we specify that if the information is not available in the form or
format requested, the covered entity must produce a readily readable
hard copy of the information or another form or format to which the
individual and covered entity can agree. If the individual agrees,
including agreeing to any associated fees (see below), the covered
entity may provide access to a summary of information rather than all
protected health information in designated record sets. Similarly, a
covered entity may provide an explanation in addition to the protected
health information, if the individual agrees in advance to the
explanation and any associated fees.

The covered entity must provide the access requested in a timely manner,
as described above, and arrange for a mutually convenient time and place
for the individual to inspect the protected health information or obtain
a copy. If the individual requests that the covered entity mail a copy
of the information, the covered entity must do so, and may charge
certain fees for copying and mailing. For requests to inspect
information that is maintained electronically, the covered entity may
print a copy of the information and allow the individual to view the
print-out on-site. Covered entities may discuss the request with the
individual as necessary to facilitate the timely provision of access.
For example, if the individual requested a copy of the information by
mail, but the covered entity is able to provide the information faster
by providing it electronically, the covered entity may discuss this
option with the individual.

We proposed in the NPRM to permit the covered entity to charge a
reasonable, cost-based fee for copying the information.

We clarify this provision in the final rule. If the individual requests
a copy of protected health information, a covered entity may charge a
reasonable, cost‑based fee for the copying, including the labor and
supply costs of copying. If hard copies are made, this would include the
cost of paper. If electronic copies are made to a computer disk, this
would include the cost of the computer disk. Covered entities may not
charge any fees for retrieving or handling the information or for
processing the request. If the individual requests the information to be
mailed, the fee may include the cost of postage. Fees for copying and
postage provided under state law, but not for other costs excluded under
this rule, are presumed reasonable. If such per page costs include the
cost of retrieving or handling the information, such costs are not
acceptable under this rule.

If the individual requests an explanation or summary of the information
provided, and agrees in advance to any associated fees, the covered
entity may charge for preparing the explanation or summary as well.

The inclusion of a fee for copying is not intended to impede the ability
of individuals to copy their records. Rather, it is intended to reduce
the burden on covered entities. If the cost is excessively high, some
individuals will not be able to obtain a copy. We encourage covered
entities to limit the fee for copying so that it is within reach of all
individuals.

We do not intend to affect the fees that covered entities charge for
providing protected health information to anyone other than the
individual. For example, we do not intend to affect current practices
with respect to the fees one health care provider charges for forwarding
records to another health care provider for treatment purposes.

**Section 164.524(d)CDenial of Access**

We proposed in the NPRM to require a covered health care provider or
health plan that elects to deny a request for inspection or copying to
make any other protected health information requested available to the
individual to the extent possible, consistent with the denial.

In the final rule, we clarify the proposed approach. A covered entity
that denies access, in whole or in part, must, to the extent possible,
give the individual access to any other protected health information
requested after excluding the protected health information to which the
covered entity has a ground to deny access. We intend covered entities
to redact or otherwise exclude only the information that falls within
one or more of the denial criteria described above and to permit
inspection and copying of all remaining information, to the extent it is
possible to do so.

We also proposed to require covered providers and health plans, upon
denying a request for access in whole or in part, to provide the
individual with a written statement in plain language of the basis for
the denial and how the individual could make a complaint to the covered
entity or the Secretary.

We retain the proposed approach. A covered entity that denies access, in
whole or in part, must provide the individual with a written denial in
plain language that explains the basis for the denial. The written
denial could include a direct reference to the section of the regulation
relied upon for the denial, but the regulatory citation alone does not
sufficiently explain the reason for the denial. The written denial must
also describe how the individual can complain to the covered entity and
the Secretary and must include the name or title and the telephone
number of the covered entity=s contact person or office that is
responsible for receiving complaints.

In the final rule, we impose two additional requirements when the
covered entity denies access, in whole or in part. First, if a covered
entity denies a request on the basis of one of the reviewable grounds
for denial, the written denial must describe the individual=s right to a
review of the denial and how the individual may exercise this right.
Second, if the covered entity denies the request because it does not
maintain the requested information, and the covered entity knows where
the requested information is maintained, the covered entity must inform
the individual where to direct the request for access.

Finally, we specify a covered entity=s responsibilities when an
individual requests a review of a denial. If the individual requests a
review of a denial made under \' 164.524(a)(3), the covered entity must
designate a licensed health care professional to act as the reviewing
official. This reviewing official must not have been involved in the
original decision to deny access. The covered entity must promptly refer
a request for review to the designated reviewing official. The reviewing
official must determine, within a reasonable period of time, whether or
not to deny the access requested based on the standards in \'
164.524(a)(3). The covered entity must promptly provide the individual
with written notice of the reviewing official=s decision and otherwise
carry out the decision in accordance with the requirements of this
section.

**Section 164.524(e)CPolicies, Procedures, and Documentation**

As in the proposed rule, we establish documentation requirements for
covered entities that are subject to this provision. In accordance with
\' 164.530(j), the covered entity must retain documentation of the
designated record sets that are subject to access by individuals and the
titles of the persons or offices responsible for receiving and
processing requests for access by individuals.

**SECTION 164.526CAMENDMENT OF PROTECTED HEALTH INFORMATION**

**Section 164.526(a)CRight to Amend**

In proposed \' 164.516, we proposed to establish the individual=s right
to request a covered health care provider or health plan to amend or
correct protected health information about the individual for as long as
the covered entity maintains the information.

In \' 164.526 of the final rule, we retain the general proposed
approach, but establish an individual=s right to have the covered entity
amend, rather than amend or correct, protected health information. This
right applies to protected health information and records in a
designated record set for as long as the information is maintained in
the designated record set. In the final rule, covered health care
providers, health plans, and health care clearinghouses that create or
receive protected health information other than as a business associate
must comply with these requirements.

***Denial of Amendment***

We proposed to permit a covered health care provider or health plan to
deny a request for amendment if it determined that the protected health
information that was the subject of the request was not created by the
covered provider or health plan, would not be available for inspection
and copying under proposed \' 164.514, or was accurate and complete. A
covered entity would have been permitted, but not required, to deny a
request if any of these conditions were met.

As in the proposed rule, the final rule permits a covered entity to deny
a request for amendment if the covered entity did not create the
protected health information or record that is the subject of the
request for amendment. We add one exception to this provision: if the
individual provides a reasonable basis to believe that the originator of
the protected health information is no longer available to act on the
requested amendment, the covered entity must address the request for
amendment as though the covered entity had created the information.

As in the proposed rule, a covered entity also may deny a request for
amendment if the protected health information that is the subject of the
request for amendment is not part of a designated record set or would
not otherwise be available for inspection under \' 164.524. We eliminate
the ability to deny a request for amendment if the information or record
that is the subject of the request would not be available for copying
under the rule. Under \' 164.524(a)(2)(ii), an inmate may be denied a
copy of protected health information about the inmate. We intend to
preserve an inmate=s ability to request amendments to information, even
if a copy of the information would not be available to the inmate,
subject to the other exceptions provided in this section.

Finally, as in the proposed rule, a covered entity may deny a request
for amendment if the covered entity determines that the information in
dispute is accurate and complete. We draw this concept from the Privacy
Act of 1974, governing records held by federal agencies, which permits
an individual to request correction or amendment of a record \"which the
individual believes is not accurate, relevant, timely, or complete.\" (5
U.S.C. 552a(d)(2)). We adopt the standards of Aaccuracy@ and
Acompleteness@ and draw on the clarification and analysis of these terms
that have emerged in administrative and judicial interpretations of the
Privacy Act during the last 25 years. We note that for federal agencies
that are also covered entities, this rule does not diminish their
present obligations under the Privacy Act of 1974.

This right is not intended to interfere with medical practice or to
modify standard business record keeping practices. Perfect records are
not required. Instead, a standard of reasonable accuracy and
completeness should be used. In addition, this right is not intended to
provide a procedure for substantive review of decisions such as coverage
determinations by payors. It is intended only to affect the content of
records, not the underlying truth or correctness of materials recounted
therein. Attempts under the Privacy Act of 1974 to use this mechanism as
a basis for collateral attack on agency determinations have generally
been rejected by the courts. The same results are intended here.

**Section 164.526(b)CRequests for Amendment and Timely Action**

We proposed to require covered health care providers and health plans to
provide a means for individuals to request amendment of protected health
information about them. Under the NPRM, we would have required covered
health care providers and health plans to take action on a request for
amendment or correction within 60 days of the request.

As in the proposed rule, covered entities must permit individuals to
request that the covered entity amend protected health information about
them. We also permit certain specifications for the form and content of
the request. If a covered entity informs individuals of such
requirements in advance, a covered entity may require individuals to
make requests for amendment in writing and to provide a reason to
support a requested amendment. If the covered entity imposes such a
requirement and informs individuals of the requirement in advance, the
covered entity is not required to act on an individual=s request that
does not meet the requirements.

We retain the requirement for covered entities to act on a request for
amendment within 60 days of receipt of the request. In the final rule,
we specify the nature of the action the covered entity must take within
the time frame. The covered entity must inform the individual, as
described below, that the request has been either accepted or denied, in
whole or in part. It must also take certain actions pursuant to its
decision to accept or deny the request, as described below. If the
covered entity is unable to meet the deadline, the covered entity may
extend the deadline by no more than 30 days. The covered entity must
inform the individual in writing, within the initial 60-day period, of
the reason for the delay and the date by which the covered entity will
complete its action on the request. A covered entity may only extend the
deadline one time per request for amendment.

**Section 164.526(c)CAccepting the Amendment**

If a covered health care provider or health plan accepted a request for
amendment, in whole or in part, we proposed to require the covered
entity to make the appropriate change. The covered entity would have had
to identify the challenged entries as amended or corrected and indicate
the location of the amended or corrected information.

We also proposed to require the covered provider or health plan to make
reasonable efforts to notify certain entities of the amendment: 1)
entities the individual identified as needing to be notified and 2)
entities the covered provider or health plan knew had received the
erroneous or incomplete information and who may have relied, or could
foreseeably rely, on such information to the detriment of the
individual.

The covered provider or health plan would also have been required to
notify the individual of the decision to amend the information.

As in the proposed rule, if a covered entity accepts an individual=s
request for amendment or correction, it must make the appropriate
amendment. In the final rule, we clarify that, at a minimum, the covered
entity must identify the records in the designated record set that are
affected by the amendment and must append or otherwise provide a link to
the location of the amendment. We do not require covered entities to
expunge any protected health information. Covered entities may expunge
information if doing so is consistent with other applicable law and the
covered entity=s record keeping practices.

We alter some of the required procedures for informing the individual
and others of the accepted amendment. As in the proposed rule, the
covered entity must inform individuals about accepted amendments. In the
final rule, the covered entity must obtain the individual=s agreement to
have the amended information shared with certain persons. If the
individual agrees, the covered entity must make reasonable efforts to
provide a copy of the amendment within a reasonable time to: 1) persons
the individual identifies as having received protected health
information about the individual and needing the amendment; and 2)
persons, including business associates, that the covered entity knows
have the unamended information and who may have relied, or could
foreseeably rely, on the information to the detriment of the individual.
For example, a covered entity must make reasonable efforts to inform a
business associate that uses protected health information to make
decisions about individuals about amendments to protected health
information used for such decisions.

**Section 164.526(d)CDenying the Amendment**

If a covered health care provider or health plan denied a request for
amendment, in whole or in part, we proposed to require the covered
entity to provide the individual with a written statement in plain
language of the basis for the denial, a description of how the
individual could submit a written statement of disagreement with the
denial, and a description of how the individual could make a complaint
with the covered entity and the Secretary.

We proposed to require covered health care providers and health plans to
have procedures to permit the individual to file a written statement of
disagreement with the denial and to include the covered entity=s
statement of denial and the individual=s statement of disagreement with
any subsequent disclosure of the disputed information. Covered entities
would have been permitted to establish a limit to the length of the
individual=s statement of disagreement and to summarize the statement if
necessary. We also proposed to permit covered entities to provide a
rebuttal to the individual=s statement with future disclosures.

As in the proposed rule, if a covered entity denies a request for
amendment, it must provide the individual with a statement of denial
written in plain language. The written denial must include the basis for
the denial, how the individual may file a written statement disagreeing
with the denial, and how the individual may make a complaint to the
covered entity and the Secretary.

In the final rule, we additionally require the covered entity to inform
individuals of their options with respect to future disclosures of the
disputed information in order to ensure that an individual is aware of
his or her rights. The written denial must state that if the individual
chooses not to file a statement of disagreement, the individual may
request that the covered entity include the individual=s request for
amendment and the covered entity=s denial of the request with any future
disclosures of the protected health information that is the subject of
the requested amendment.

As in the proposed rule, the covered entity must permit the individual
to submit a written statement disagreeing with the denial and the basis
of such disagreement. The covered entity may reasonably limit the length
of a statement of disagreement and may prepare a written rebuttal to the
individual=s statement of disagreement. If the covered entity prepares a
rebuttal, it must provide a copy to the individual.

The covered entity must identify the record or protected health
information that is the subject of the disputed amendment and append or
otherwise link the following information to the designated record set:
the individual=s request for amendment, the covered entity=s denial of
the request, the individual=s statement of disagreement (if any), and
the covered entity=s rebuttal (if any). If the individual submits a
written statement of disagreement, all of the appended or linked
information, or an accurate summary of it, must be included with any
subsequent disclosure of the protected health information to which the
disagreement relates. If the individual does not submit a written
statement of disagreement, the covered entity must include the appended
or linked information only if the individual requests that the covered
entity do so.

In the final rule, we clarify that when a subsequent disclosure is a
standard transaction adopted under the Transactions Rule that cannot
accommodate the additional materials described above, the covered entity
may separately disclose the additional material to the recipient of the
transaction.

**Section 164.526(e)CActions on Notices of Amendment**

We proposed to require any covered entity that received a notification
of amendment to have procedures in place to make the amendment in any of
its designated record sets and to notify its business associates, if
appropriate, of amendments.

We retain the proposed approach in the final rule. If a covered entity
receives a notification of amended protected health information from
another covered entity as described above, the covered entity must make
the necessary amendment to protected health information in designated
record sets it maintains. In addition, covered entities must require
their business associates who receive such notifications to incorporate
any necessary amendments to designated record sets maintained on the
covered entity=s behalf. (See \' 164.504 regarding business associate
requirements.)

**Section 164.526(f)CPolicies, Procedures, and Documentation**

As in the proposed rule, we establish documentation requirements for
covered entities subject to this provision. In accordance with \'
164.530(j), the covered entity must document the titles of the persons
or offices responsible for receiving and processing requests for
amendment.

**\' 164.528 - ACCOUNTING OF DISCLOSURES OF PROTECTED HEALTH
INFORMATION**

***Right to an Accounting of Disclosures***

We proposed in the NPRM to grant individuals a right to receive an
accounting of all disclosures of protected health information about them
by a covered entity for purposes other than treatment, payment, and
health care operations. We proposed this right to exist for as long as
the covered entity maintained the protected health information.

We also proposed that individuals would not have a right to an
accounting of disclosures to health oversight or law enforcement
agencies if the agency provided a written request for exclusion for a
specified time period and the request stated that access by the
individual during that time period would be reasonably likely to impede
the agency=s activities.

We generally retain the proposed approach in the final rule. As in the
proposed rule, individuals have a right to receive an accounting of
disclosures made by a covered entity, including disclosures by or to a
business associate of the covered entity, for purposes other than
treatment, payment, and health care operations, subject to certain
exceptions as discussed below.

We revise the duration of this right under the final rule. Individuals
have a right to an accounting of the applicable disclosures that have
been made in the 6 year period prior to the date of a request for an
accounting. We additionally clarify in \' 164.528(b)(1) that an
individual may request, and a covered entity may then provide, an
accounting of disclosures for a period of time less than 6 years from
the date of the request. For example, an individual could request an
accounting only of disclosures that occurred during the year prior to
the request.

In the final rule, we exclude several additional types of disclosures
from the accounting requirement. Covered entities are not required to
include in the accounting disclosures to the individual as provided in
\' 164.502; disclosures for facility directories, disclosures to persons
involved in the individual=s care, or other disclosures for notification
purposes as provided in \' 164.510; disclosures for national security or
intelligence purposes as provided in \' 164.512(k)(2); disclosures to
correctional institutions or law enforcement officials as provided in \'
164.512(k)(5); or any disclosures that were made by the covered entity
prior to the compliance date of the rule for that covered entity.

We retain the time-limited exclusion for disclosures to health oversight
and law enforcement agencies, but require rather than permit the
exclusion for the specified time period. Covered entities must exclude
disclosures to a health oversight agency or law enforcement official
from the accounting for the time period specified by the applicable
agency or official if the agency or official provides the covered entity
with a statement that inclusion of the disclosure(s) in the accounting
to the individual during that time period would be reasonably likely to
impede the agency or official=s activities. The agency or official=s
statement must specifically state how long the information must be
excluded. At the expiration of that period, the covered entity is
required to include the disclosure(s) in an accounting for the
individual. If the agency or official=s statement is made orally, the
covered entity must document the identity of the agency or official who
made the statement and must exclude the disclosure(s) for no longer than
30 days from the date of the oral statement, unless a written statement
is provided during that time. If the agency or official provides a
written statement, the covered entity must exclude the disclosure(s) for
the time period specified in the written statement.

***Content of the Accounting***

We proposed in the NPRM to require the accounting to include all
disclosures as described above, including disclosures authorized by the
individual. The accounting would have been required to contain the date
of each disclosure; the name and address of the organization or person
who received the protected health information; a brief description of
the information disclosed; and copies of all requests for disclosures.
For disclosures other than those made at the request of the individual,
the accounting would have also included the purpose for which the
information was disclosed.

We generally retain the proposed approach in the final rule, but do not
require covered entities to make copies of authorizations or other
requests for disclosures available with the accounting. Instead, we
require the accounting to contain a brief statement of the purpose of
the disclosure. The statement must reasonably inform the individual of
the basis for the disclosure. In lieu of the statement of purpose, a
covered entity may include a copy of the individual=s authorization
under \' 164.508 or a copy of a written request for disclosure, if any,
under \' 164.502(a)(2)(ii) or \' 164.512. We also clarify that covered
entities are only required to include the address of the recipient of
the disclosed protected health information if the covered entity knows
the address.

We add a provision allowing for a summary accounting of recurrent
disclosures. For multiple disclosures to the same recipient pursuant to
a single authorization under \' 164.508 or for a single purpose under
\'\' 164.502(a)(2)(ii) or 164.512, the covered entity may provide a
summary accounting addressing the series of disclosures rather than a
detailed accounting of each disclosure in the series. In this
circumstance, a covered entity may limit the accounting of the series of
disclosures to the following information: the information otherwise
required above for the first disclosure in the series during the
accounting period; the frequency, periodicity, or number of disclosures
made during the accounting period; and the date of the most recent
disclosure in the series. For example, if under \' 164.512(b), a covered
entity discloses the same protected health information to a public
health authority for the same purpose every month, it can account for
those disclosures by including in the accounting the date of the first
disclosure, the public health authority to whom the disclosures were
made and the public health authority=s address, a brief description of
the information disclosed, a brief description of the purpose of the
disclosures, the fact that the disclosures were made every month during
the accounting period, and the date of the most recent disclosure.

***Provision of the Accounting***

We proposed in the NPRM to require covered entities to provide
individuals with an accounting of disclosures as soon as possible, but
not later than 30 days following receipt of the request for the
accounting.

In the final rule, we eliminate the requirement for the covered entity
to act as soon as possible. We recognize that circumstances may arise in
which an individual will request an accounting on an expedited basis. We
encourage covered entities to implement procedures for handling such
requests. The time limitation is intended to be an outside deadline,
rather than an expectation. We expect covered entities always to be
attentive to the circumstances surrounding each request and to respond
in an appropriate time frame.

In the final rule, covered entities must provide a requested accounting
no later than 60 days after receipt of the request. If the covered
entity is unable to meet the deadline, the covered entity may extend the
deadline by no more than 30 days. The covered entity must inform the
individual in writing, within the standard 60-day deadline, of the
reason for the delay and the date by which the covered entity will
provide the request. A covered entity may only extend the deadline one
time per request for accounting.

The NPRM did not address whether a covered entity could charge a fee for
the accounting of disclosures.

In the final rule, we provide that individuals have a right to receive
one free accounting per 12 month period. For each additional request by
an individual within the 12 month period, the covered entity may charge
a reasonable, cost-based fee. If it imposes such a fee, the covered
entity must inform the individual of the fee in advance and provide the
individual with an opportunity to withdraw or modify the request in
order to avoid or reduce the fee.

***Procedures and Documentation***

As in the proposed rule, we establish documentation requirements for
covered entities subject to this provision. In accordance with \'
164.530(j), for disclosures that are subject to the accounting
requirement, the covered entity must retain documentation of the
information required to be included in the accounting. The covered
entity must also retain a copy of any accounting provided and must
document the titles of the persons or offices responsible for receiving
and processing requests for an accounting.

**SECTION 164.530CADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS**

***Designation of a Privacy Official and Contact Person***

In \' 164.518(a) of the NPRM, we proposed that covered entities be
required to designate an individual as the covered entity=s privacy
official, responsible for the implementation and development of the
entity=s privacy policies and procedures. We also proposed that covered
entities be required to designate a contact person to receive complaints
about privacy and provide information about the matters covered by the
entity=s notice. We indicated that the contact person could be, but was
not required to be, the person designated as the privacy official. We
proposed to leave implementation details to the discretion of the
covered entity. We expected implementation to vary widely depending on
the size and nature of the covered entity, with small offices assigning
this as an additional duty to an existing staff person, and large
organizations creating a full-time privacy official. In proposed \'
164.512, we also proposed to require the covered plan or provider\'s
privacy notice to include the name of a contact person for privacy
matters.

The final regulation retains the requirements for a privacy official and
contact person as specified in the NPRM. These designations must be
documented. The designation of privacy official and contact person
positions within affiliated entities will depend on how the covered
entity chooses to designate the covered entity(ies) under \' 164.504(b).
If a subsidiary is defined as a covered entity under this regulation,
then a separate privacy official and contact person is required for that
covered entity. If several subsidiaries are designated as a single
covered entity, pursuant to \' 164.504(b), then together they need have
only a single privacy officer and contact person. If several covered
entities share a notice for services provided on the same premises,
pursuant to \' 164.520(d), that notice need designate only one privacy
official and contact person for the information collected under that
notice.

These requirements are consistent with the approach recommended by the
Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, and the
National Committee for Quality Assurance, in its paper AProtecting
Personal Health Information; A framework for Meeting the Challenges in a
Managed Care Environment.@ This paper notes that Aaccountability is
enhanced by having focal points who are responsible for assessing
compliance with policies and procedures\...@ (p. 29)

***Training***

In \' 164.518(b) of the NPRM we proposed to require that covered
entities provide training on the entities= policies and procedures to
all members of the workforce likely to have access to protected health
information. Each entity would be required to provide initial training
by the date on which this rule became applicable. After that date, each
covered entity would have to provide training to new members of the
workforce within a reasonable time after joining the entity. In
addition, we proposed that when a covered entity made material changes
in its privacy policies or procedures, it would be required to retrain
those members of the workforce whose duties were related to the change
within a reasonable time of making the change.

The NPRM would have required that, upon completion of the training, the
trainee would be required to sign a statement certifying that he or she
received the privacy training and would honor all of the entity\'s
privacy policies and procedures. Entities would determine the most
effective means of achieving this training requirement for their
workforce. We also proposed that, at least every three years after the
initial training, covered entities would be required to have each member
of the workforce sign a new statement certifying that he or she would
honor all of the entity\'s privacy policies and procedures. The covered
entity would have been required to document its policies and procedures
for complying with the training requirements.

The final regulation requires covered entities to train all members of
their workforce on the policies and procedures with respect to protected
health information required by this rule, as necessary and appropriate
for the members of the workforce to carry out their functions within the
covered entity. We do not change the proposed time lines for training
existing and new members of the workforce, or for training due to
material changes in the covered entity=s policies and procedures. We
eliminate both the requirement for employees to sign a certification
following training and the triennial re-certification requirement.
Covered entities are responsible for implementing policies and
procedures to meet these requirements and for documenting that training
has been provided.

***Safeguards***

In \' 164.518(c) of the NPRM, we proposed to require covered entities to
put in place administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to
protect the privacy of protected health information. We made reference
in the preamble to similar requirements proposed for certain electronic
information in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking entitled the Security
and Electronic Signature Standards (HCFA‑0049‑P). We stated that we were
proposing parallel and consistent requirements for safeguarding the
privacy of protected health information. In \' 164.518(c)(3) of the
NPRM, we required covered entities to have safeguards to ensure that
information was not used in violation of the requirements of this
subpart or by people who did not have proper authorization to access the
information.

We do not change the basic proposed requirements that covered entities
have administrative, technical and physical safeguards to protect the
privacy of protected health information. We combine the proposed
requirements into a single standard that requires covered entities to
safeguard protected health information from accidental or intentional
use or disclosure that is a violation of the requirements of this rule
and to protect against the inadvertent disclosure of protected health
information to persons other than the intended recipient. Limitations on
access to protected health information by the covered entities workforce
will also be covered by the policies and procedures forAminimum
necessary@ use of protected health information, pursuant to \'
164.514(d). We expect these provisions to work in tandem.

We do not prescribe the particular measures that covered entities must
take to meet this standard, because the nature of the required policies
and procedures will vary with the size of the covered entity and the
type of activities that the covered entity undertakes. (That is, as with
other provisions of this rule, this requirement is Ascalable.@) Examples
of appropriate safeguards include requiring that documents containing
protected health information be shredded prior to disposal, and
requiring that doors to medical records departments (or to file cabinets
housing such records) remain locked and limiting which personnel are
authorized to have the key or pass-code. We intend this to be a common
sense, scalable, standard. We do not require covered entities to
guarantee the safety of protected health information against all
assaults. Theft of protected health information may or may not signal a
violation of this rule, depending on the circumstances and whether the
covered entity had reasonable policies to protect against theft.
Organizations such as the Association for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
and the American Health Information Management Association (AHIMA) have
developed a body of recommended practices for handling of protected
health information that covered entities may find useful.

We note that the proposed HIPAA Security Standards would require covered
entities to safeguard the privacy and integrity of health information.
For electronic information, compliance with both regulations will be
required.

In \' 164.518(c)(2) of the NPRM we proposed requirements for
verification procedures to establish identity and authority for
permitted disclosures of protected health information.

In the final rule, this material has been moved to \' 164.514(h).

***Use or Disclosure of Protected Health Information by
Whistleblowers***

In \' 164.518(c)(4) of the NPRM, this provision was entitled
AImplementation Specification: Disclosures by whistleblowers.@ It is now
retitled ADisclosures by whistleblowers,@ with certain changes, and
moved to \' 164.502(j)(1).

***Complaints to the Covered Entity***

In \' 164.518(d) of the NPRM, we proposed to require covered entities to
have a mechanism for receiving complaints from individuals regarding the
health plan\'s or provider\'s compliance with the requirements of this
proposed rule. We did not require that the health plan or provider
develop a formal appeals mechanism, nor that \"due process\" or any
similar standard be applied. Additionally, there was no requirement to
respond in any particular manner or time frame.

We proposed two basic requirements for the complaint process. First, the
covered health plan or health care provider would be required to
identify in the notice of information practices a contact person or
office for receiving complaints. Second, the health plan or provider
would be required to maintain a record of the complaints that are filed
and a brief explanation of their resolution, if any.

In the final rule, we retain the requirement for an internal complaint
process for compliance with this rule, including the two basic
requirements of identifying a contact person and documenting complaints
received and their dispositions, if any. We expand the scope of
complaints that covered entities must have a means of receiving to
include complaints concerning violations of the covered entity=s privacy
practices, not just violations of the rule. For example, a covered
entity must have a mechanism for receiving a complaint that patient
information is used at a nursing station in a way that it can also be
viewed by visitors to the hospital, regardless of whether the practices
at the nursing stations might constitute a violation of this rule.

***Sanctions***

In \' 164.518(e) of the NPRM, we proposed to require all covered
entities to develop, and apply when appropriate, sanctions against
members of its workforce who failed to comply with privacy policies or
procedures of the covered entity or with the requirements of the rule.
Covered entities would be required to develop and impose sanctions
appropriate to the nature of the violation. The preamble stated that the
type of sanction applied would vary depending on factors such as the
severity of the violation, whether the violation was intentional or
unintentional, and whether the violation indicated a pattern or practice
of improper use or disclosure of protected health information. Sanctions
could range from a warning to termination. The NPRM preamble language
also stated that covered entities would be required to apply sanctions
against business associates that violated the proposed rule.

In the final rule, we retain the requirement for sanctions against
members of a covered entity=s workforce. We also require a covered
entity to have written policies and procedures for the application of
appropriate sanctions for violations of this subpart and to document
those sanctions. These sanctions do not apply to whistleblower
activities that meet the provisions of \' 164.502(j) or complaints,
investigations, or opposition that meet the provisions of \'
164.530(g)(2). We eliminate language regarding business associates from
this section. Requirements with respect to business associates are
stated in \' 164.504.

***Duty To Mitigate***

In proposed \' 164.518(f), we would have required covered entities to
have policies and procedures for mitigating, to the extent practicable,
any deleterious effect of a use or disclosure of protected health
information in violation of the requirements of this subpart. The NPRM
preamble also included specific language applying this requirement to
harm caused by members of the covered entity=s workforce and business
associates.

With respect to business associates, the NPRM preamble but not the NPRM
rule text, stated that covered entities would have a duty to take
reasonable steps in response to breaches of contract terms. Covered
entities generally would not be required to monitor the activities of
their business associates, but would be required to take steps to
address problems of which they become aware, and, where the breach was
serious or repeated, would also be required to monitor the business
associate\'s performance to ensure that the wrongful behavior had been
remedied. Termination of the arrangement would be required only if it
became clear that a business associate could not be relied upon to
maintain the privacy of protected health information provided to it.

In the final rule, we clarify this requirement by imposing a duty for
covered entities to mitigate any harmful effect of a use or disclosure
of protected health information that is known to the covered entity. We
apply the duty to mitigate to a violation of the covered entity=s
policies and procedures, not just a violation of the requirements of the
subpart. We resolve the ambiguities in the NPRM by imposing this duty on
covered entities for harm caused by either members of their workforce or
by their business associates.

We eliminate the language regarding potential breaches of business
associate contracts from this section. All other requirements with
respect to business associates are stated in \' 164.504.

***Refraining from Intimidating or Retaliatory Acts***

In \' 164.522(d)(4) of the NPRM, in the Compliance and Enforcement
section, we proposed that one of the responsibilities of a covered
entity would be to refrain from intimidating or retaliatory acts.
Specifically, the rule provided that A\[a\] covered entity may not
intimidate, threaten, coerce, discriminate against, or take other
retaliatory action against any individual for the filing of a complaint
under this section, for testifying, assisting, participating in any
manner in an investigation, compliance review, proceeding or hearing
under this Act, or opposing any act or practice made unlawful by this
subpart.@

In the final rule, we continue to require that entities refrain from
intimidating or retaliatory acts; however, the provisions have been
moved to the Administrative Requirements provisions in \' 164.530. This
change is not just clerical; in making this change, we apply this
provision to the privacy rule alone rather than to all the HIPAA
administrative simplification rules. (The compliance and enforcement
provisions that were in \' 164 are now in Part 160, Subpart C.)

We continue to prohibit retaliation against individuals for filing a
complaint with the Secretary, but also prohibit retaliation against any
other person who files such a complaint. This is the case because the
term Aindividual@ is generally limited to the person who is the subject
of the information. The final rule prohibits retaliation against
persons, not just individuals, for testifying, assisting, or
participating in an investigation, compliance review, proceeding or
hearing under Part C of Title XI. The proposed regulation referenced the
AAct,@ which is defined in Part 160 as the Social Security Act. Because
we only intend to protect activities such as participation in
investigations and hearings under the Administrative Simplification
provisions of HIPAA, the final rule references Part C of Title XI of the
Social Security Act.

The proposed rule would have prohibited retaliatory actions against
individuals for opposing any act or practice made unlawful by this
subpart. The final rule retains this provision, but applies it to any
person, only if the person Ahas a good faith belief that the practice
opposed is unlawful, the manner of the opposition is reasonable and does
not involve a disclosure of protected health information in violation of
this subpart.@ The final rule provides additional protections, which had
been included in the preamble to the proposed rule. Specifically, we
prohibit retaliatory actions against individuals who exercise any right,
or participate in any process established by the privacy rule (Part 164
Subpart E), and include as an example the filing of a complaint with the
covered entity.

***Waiver of Rights***

In the final regulation, but not in the proposed regulation, we provide
that a covered entity may not require individuals to waive their rights
to file a complaint with the Secretary or their other rights under this
rule as a condition of the provision of treatment, payment, enrollment
in a health plan or eligibility for benefits. This provision ensures
that covered entities do not take away the rights that individuals have
been provided in Parts 160 and 164.

***Requirements for Policies and Procedures, and Documentation
requirements***

In \' 164.520 of the NPRM, we proposed to require covered entities to
develop and document their policies and procedures for implementing the
requirements of the rule. In the final regulation we retain this
approach, but specify which standards must be documented in each of the
relevant sections. In this section, we state the general administrative
requirements applicable to all policies and procedures required
throughout the regulation.

In \' 164.530(i), (j), and (k) of the final rule, we amend the NPRM
language in several respects. In \' 164.530(i) we require that the
policies and procedures be reasonably designed to comply with the
standards, implementation specifications, and other requirements of the
relevant part of the regulation, taking into account the size of the
covered entity and the nature of the activities undertaken by the
covered entity that relate to protected health information. However, we
clarify that the requirements that policies and procedures be reasonably
designed may not be interpreted to permit or excuse any action that
violates the privacy regulation. Where the covered entity has stated in
its notice that it reserves the right to change information practices,
we allow the new practice to apply to information created or collected
prior to the effective date of the new practice and establish
requirements for making this change. We also establish the conditions
for making changes if the covered entity has not reserved the right to
change its practices.

We require covered entities to modify in a prompt manner their policies
and procedures to comply with changes in relevant law and, where the
change also affects the practices stated in the notice, to change the
notice. We make clear that nothing in our requirements regarding changes
to policies and procedures or changes to the notice may be used by a
covered entity to excuse a failure to comply with applicable law.

In \' 164.530(j), we require that the policies and procedures required
throughout the regulation be maintained in writing, and that any other
communication, action, activity, or designation that must be documented
under this regulation be documented in writing. We note that Awriting@
includes electronic storage; paper records are not required. We also
note that, if a covered entity is required to document the title of a
person, we mean the job title or similar description of the relevant
position or office.

We require covered entities to retain any documentation required under
this rule for at least six years (the statute of limitations period for
the civil penalties) from the date of the creation of the documentation,
or the date when the document was last in effect, which ever is later.
This generalizes the NPRM provision to cover all documentation required
under the rule. The language on Alast was in effect@ is a change from
the NPRM which was worded Aunless a longer period applies under this
subpart.@

This approach is consistent with the approach recommended by the Joint
Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, and the
National Committee for Quality Assurance, in its paper AProtecting
Personal Health Information; A framework for Meeting the Challenges in a
Managed Care Environment.@ This paper notes that AMCOs \[Managed Care
Organizations\] should have clearly defined policies and procedures for
dealing with confidentiality issues.@ (p. 29).

***Standards for Certain Group Health Plans***

We add a new provision (\' 164.530(k)) to clarify the administrative
responsibilities of group health plans that offer benefits through
issuers and HMOs. Specifically, a group health plan that provides
benefits solely through an issuer or HMO, and that does not create,
receive or maintain protected health information other than summary
health information or information regarding enrollment and
disenrollment, is not subject to the requirements of this section
regarding designation of a privacy official and contact person,
workforce training, safeguards, complaints, mitigation, or policies and
procedures. Such a group health plan is only subject to the requirements
of this section regarding documentation with respect to its plan
documents. Issuers and HMOs are covered entities under this rule, and
thus have independent obligations to comply with this section with
respect to the protected health information they maintain about the
enrollees in such group health plans. The group health plans subject to
this provision will have only limited protected health information.
Therefore, imposing these requirements on the group health plan would
impose burdens not outweighed by a corresponding enhancement in privacy
protections.

**SECTION 164.532 B TRANSITION PROVISIONS**

In the NPRM, we did not address the effect of the regulation on consents
and authorizations covered entities obtained prior to the compliance
date of the regulation.

In the final rule, we clarify that, in certain circumstances, a covered
entity may continue to rely upon consents, authorizations, or other
express legal permissions obtained prior to the compliance date of this
regulation to use or disclose protected health information even if these
consents, authorizations, or permissions do not meet the requirements
set forth in \'\' 164.506 or 164.508.

We realize that a covered entity may wish to rely upon a consent,
authorization, or other express legal permission obtained from an
individual prior to the compliance date of this regulation which permits
the use or disclosure of individually identifiable health information
for activities that come within treatment, payment, or health care
operations (as defined in \' 164.501), but that do not meet the
requirements for consents set forth in \' 164.506. In the final rule, we
permit a covered entity to rely upon such consent, authorization, or
permission to use or disclose protected health information that it
created or received before the applicable compliance date of the
regulation to carry out the treatment, payment, or health care
operations as long as it meets two requirements. First, the covered
entity may not make any use or disclosure that is expressly excluded
from the consent, authorization, or permission. Second, the covered
entity must comply with all limitations expressed in the consent,
authorization, or permission. Thus, we do not require a covered entity
to obtain a consent that meets the requirements of \' 164.506 to use or
disclose this previously obtained protected health information as long
as the use or disclosure is consistent with the requirements of this
section. However, a covered entity will need to obtain a consent that
meets the requirements of \' 164.506 to the extent that it is required
to obtain a consent under \' 164.506 from an individual before it may
use or disclose any protected health information it creates or receives
after the date by which it must comply with this rule.

Similarly, we recognize that a covered entity may wish to rely upon a
consent, authorization, or other express legal permission obtained from
an individual prior to the applicable compliance date of this regulation
that specifically permits the covered entity to use or disclose
individually identifiable health information for activities other than
to carry out treatment, payment, or health care operations. In the final
rule, we permit a covered entity to rely upon such a consent,
authorization, or permission to use or disclose protected health
information that it created or received before the applicable compliance
date of the regulation for the specific activities described in the
consent, authorization, or permission as long as the covered entity
complies with two requirements. First, the covered entity may not make
any use or disclosure that is expressly excluded from the consent,
authorization, or permission. Second, the covered entity must comply
with all limitations expressed in the consent, authorization, or
permission. Thus, we do not required a covered entity to obtain an
authorization that meets the requirements of \' 164.508 to use or
disclose this previously obtained protected health information so long
as the use or disclosure is consistent with the requirements of this
section. However, a covered entity will need to obtain an authorization
that meets the requirements of \' 164.508, to the extent that it is
required to obtain an authorization under this rule, from an individual
before it may use or disclose any protected health information it
creates or receives after the date by which it must comply with this
rule.

Additionally, the final rule acknowledges that covered entities may wish
to rely upon consents, authorizations, or other express legal permission
obtained from an individual prior to the applicable compliance date for
a specific research project that includes the treatment of individuals,
such as clinical trials. These consents, authorizations, or permissions
may specifically permit a use or disclosure of individually identifiable
health information for purposes of the project. Alternatively, they may
be general consents to participate in the project. A covered entity may
use or disclose protected health information it created or received
before or after to the applicable compliance date of this rule for
purposes of the project provided that the covered entity complies with
all limitations expressed in the consent, authorization, or permission.

If, pursuant to this section, a covered entity relies upon a previously
obtained consent, authorization, or other express legal permission and
agrees to a request for a restriction by an individual under \'
164.522(a), any subsequent use or disclosure under that consent,
authorization, or permission must comply with the agreed upon
restriction as well.

We believe it is necessary to grandfather in previously obtained
consents, authorizations, or other express legal permissions in these
circumstances to ensure that important functions of the health care
system are not impeded. We link the effectiveness of such consents,
authorizations, or permissions in these circumstances to the applicable
compliance date to give covered entities sufficient notice of the
requirements set forth in \'\' 164.506 and 164.508.

The rule does not change the past effectiveness of consents,
authorizations, or other express legal permissions that do not come
within this section. This means that uses or disclosures of individually
identifiable health information made prior to the compliance date of
this regulation are not subject to sanctions, even if they were made
pursuant to documents or permissions that do not meet the requirements
of this rule or were made without permission. This rule alters only the
future effectiveness of the previously obtained consents,
authorizations, or permissions. Covered entities are not required to
rely upon these consents, authorizations, or permissions and may obtain
new consents or authorizations that meet the applicable requirements of
\'\' 164.506 and 164.508.

When reaching this decision, we considered requiring all covered
entities to obtain new consents or authorizations consistent with the
requirements of \'\' 164.506 and 164.508 before they would be able to
use or disclose protected health information obtained after the
compliance date of these rules. We rejected this option because we
recognize that covered entities may not always be able to obtain new
consents or authorizations consistent with the requirements of \'\'
164.506 and 164.508 from all individuals upon whose information they
rely. We also refrained from impeding the rights of covered entities to
exercise their interests in the records they have created. We do not
require covered entities with existing records or databases to destroy
or remove the protected health information for which they do not have
valid consents or authorizations that meet the requirements of \'\'
164.506 and 164.508. Covered entities may rely upon the consents,
authorizations, or permissions they obtained from individuals prior to
the applicable compliance date of this regulation consistent with the
constraints of those documents and the requirements discussed above.

We note that if a covered entity obtains before the applicable
compliance date of this regulation a consent that meets the requirements
of \' 164.506, an authorization that meets the requirements of \'
164.508, or an IRB or privacy board waiver of authorization that meets
the requirements of \' 164.512(i), the consent, authorization, or waiver
is effective for uses or disclosures that occur after the compliance
date and that are consistent with the terms of the consent,
authorization, or waiver.

**SECTION 164.534 B COMPLIANCE DATES FOR INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
PRIVACY STANDARDS**

In the NPRM, we provided that a covered entity must be in compliance
with this subpart not later than 24 months following the effective date
of this rule, except that a covered entity that is a small health plan
must be in compliance with this subpart not later than 36 months
following the effective date of the rule.

The final rule did not make any substantive changes. The format is
changed so as to more clearly present the various compliance dates. The
final rule lists the types of covered entities and then the various
dates that would apply to each of these entities.

**III. SECTION-BY-SECTION DISCUSSION OF COMMENTS**

The following describes the provisions in the final regulation, and the
changes we make to the proposed provisions section-by-section. Following
each section are our responses to the comments to that section. This
section of the preamble is organized to follow the corresponding section
of the final rule, not the NPRM.

**GENERAL COMMENTS**

We received many comments on the rule overall, not to a particular
provision. We respond to those comments here. Similar comments, but
directed to a specific provision in the proposed rule, are answered
below in the corresponding section of this preamble.

***Comments on the Need for Privacy Standards, and Effects of this
Regulation on Current Protections***

*Comment:* Many commenters expressed the opinion that federal
legislation is necessary to protect the privacy of individuals= health
information. One comment advocated Congressional efforts to provide a
comprehensive federal health privacy law that would integrate the
substance abuse regulations with the privacy regulation.

*Response:* We agree that comprehensive privacy legislation is urgently
needed. This administration has urged the Congress to pass such
legislation. While this regulation will improve the privacy of
individuals= health information, only legislation can provide the full
array of privacy protection that individuals need and deserve.

*Comment:* Many commenters noted that they do not go to a physician, or
do not completely share health information with their physician, because
they are concerned about who will have access to that information. Many
physicians commented on their patients= reluctance to share information
because of fear that their information will later be used against them.

*Response:* We agree that strong federal privacy protections are
necessary to enhance patients= trust in the health care system.

*Comment:* Many commenters expressed concerns that this regulation will
allow access to health information by those who today do not have such
access, or would allow their physician to disclose information which may
not lawfully be disclosed today. Many of these commenters stated that
today, they consent to every disclosure of health information about
them, and that absent their consent the privacy of their health
information is Aabsolute.@ Others stated that, today, health information
is disclosed only pursuant to a judicial order. Several commenters were
concerned that this regulation would override stronger state privacy
protection.

*Response:* This regulation does not, and cannot, reduce current privacy
protections. The statutory language of the HIPAA specifically mandates
that this regulation does not preempt state laws that are more
protective of privacy.

As discussed in more detail in later this preamble, while many people
believe that they must be asked permission prior to any release of
health information about them, current laws generally do not impose such
a requirement. Similarly, as discussed in more detail later in this
preamble, judicial review is required today only for a small proportion
of releases of health information.

*Comment:* Many commenters asserted that today, medical records Abelong@
to patients. Others asserted that patients own their medical information
and health care providers and insurance companies who maintain health
records should be viewed as custodians of the patients= property.

*Response:* We do not intend to change current law regarding ownership
of or responsibility for medical records. In developing this rule we
reviewed current law on this and related issues, and built on that
foundation.

Under state laws, medical records are often the property of the health
care provider or medical facility that created them. Some state laws
also provide patients with access to medical records or an ownership
interest in the health information in medical records. However, these
laws do not divest the health care provider or the medical facility of
its ownership interest in medical records. These statutes typically
provide a patient the right to inspect or copy health information from
the medical record, but not the right to take the provider=s original
copy of an item in the medical record. If a particular state law
provides greater ownership rights, this regulation leaves such rights in
place.

*Comment:* Some commenters argued that the use and disclosure of
sensitive personal information must be strictly regulated, and violation
of such regulations should subject an entity to significant penalties
and sanctions.

*Response:* We agree, and share the commenters= concern that the
penalties in the HIPAA statute are not sufficient to fully protect
individuals= privacy interests. The need for stronger penalties is among
the reasons we believe Congress should pass comprehensive privacy
legislation.

*Comment:* Many commenters expressed the opinion that the proposed ruled
should provide stricter privacy protections.

*Response:* We received nearly 52,000 comments on the proposed
regulation, and make substantial changes to the proposal in response to
those comments. Many of these changes will strengthen the protections
that were proposed in the NPRM.

*Comment:* Many comments express concerns that their health information
will be given to their employers.

*Response:* We agree that employer access to health information is a
particular concern. In this final regulation, we make significant
changes to the NPRM that clarify and provide additional safeguards
governing when and how the health plans covered by this regulation may
disclose health information to employers.

*Comment:* Several commenters argued that individuals should be able to
sue for breach of privacy.

*Response:* We agree, but do not have the legislative authority to grant
a private right of action to sue under this statute. Only Congress can
grant that right.

***Objections to government access to protected health information***

*Comment:* Many commenters urged the Department not to create a
government database of health information, or a tracking system that
would enable the government to track individuals health information.

*Response:* This regulation does not create such a database or tracking
system, nor does it enable future creation of such a database. This
regulation describes the ways in which health plans, health care
clearinghouses, and certain health care providers may use and disclose
identifiable health information with and without the individual=s
consent.

*Comment:* Many commenters objected to government access to or control
over their health information, which they believe the proposed
regulation would provide.

*Response:* This regulation does not increase current government access
to health information. This rule sets minimum privacy standards. It does
not require disclosure of health information, other than to the subject
of the records or for enforcement of this rule. Health plans and health
care providers are free to use their own professional ethics and
judgement to adopt stricter policies for disclosing health information.

*Comment:* Some commenters viewed the NPRM as creating fewer hurdles for
government access to protected health information than for access to
protected health information by private organizations. Some health care
providers commented that the NPRM would impose substantial new
restrictions on private sector use and disclosure of protected health
information, but would make government access to protected health
information easy. One consumer advocacy group made the same observation.

*Response:* We acknowledge that many of the national priority purposes
for which we allow disclosure of protected health information without
consent or authorization are for government functions, and that many of
the governmental recipients of such information are not governed by this
rule. It is the role of government to undertake functions in the broader
public interest, such as public health activities, law enforcement,
identification of deceased individuals through coroners= offices, and
military activities. It is these public purposes which can sometimes
outweigh an individual=s privacy interest. In this rule, we specify the
circumstances in which that balance is tipped toward the public interest
with respect to health information. We discuss the rationale behind each
of these permitted disclosures in the relevant preamble sections below.

***Miscellaneous Comments***

*Comment:* Many commenters objected to the establishment of a unique
identifier for health care or other purposes.

*Response:* This regulation does not create an identifier. We assume
these comments refer to the unique health identifier that Congress
directed the Secretary to promulgate under section1173(b) of the Social
Security Act, added by section 262 of the HIPAA. Because of the public
concerns about such an identifier, in the summer of 1998 Vice President
Gore announced that the Administration would not promulgate such a
regulation until comprehensive medical privacy protections were in
place. In the fall of that year, Congress prohibited the Department from
promulgating such an identifier, and that prohibition remains in place.
The Department has no plans to promulgate a unique health identifier.

*Comment:* Many commenters asked that we withdraw the proposed
regulation and not publish a final rule.

*Response:* Under section 264 of the HIPAA, the Secretary is required by
Congress to promulgate a regulation establishing standards for health
information privacy. Further, for the reasons explained throughout this
preamble above, we believe that the need to protect health information
privacy is urgent and that this regulation is in the public=s interest.

*Comment:* Many commenters express the opinion that their consent should
be required for all disclosure of their health information.

*Response:* We agree that consent should be required prior to release of
health information for many purposes, and impose such a requirement in
this regulation. Requiring consent prior to all release of health
information, however, would unduly jeopardize public safety and make
many operations of the health care system impossible. For example,
requiring consent prior to release of health information to a public
health official who is attempting to track the source of an outbreak or
epidemic could endanger thousands of lives. Similarly, requiring consent
before an oversight official could audit a health plan would make
detection of health care fraud all but impossible; it could take health
plans months or years to locate and obtain the consent of all current
and past enrollees, and the health plan would not have a strong
incentive to do so. These uses of medical information are clearly in the
public interest.

In this regulation, we must balance individuals= privacy interests
against the legitimate public interests in certain uses of health
information. Where there is an important public interest, this
regulation imposes procedural safeguards that must be met prior to
release of health information, in lieu of a requirement for consent. In
some instances the procedural safeguards consists of limits on the
circumstances in which information may be disclosed, in others the
safeguards consist of limits on what information may be disclosed, and
in other cases we require some form of legal process (e.g., a warrant or
subpoena) prior to release of health information. We also allow
disclosure of health information without consent where other law
mandates the disclosures. Where such other law exists, another public
entity has made the determination that the public interests outweigh the
individual=s privacy interests, and we do not upset that determination
in this regulation. In short, we tailor the safeguards to match the
specific nature of the public purpose. The specific safeguards are
explained in each section of this regulation below.

*Comment:* Many comments address matters not relevant to this
regulation, such as alternative fuels, hospital reimbursement, and gulf
war syndrome.

*Response:* These and similar matters are not relevant to this
regulation and will not be addressed further.

*Comment:* A few commenters questioned why this level of detail is
needed in response to the HIPAA Congressional mandate.

*Response:* This level of detail is necessary to ensure that
individuals= rights with respect to their health information are clear,
while also ensuring that information necessary for important public
functions, such as protecting public health, promoting biomedical
research, fighting health care fraud, and notifying family members in
disaster situations, will not be impaired by this regulation. We
designed this rule to reflect current practices and change some of them.
The comments and our fact finding revealed the complexity of current
health information practices, and we believe that the complexity
entailed in reflecting those practices is better public policy than a
perhaps simpler rule that disturbed important information flows.

*Comment:* A few comments stated that the goal of administrative
simplification should never override the privacy of individuals.

*Response:* We believe that privacy is a necessary component of
administrative simplification, not a competing interest.

*Comment:* At least one commenter said that the goal of administrative
simplification is not well served by the proposed rule.

*Response:* Congress recognized that privacy is a necessary component of
administrative simplification. The standardization of electronic health
information mandated by the HIPAA that make it easier to share that
information for legitimate purposes also make the inappropriate sharing
of that information easier. For this reason, Congress included a mandate
for privacy standards in this section of the HIPAA. Without appropriate
privacy protections, public fear and instances of abuse would make it
impossible for us to take full advantage of the administrative and costs
benefits inherent in the administrative simplification standards.

*Comment:* At least one commenter asked us to require psychotherapists
to assert any applicable legal privilege on patients= behalf when
protected health information is requested.

*Response:* Whether and when to assert a claim of privilege on a
patient=s behalf is a matter for other law and for the ethics of the
individual health care provider. This is not a decision that can or
should be made by the federal government.

*Comment:* One commenter called for HHS to consider the privacy
regulation in conjunction with the other HIPAA standards. In particular,
this comment focused on the belief that the Security Standards should be
compatible with the existing and emerging health care and information
technology industry standards.

*Response:* We agree that both this regulation and the final Security
Regulation should be compatible with existing and emerging technology
industry standards. This regulation is Atechnology neutral.@ We do not
mandate the use of any particular technologies, but rather set standards
which can be met through a variety of means.

*Comment*: Several commenters claimed that the statutory authority given
under HIPAA cannot provide meaningful privacy protections because many
entities with access to protected health information, such as employers,
worker=s compensation carriers, and life insurance companies, are not
covered entities. These commenters expressed support for comprehensive
legislation to close many of the existing loopholes.

*Response*: We agree with the commenters that comprehensive legislation
is necessary to provide full privacy protection and have called for
members of Congress to pass such legislation to prevent unauthorized and
potentially harmful uses and disclosures of information.

**PART 160 B SUBPART A B GENERAL PROVISIONS**

**SECTION 160.103 B DEFINITIONS**

***Business Associate*.**

The response to comments on the definition of Abusiness partner,@
renamed in this rule as Abusiness associate,@ is included in the
response to comments on the requirements for business associates in the
preamble discussion of \' 164.504.

***Covered Entity*.**

*Comment:* A number of commenters urged the Department to expand or
clarify the definition of Acovered entity@ to include certain entities
other than health care clearinghouses, health plans, and health care
providers who conduct standard transactions. For example, several
commenters asked that the Department generally expand the scope of the
rule to cover all entities that receive or maintain individually
identifiable health information; others specifically urged the
Department to cover employers, marketing firms, and legal entities that
have access to individually identifiable health information. Some
commenters asked that life insurance and casualty insurance carriers be
considered covered entities for purposes of this rule. One commenter
recommended that Pharmacy Benefit Management (PBM) companies be
considered covered entities so that they may use and disclose protected
health information without authorization.

In addition, a few commenters asked the Department to clarify that the
definition includes providers who do not directly conduct electronic
transactions if another entity, such as a billing service or hospital,
does so on their behalf.

*Response:* We understand that many entities may use and disclose
individually identifiable health information. However, our jurisdiction
under the statute is limited to health plans, health care
clearinghouses, and health care providers who transmit any health
information electronically in connection with any of the standard
financial or administrative transactions in section 1173(a) of the Act.
These are the entities referred to in section 1173(a)(1) of the Act and
thus listed in \' 160.103 of the final rule. Consequently, once
protected health information leaves the purview of one of these covered
entities, their business associates, or other related entities (such as
plan sponsors), the information is no longer afforded protection under
this rule. We again highlight the need for comprehensive federal
legislation to eliminate such gaps in privacy protection.

We also provide the following clarifications with regard to specific
entities.

We clarify that employers and marketing firms are not covered entities.
However, employers may be plan sponsors of a group health plan that is a
covered entity under the rule. In such a case, specific requirements
apply to the group health plan. See the preamble on \' 164.504 for a
discussion of specific Afirewall@ and other organizational requirements
for group health plans and their employer sponsors. The final rule also
contains provisions addressing when an insurance issuer providing
benefits under a group health plan may disclose summary health
information to a plan sponsor.

With regard to life and casualty insurers, we understand that such
benefit providers may use and disclose individually identifiable health
information. However, Congress did not include life insurers and
casualty insurance carriers as Ahealth plans@ for the purposes of this
rule and therefore they are not covered entities. See the discussion
regarding the definition of Ahealth plan@ and excepted benefits.

In addition, we clarify that a PBM is a covered entity only to the
extent that it meets the definition of one or more of the entities
listed in \' 160.102. When providing services to patients through
managed care networks, it is likely that a PBM is acting as a business
associate of a health plan, and may thus use and disclose protected
health information pursuant to the relevant provisions of this rule.
PBMs may also be business associates of health care providers. See the
preamble sections on \'\' 164.502, 164.504, and 164.506 for discussions
of the specific requirements related to business associates and consent.

Lastly, we clarify that health care providers who do not submit HIPAA
transactions in standard form become covered by this rule when other
entities, such as a billing service or a hospital, transmit standard
electronic transactions on their behalf. The provider could not
circumvent these requirements by assigning the task to a contractor.

*Comment:* Many commenters urged the Department to restrict or clarify
the definition of Acovered entity@ to exclude certain entities, such as
department-operated hospitals (public hospitals); state Crime Victim
Compensation Programs; employers; and certain lines of insurers, such as
workers= compensation insurers, property and casualty insurers,
reinsurers, and stop-loss insurers. One commenter expressed concern that
clergy, religious practitioners, and other faith-based service providers
would have to abide by the rule and asked that the Department exempt
prayer healing and non-medical health care.

*Response:* The Secretary provides the following clarifications in
response to these comments. To the extent that a Adepartment-operated
hospital@ meets the definition of a Ahealth care provider@ and conducts
any of the standard transactions, it is a covered entity for the
purposes of this rule. We agree that a state Crime Victim Compensation
Program is not a covered entity if it is not a health care provider that
conducts standard transactions, health plan, or health care
clearinghouse. Further, as described above, employers are not covered
entities.

In addition, we agree that workers= compensation insurers, property and
casualty insurers, reinsurers, and stop-loss insurers are not covered
entities, as they do not meet the statutory definition of Ahealth plan.@
See further discussion in the preamble on \' 160.103 regarding the
definition of Ahealth plan.@ However, activities related to ceding,
securing, or placing a contract for reinsurance, including stop-loss
insurance, are health care operations in the final rule. As such,
reinsurers and stop-loss insurers may obtain protected health
information from covered entities.

Also, in response to the comment regarding religious practitioners, the
Department clarifies that Ahealth care@ as defined under the rule does
not include methods of healing that are solely spiritual. Therefore,
clergy or other religious practitioners that provide solely religious
healing services are not health care providers within the meaning of
this rule, and consequently not covered entities for the purposes of
this rule.

*Comment:* A few commenters expressed general uncertainty and requested
clarification as to whether certain entities were covered entities for
the purposes of this rule. One commenter was uncertain as to whether the
rule applies to certain social service entities, in addition to clinical
social workers that the commenter believes are providers. Other
commenters asked whether researchers or non-governmental entities that
collect and analyze patient data to monitor and evaluate quality of care
are covered entities. Another commenter requested clarification
regarding the definition=s application to public health agencies that
also are health care providers as well as how the rule affects public
health agencies in their data collection from covered entities.

*Response:* Whether the professionals described in these comments are
covered by this rule depends on the activities they undertake, not on
their profession or degree. The definitions in this rule are based on
activities and functions, not titles. For example, a social service
worker whose activities meet this rule=s definition of health care will
be a health care provider. If that social service worker also transmits
information in a standard HIPAA transaction, he or she will be a covered
health entity under this rule. Another social service worker may provide
services that do not meet the rule=s definition of health care, or may
not transmit information in a standard transaction. Such a social
service worker is not a covered entity under this rule. Similarly,
researchers in and of themselves are not covered entities. However,
researchers may also be health care providers if they provide health
care. In such cases, the persons, or entities in their role as health
care providers may be covered entities if they conduct standard
transactions.

With regard to public health agencies that are also health care
providers, the health care provider Acomponent@ of the agency is the
covered entity if that component conducts standard transactions. See
discussion of Ahealth care components@ below. As to the data collection
activities of a public health agency, the final rule in \' 164.512(b)
permits a covered entity to disclose protected health information to
public health authorities under specified circumstances, and permits
public health agencies that are also covered entities to use protected
health information for these purposes. See \' 164.512(b) for further
details.

*Comment:* A few commenters requested that the Department clarify that
device manufacturers are not covered entities. They stated that the
proposal did not provide enough guidance in cases where the
Amanufacturer supplier@ has only one part of its business that acts as
the Asupplier,@ and additional detail is needed about the relationship
of the Asupplier component@ of the company to the rest of the business.
Similarly, another commenter asserted that drug, biologics, and device
manufacturers should not be covered entities simply by virtue of their
manufacturing activities.

*Response:* We clarify that if a supplier manufacturer is a Medicare
supplier, then it is a health care provider, and it is a covered entity
if it conducts standard transactions. Further, we clarify that a
manufacturer of supplies related to the health of a particular
individual, e.g., prosthetic devices, is a health care provider because
the manufacturer is providing Ahealth care@ as defined in the rule.
However, that manufacturer is a covered entity only if it conducts
standard transactions. We do not intend that a manufacturer of supplies
that are generic and not customized or otherwise specifically designed
for particular individuals, e.g., ace bandages for a hospital, is a
health care provider. Such a manufacturer is not providing Ahealth care@
as defined in the rule and is therefore not a covered entity. We note
that, even if such a manufacturer is a covered entity, it may be an
\>indirect treatment provider= under this rule, and thus not subject to
all of the rule=s requirements.

With regard to a Asupplier component,@ the final rule addresses the
status of the unit or unit(s) of a larger entity that constitute a
Ahealth care component.@ See further discussion under \' 164.504 of this
preamble.

Finally, we clarify that drug, biologics, and device manufacturers are
not health care providers simply by virtue of their manufacturing
activities. The manufacturer must be providing health care consistent
with the final rule=s definition in order to be considered a health care
provider.

*Comment:* A few commenters asked that the Department clarify that
pharmaceutical manufacturers are not covered entities. It was explained
that pharmaceutical manufacturers provide support and guidance to
doctors and patients with respect to the proper use of their products,
provide free products for doctors to distribute to patients, and operate
charitable programs that provide pharmaceutical drugs to patients who
cannot afford to buy the drugs they need.

*Response:* A pharmaceutical manufacturer is only a covered entity if
the manufacturer provides Ahealth care@ according to the rule=s
definition and conducts standard transactions. In the above case, a
pharmaceutical manufacturer that provides support and guidance to
doctors and patients regarding the proper use of their products is
providing Ahealth care@ for the purposes of this rule, and therefore, is
a health care provider to the extent that it provides such services. The
pharmaceutical manufacturer that is a health care provider is only a
covered entity, however, if it conducts standard transactions. We note
that this rule permits a covered entity to disclose protected health
information to any person for treatment purposes, without specific
authorization from the individual. Therefore, a covered health care
provider is permitted to disclose protected health information to a
pharmaceutical manufacturer for treatment purposes. Providing free
samples to a health care provider does not in itself constitute health
care. For further analysis of pharmacy assistance programs, see response
to comment on \' 164.501, definition of Apayment.@

*Comment*: Several commenters asked about the definition of Acovered
entity@ and its application to health care entities within larger
organizations.

*Response*: A detailed discussion of the final rule=s organizational
requirements and firewall restrictions for Ahealth care components@ of
larger entities, as well as for affiliated, and other entities is found
at the discussion of \' 164.504 of this preamble. The following
responses to comments provide additional information with respect to
particular Acomponent entity@ circumstances.

*Comment*: Several commenters asked that we clarify the definition of
covered entity to state that with respect to persons or organizations
that provide health care or have created health plans but are primarily
engaged in other unrelated businesses, the term Acovered entity@
encompasses only the health care components of the entity. Similarly,
others recommended that only the component of a government agency that
is a provider, health plan, or clearinghouse should be considered a
covered entity.

Other commenters requested that we revise proposed \' 160.102 to apply
only to the component of an entity that engages in the transactions
specified in the rule. Commenters stated that companies should remain
free to employ licensed health care providers and to enter into
corporate relationships with provider institutions without fear of being
considered to be a covered entity. Another commenter suggested that the
regulation not apply to the provider-employee or employer when neither
the provider nor the company are a covered entity.

Some commenters specifically argued that the definition of Acovered
entity@ did not contemplate an integrated health care system and one
commenter stated that the proposal would disrupt the multi-disciplinary,
collaborative approach that many take to health care today by treating
all components as separate entities. Commenters, therefore, recommended
that the rule treat the integrated entity, not its constituent parts, as
the covered entity.

A few commenters asked that the Department further clarify the
definition with respect to the unique organizational models and
relationships of academic medical centers and their parent universities
and the rules that govern information exchange within the institution.
One commenter asked whether faculty physicians who are paid by a medical
school or faculty practice plan and who are on the medical staff of, but
not paid directly by, a hospital are included within the covered entity.
Another commenter stated that it appears that only the health center at
an academic institution is the covered entity. Uncertainty was also
expressed as to whether other components of the institution that might
create protected health information only incidentally through the
conduct of research would also be covered.

*Response:* The Department understands that in today=s health care
industry, the relationships among health care entities and non-health
care organizations are highly complex and varied. Accordingly, the final
rule gives covered entities some flexibility to segregate or aggregate
its operations for purposes of the application of this rule. The new
component entity provision can be found at \'\' 164.504(b)-(c). In
response to the request for clarification on whether the rule would
apply to a research component of the covered entity, we point out that
if the research activities fall outside of the health care component
they would not be subject to the rule. One organization may have one or
several Ahealth care component(s)@ that each perform one or more of the
health care functions of a covered entity, i.e., health care provider,
health plan, health care clearinghouse. In addition, the final rule
permits covered entities that are affiliated, i.e., share common
ownership or control, to designate themselves, or their health care
components, together to be a single covered entity for purposes of the
rule.

It appears from the comments that there is not a common understanding of
the meaning of Aintegrated delivery system.@ Arrangements that apply
this label to themselves operate and share information many different
ways, and may or may not be financially or clinically integrated. In
some cases, multiple entities hold themselves out as one enterprise and
engage together in clinical or financial activities. In others, separate
entities share information but do not provide treatment together or
share financial risk. Many health care providers participate in more
than one such arrangement.

Therefore, we do not include a separate category of \>covered entity=
under this rule for Aintegrated delivery systems@ but instead
accommodate the operations of these varied arrangements through the
functional provisions of the rule. For example, covered entities that
operate as \>organized health care arrangements= as defined in this rule
may share protected health information for the operation of such
arrangement without becoming business associates of one another.
Similarly, the regulation does not require a business associate
arrangement when protected health information is shared for purposes of
providing treatment. The application of this rule to any particular
\>integrated system= will depend on the nature of the common activities
the participants in the system perform. When the participants in such an
arrangement are \>affiliated= as defined in this rule, they may consider
themselves a single covered entity (see \' 164. 504).

The arrangements between academic health centers, faculty practice
plans, universities, and hospitals are similarly diverse. We cannot
describe a blanket rule that covers all such arrangements. The
application of this rule will depend on the purposes for which the
participants in such arrangements share protected health information,
whether some or all participants are under common ownership or control,
and similar matters. We note that physicians who have staff privileges
at a covered hospital do not become part of that hospital covered entity
by virtue of having such privileges.

We reject the recommendation to apply the rule only to components of an
entity that engage in the transactions. This would omit as covered
entities, for example, the health plan components that do not directly
engage in the transactions, including components that engage in
important health plan functions such as coverage determinations and
quality review. Indeed, we do not believe that the statute permits this
result with respect to health plans or health care clearinghouses as a
matter of negative implication from section 1172(a)(3). We clarify that
only a health care provider must conduct transactions to be a covered
entity for purposes of this rule.

We also clarify that health care providers (such as doctors or nurses)
who work for a larger organization and do not conduct transactions on
their own behalf are workforce members of the covered entity, not
covered entities themselves.

*Comment:* A few commenters asked the Department to clarify the
definition to provide that a multi-line insurer that sells insurance
coverages, some of which do and others which do not meet the definition
of Ahealth plan,@ is not a covered entity with respect to actions taken
in connection with coverages that are not Ahealth plans.@

*Response:* The final rule clarifies that the requirements below apply
only to the organizational unit or units of the organization that are
the Ahealth care component@ of a covered entity, where the Acovered
functions@ are not the primary functions of the entity. Therefore, for a
multi-line insurer, the Ahealth care component@ is the insurance line(s)
that conduct, or support the conduct of, the health care function of the
covered entity. Also, it should be noted that excepted benefits, such as
life insurance, are not included in the definition of Ahealth plan.@
(See preamble discussion of \' 164.504).

*Comment*: A commenter questioned whether the Health Care Financing
Administration (HCFA) is a covered entity and how HCFA will share data
with Medicare managed care organizations. The commenter also questioned
why the regulation must apply to Medicaid since the existing Medicaid
statute requires that states have privacy standards in place. It was
also requested that the Department provide a definition of Ahealth plan@
to clarify that state Medicaid Programs are considered as such.

*Response:* HCFA is a covered entity because it administers Medicare and
Medicaid, which are both listed in the statute as health plans. Medicare
managed care organizations are also covered entities under this
regulation. As noted elsewhere in this preamble, covered entities that
jointly administer a health plan, such as Medicare + Choice, are both
covered entities, and are not business associates of each other by
virtue of such joint administration.

We do not exclude state Medicaid programs. Congress explicitly included
the Medicaid program as a covered health plan in the HIPAA statute.

*Comment:* A commenter asked the Department to provide detailed guidance
as to when providers, plans, and clearinghouses become covered entities.
The commenter provided the following example: if a provider submits
claims only in paper form, and a coordination of benefits (COB)
transaction is created due to other insurance coverage, will the
original provider need to be notified that the claim is now in
electronic form, and that it has become a covered entity? Another
commenter voiced concern as to whether physicians who do not conduct
electronic transactions would become covered entities if another entity
using its records downstream transmits information in connection with a
standard transaction on their behalf.

*Response:* We clarify that health care providers who submit the
transactions in standard electronic form, health plans, and health care
clearinghouses are covered entities if they meet the respective
definitions. Health care providers become subject to the rule if they
conduct standard transactions. In the above example, the health care
provider would not be a covered entity if the coordination of benefits
transaction was generated by a payor.

We also clarify that health care providers who do not submit
transactions in standard form become covered by this rule when other
entities, such as a billing service or a hospital, transmit standard
electronic transactions on the providers= behalf. However, where the
downstream transaction is not conducted on behalf of the health care
provider, the provider does not become a covered entity due to the
downstream transaction.

*Comment:* Several commenters discussed the relationship between section
1179 of the Act and the privacy regulations. One commenter suggested
that HHS retain the statement that a covered entity means Athe entities
to which part C of title XI of the Act applies.@ In particular, the
commenter observed that section 1179 of the Act provides that part C of
title XI of the Act does not apply to financial institutions or to
entities acting on behalf of such institutions that are covered by the
section 1179 exemption. Thus, under the definition of covered entity,
they comment that financial institutions and other entities that come
within the scope of the section 1179 exemption are appropriately not
covered entities.

Other commenters maintained that section 1179 of the Act means that the
Act=s privacy requirements do not apply to the request for, or the use
or disclosure of, information by a covered entity with respect to
payment: (a) for transferring receivables; (b) for auditing; (c) in
connection with - (i) a customer dispute; or (ii) an inquiry from or to
a customer; (d) in a communication to a customer of the entity regarding
the customer=s transactions payment card, account, check, or electronic
funds transfer; (e) for reporting to consumer reporting agencies; or (f)
for complying with: (i) a civil or criminal subpoena; or (ii) a federal
or state law regulating the entity. These companies expressed concern
that the proposed rule did not include the full text of section 1179
when discussing the list of activities that were exempt from the rule=s
requirements. Accordingly, they recommended including in the final rule
either a full listing of or a reference to section 1179\'s full list of
exemptions. Furthermore, these firms opposed applying the proposed
rule=s minimum necessary standard for disclosure of protected health
information to financial institutions because of section 1179.

These commenters suggest that in light of section 1179, HHS lacks the
authority to impose restrictions on financial institutions and other
entities when they engage in activities described in that section. One
commenter expressed concern that even though proposed \' 164.510(i)
would have permitted covered entities to disclose certain information to
financial institutions for banking and payment processes, it did not
state clearly that financial institutions and other entities described
in section 1179 are exempt from the rule=s requirements.

*Response:* We interpret section 1179 of the Act to mean that entities
engaged in the activities of a financial institution, and those acting
on behalf of a financial institution, are not subject to this regulation
when they are engaged in authorizing, processing, clearing, settling,
billing, transferring, reconciling, or collecting payments for a
financial institution. The statutory reference to 12 U.S.C. 3401
indicates that Congress chose to adopt the definition of financial
institutions found in the Right to Financial Privacy Act, which defines
financial institutions as any office of a bank, savings bank, card
issuer, industrial loan company, trust company, savings association,
building and loan, homestead association, cooperative bank, credit
union, or consumer finance institution located in the United States or
one of its Territories. Thus, when we use the term Afinancial
institution@ in this regulation, we turn to the definition with which
Congress provided us. We interpret this provision to mean that when a
financial institution, or its agent on behalf of the financial
institution, conducts the activities described in section 1179, the
privacy regulation will not govern the activity.

If, however, these activities are performed by a covered entity or by
another entity, including a financial institution, on behalf of a
covered entity, the activities are subject to this rule. For example, if
a bank operates the accounts payable system or other Aback office@
functions for a covered health care provider, that activity is not
described in section 1179. In such instances, because the bank would
meet the rule=s definition of Abusiness associate,@ the provider must
enter into a business associate contract with the bank before disclosing
protected health information pursuant to this relationship. However, if
the same provider maintains an account through which he/she cashes
checks from patients, no business associate contract would be necessary
because the bank=s activities are not undertaken for or on behalf of the
covered entity, and fall within the scope of section 1179. In part to
give effect to section 1179, in this rule we do not consider a financial
institution to be acting on behalf of a covered entity when it processes
consumer-conducted financial transactions by debit, credit or other
payment card, clears checks, initiates or processes electronic funds
transfers, or conducts any other activity that directly facilitates or
effects the transfer of funds for compensation for health care.

We do not agree with the comment that section 1179 of the Act means that
the privacy regulation=s requirements cannot apply to the activities
listed in that section; rather, it means that the entities expressly
mentioned, financial institutions (as defined in the Right to Financial
Privacy Act), and their agents that engage in the listed activities for
the financial institution are not within the scope of the regulation.
Nor do we interpret section 1179 to support an exemption for disclosures
to financial institutions from the minimum necessary provisions of this
regulation.

*Comment:* One commenter recommended that HHS include a definition of
Aentity@ in the final rule because HIPAA did not define it. The
commenter explained that in a modern health care environment, the
organization acting as the health plan or health care provider may
involve many interrelated corporate entities and that this could lead to
difficulties in determining what Aentities@ are actually subject to the
regulation.

*Response:* We reject the commenter=s suggestion. We believe it is clear
in the final rule that the entities subject to the regulation are those
listed at \' 160.102. However, we acknowledge that how the rule applies
to integrated or other complex health systems needs to be addressed; we
have done so in \' 164.504 and in other provisions, such as those
addressing organized health care arrangements.

*Comment*: The preamble should clarify that self-insured group health
and workmen=s compensation plans are not covered entities or business
partners.

*Response*: In the preamble to the proposed rule we stated that certain
types of insurance entities, such as workers\' compensation, would not
be covered entities under the rule. We do not change this position in
this final rule. The statutory definition of health plan does not
include workers= compensation products, and the regulatory definition of
the term specifically excludes them. However, HIPAA specifically
includes most group health plans within the definition of Ahealth plan.@

*Comment:* A health insurance issuer asserted that health insurers and
third party administrators are usually required by employers to submit
reports describing the volume, amount, payee, basis for services
rendered, types of claims paid and services for which payment was
requested on behalf of it covered employees. They recommended that the
rule permit the disclosure of protected health information for such
purposes.

*Response*: We agree that health plans should be able to disclose
protected health information to employers sponsoring health plans under
certain circumstances. Section 164.504(f) explains the conditions under
which protected health information may be disclosed to plan sponsors. We
believe that this provision gives sponsors access to the information
they need, but protects individual=s information to the extent possible
under our legislative authority.

***Group Health Plan*.**

For response to comments relating to Agroup health plan,@ see the
response to comments on Ahealth plan@ below and the response to comments
on \' 164.504.

***Health Care*.**

*Comment*: A number of commenters asked that we include disease
management activities and other similar health improvement programs,
such as preventive medicine, health education services and maintenance,
health and case management, and risk assessment, in the definition of
Ahealth care.@ Commenters maintained that the rule should avoid limiting
technological advances and new health care trends intended to improve
patient Ahealth care.@

*Response*: Review of these and other comments, and our fact-finding,
indicate that there are multiple, different, understandings of the
definition of these terms. Therefore, rather than create a blanket rule
that includes such terms in or excludes such terms from the definition
of Ahealth care,@ we define health care based on the underlying
activities that constitute health care. The activities described by
these commenters are considered \>health care= under this rule to the
extent that they meet this functional definition. Listing activities by
label or title would create the risk that important activities would be
left out and, given the lack of consensus on what these terms mean,
could also create confusion.

*Comment*: Several commenters urged that the Department clarify that the
activities necessary to procure and distribute eyes and eye tissue will
not be hampered by the rule. Some of these commenters explicitly
requested that we include Aeyes and eye tissue@ in the list of
procurement biologicals as well as Aeye procurement@ in the definition
of Ahealth care.@ In addition, it was argued that Aadministration to
patients@ be excluded in the absence of a clear definition. Also,
commenters recommended that the definition include other activities
associated with the transplantation of organs, such as processing,
screening, and distribution.

*Response*: We delete from the definition of Ahealth care@ activities
related to the procurement or banking of blood, sperm, organs, or any
other tissue for administration to patients. We do so because persons
who make such donations are not seeking to be treated, diagnosed, or
assessed or otherwise seeking health care for themselves, but are
seeking to contribute to the health care of others. In addition, the
nature of these activities entails a unique kind of information sharing
and tracking necessary to safeguard the nation=s organ and blood supply,
and those seeking to donate are aware that this information sharing will
occur. Consequently, such procurement or banking activities are not
considered health care and the organizations that perform such
activities are not considered health care providers for purposes of this
rule.

With respect to disclosure of protected health information by covered
entities to facilitate cadaveric organ and tissue donation, the final
rule explicitly permits a covered entity to disclose protected health
information without authorization, consent, or agreement to organ
procurement organizations or other entities engaged in the procurement,
banking, or transplantation of cadaveric organs, eyes, or tissue for the
purpose of facilitating donation and transplantation. See \' 164.512(h).
We do not include blood or sperm banking in this provision because, for
those activities, there is direct contact with the donor, and thus
opportunity to obtain the individual=s authorization.

*Comment*: A large number of commenters urged that the term Aassessment@
be included in the list of services in the definition, as Aassessment@
is used to determine the baseline health status of an individual. It was
explained that assessments are conducted in the initial step of
diagnosis and treatment of a patient. If assessment is not included in
the list of services, they pointed out that the services provided by
occupational health nurses and employee health information may not be
covered.

*Response:* We agree and have added the term Aassessment@ to the
definition to clarify that this activity is considered Ahealth care@ for
the purposes of the rule.

*Comment:* One commenter asked that we revise the definition to
explicitly exclude plasmapheresis from paragraph (3) of the definition.
It was explained that plasmapheresis centers do not have direct access
to health care recipients or their health information, and that the
limited health information collected about plasma donors is not used to
provide health care services as indicated by the definition of health
care.

*Response:* We address the commenters= concerns by removing the
provision related to procurement and banking of human products from the
definition.

***Health Care Clearinghouse*.**

*Comment:* The largest set of comments relating to health care
clearinghouses focused on our proposal to exempt health care
clearinghouses from the patient notice and access rights provisions of
the regulation. In our NPRM, we proposed to exempt health care
clearinghouses from certain provisions of the regulation that deal with
the covered entities= notice of information practices and consumers=
rights to inspect, copy, and amend their records. The rationale for this
exemption was based on our belief that health care clearinghouses engage
primarily in business-to-business transactions and do not initiate or
maintain direct relationships with individuals. We proposed this
position with the caveat that the exemptions would be void for any
health care clearinghouse that had direct contact with individuals in a
capacity other than that of a business partner. In addition, we
indicated that, in most instances, clearinghouses also would be
considered business partners under this rule and would be bound by their
contracts with covered plans and providers. They also would be subject
to the notice of information practices developed by the plans and
providers with whom they contract.

Commenters stated that, although health care clearinghouses do not have
direct contact with individuals, they do have individually identifiable
health information that may be subject to misuse or inappropriate
disclosure. They expressed concern that we were proposing to exempt
health care clearinghouses from all or many aspects of the regulation.
These commenters suggested that we either delete the exemption or make
it very narrow, specific and explicit in the final regulatory text.

Clearinghouse commenters, on the other hand, were in agreement with our
proposal, including the exemption provision and the provision that the
exemption is voided when the entity does have direct contact with
individuals. They also stated that a health care clearinghouse that has
a direct contact with individuals is no longer a health care
clearinghouse as defined and should be subject to all requirements of
the regulation.

*Response:* In the final rule, where a clearinghouse creates or receives
protected health information as a business associate of another covered
entity, we maintain the exemption for health care clearinghouses from
certain provisions of the regulation dealing with the notice of
information practices and patient=s direct access rights to inspect,
copy and amend records (\'\' 164.524 and 164.526), on the grounds that a
health care clearinghouse is engaged in business-to-business operations,
and is not dealing directly with individuals. Moreover, as business
associates of plans and providers, health care clearinghouses are bound
by the notices of information practices of the covered entities with
whom they contract.

Where a health care clearinghouse creates or receives protected health
information other than as a business associate, however, it must comply
with all the standards, requirements, and implementation specifications
of the rule. We describe and delimit the exact nature of the exemption
in the regulatory text. See \' 164.500(b). We will monitor developments
in this sector should the basic business-to-business relationship
change.

*Comment:* A number of comments relate to the proposed definition of
health care clearinghouse. Many commenters suggested that we expand the
definition. They suggested that additional types of entities be included
in the definition of health care clearinghouse, specifically medical
transcription services, billing services, coding services, and
\"intermediaries.\" One commenter suggested that the definition be
expanded to add entities that receive standard transactions, process
them and clean them up, and then send them on, without converting them
to any standard format. Another commenter suggested that the health care
clearinghouse definition be expanded to include entities that do not
perform translation but may receive protected health information in a
standard format and have access to that information. Another commenter
stated that the list of covered entities should include any organization
that receives or maintains individually identifiable health information.
One organization recommended that we expand the health care
clearinghouse definition to include the concept of a research data
clearinghouse, which would collect individually identifiable health
information from other covered entities to generate research data files
for release as de-identified data or with appropriate confidentiality
safeguards. One commenter stated that HHS had gone beyond Congressional
intent by including billing services in the definition.

*Response:* We cannot expand the definition of Ahealth care
clearinghouse@ to cover entities not covered by the definition of this
term in the statute. In the final regulation, we make a number of
changes to address public comments relating to definition. We modify the
definition of health care clearinghouse to conform to the definition
published in the Transactions Rule (with the addition of a few words, as
noted above). We clarify in the preamble that, while the term Ahealth
care clearinghouse@ may have other meanings and connotations in other
contexts, for purposes of this regulation an entity is considered a
health care clearinghouse only to the extent that it actually meets the
criteria in our definition. Entities performing other functions but not
meeting the criteria for a health care clearinghouse are not
clearinghouses, although they may be business associates. Billing
services are included in the regulatory definition of Ahealth care
clearinghouse,@ if they perform the specified clearinghouse functions.
Although we have not added or deleted any entities from our original
definition, we will monitor industry practices and may add other
entities in the future as changes occur in the health system.

*Comment:* Several commenters suggested that we clarify that an entity
acting solely as a conduit through which individually identifiable
health information is transmitted or through which protected health
information flows but is not stored is not a covered entity, e.g., a
telephone company or Internet Service Provider. Other commenters
indicated that once a transaction leaves a provider or plan
electronically, it may flow through several entities before reaching a
clearinghouse. They asked that the regulation protect the information in
that interim stage, just as the security NPRM established a chain of
trust arrangement for such a network. Others noted that these
\"conduit\" entities are likely to be business partners of the provider,
clearinghouse or plan, and we should clarify that they are subject to
business partner obligations as in the proposed Security Rule.

*Response:* We clarify that entities acting as simple and routine
communications conduits and carriers of information, such as telephone
companies and Internet Service Providers, are not clearinghouses as
defined in the rule unless they carry out the functions outlined in our
definition. Similarly, we clarify that value added networks and switches
are not health care clearinghouses unless they carry out the functions
outlined in the definition, and clarify that such entities may be
business associates if they meet the definition in the regulation.

*Comment:* Several commenters, including the large clearinghouses and
their trade associations, suggested that we not treat health care
clearinghouses as playing a dual role as covered entity and business
partner in the final rule because such a dual role causes confusion as
to which rules actually apply to clearinghouses. In their view, the
definition of health care clearinghouse is sufficiently clear to stand
alone and identify a health care clearinghouse as a covered entity, and
allows health care clearinghouses to operate under one consistent set of
rules. *Response:* For reasons explained in \' 164.504 of this preamble,
we do not create an exception to the business associate requirements
when the business associate is also a covered entity. We retain the
concept that a health care clearinghouse may be a covered entity and a
business associate of a covered entity under the regulation. As business
associates, they would be bound by their contracts with covered plans
and providers.

***Health Care Provider*.**

*Comment:* One commenter pointed out that the preamble referred to the
obligations of providers and did not use the term, Acovered entity,@ and
thus created ambiguity about the obligations of health care providers
who may be employed by persons other than covered entities, e.g.,
pharmaceutical companies. It was suggested that a better reading of the
statute and rule is that where neither the provider nor the company is a
covered entity, the rule does not impose an obligation on either the
provider-employee or the employer.

*Response:* We agree. We use the term Acovered entity@ whenever possible
in the final rule, except for the instances where the final rule treats
the entities differently, or where use of the term Ahealth care
provider@ is necessary for purposes of illustrating an example.

*Comment:* Several commenters stated that the proposal=s definition was
broad, unclear, and/or confusing. Further, we received many comments
requesting clarification as to whether specific entities or persons were
Ahealth care providers@ for the purposes of our rule. One commenter
questioned whether affiliated members of a health care group (even
though separate legal entities) would be considered as one primary
health care provider.

*Response:* We permit legally distinct covered entities that share
common ownership or control to designate themselves together to be a
single covered entity. Such organizations may promulgate a single shared
notice of information practices and a consent form. For more detailed
information, see the preamble discussion of \' 164.504(d).

We understand the need for additional guidance on whether specific
entities or persons are health care providers under the final rule. We
provide guidance below and will provide additional guidance as the rule
is implemented.

*Comment:* One commenter observed that sections 1171(3), 1861(s) and
1861(u) of the Act do not include pharmacists in the definition of
health care provider or pharmacist services in the definition of
Amedical or other health services,@ and questioned whether pharmacists
were covered by the rule.

*Response:* The statutory definition of Ahealth care provider@ at
section 1171(3) includes Aany other person or organization who
furnishes, bills, or is paid for health care in the normal course of
business.@ Pharmacists= services are clearly within this statutory
definition of Ahealth care.@ There is no basis for excluding pharmacists
who meet these statutory criteria from this regulation .

*Comment:* Some commenters recommended that the scope of the definition
be broadened or clarified to cover additional persons or organizations.
Several commenters argued for expanding the reach of the health care
provider definition to cover entities such as state and local public
health agencies, maternity support services (provided by nutritionists,
social workers, and public health nurses and the Special Supplemental
Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children), and those companies
that conduct cost-effectiveness reviews, risk management, and
benchmarking studies. One commenter queried whether auxiliary providers
such as child play therapists, and speech and language therapists are
considered to be health care providers. Other commenters questioned
whether Aalternative@ or Acomplementary@ providers, such as naturopathic
physicians and acupuncturists would be considered health care providers
covered by the rule.

*Response:* As with other aspects of this rule, we do not define Ahealth
care provider@ based on the title or label of the professional. The
professional activities of these kinds of providers vary; a person is a
Ahealth care provider@ if those activities are consistent with the
rule=s definition of Ahealth care provider.@ Thus, health care providers
include persons, such as those noted by the commenters, to the extent
that they meet the definition. We note that health care providers are
only subject to this rule if they conduct certain transactions. See the
definition of Acovered entity.@

However companies that conduct cost-effectiveness reviews, risk
management, and benchmarking studies are not health care providers for
the purposes of this rule unless they perform other functions that meet
the definition. These entities would be business associates if they
perform such activities on behalf of a covered entity.

*Comment:* Another commenter recommended that the Secretary expand the
definition of health care provider to cover health care providers who
transmit or Aor receive@ any health care information in electronic form.

*Response:* We do not accept this suggestion. Section 1172(a)(3) states
that providers that Atransmit@ health information in connection with one
of the HIPAA transactions are covered, but does not use the term
Areceive@ or a similar term.

*Comment:* Some comments related to online companies as health care
providers and covered entities. One commenter argued that there was no
reason Awhy an Internet pharmacy should not also be covered@ by the rule
as a health care provider. Another commenter stated that online health
care service and content companies, including online medical record
companies, should be covered by the definition of health care provider.
Another commenter pointed out that the definitions of covered entities
cover AInternet providers who \>bill= or are \>paid= for health care
services or supplies, but not those who finance those services in other
ways, such as through sale of identifiable health information or
advertising.@ It was pointed out that thousands of Internet sites use
information provided by individuals who access the sites for marketing
or other purposes.

*Response:* We agree that online companies are covered entities under
the rule if they otherwise meet the definition of health care provider
or health plan and satisfy the other requirements of the rule, i.e.,
providers must also transmit health information in electronic form in
connection with a HIPAA transaction. We restate here the language in the
preamble to the proposed rule that AAn individual or organization that
bills and/or is paid for health care services or supplies in the normal
course of business, such as\...an \>online= pharmacy accessible on the
Internet, is also a health care provider for purposes of this statute@
(64 FR 59930).

*Comment:* We received many comments related to the reference to Ahealth
clinic or licensed health care professional located at a school or
business in the preamble=s discussion of Ahealth care provider.@ It was
stated that including Alicensed health care professionals located at a
school or business@ highlights the need for these individuals to
understand they have the authority to disclose information to the Social
Security Administration (SSA) without authorization.

However, several commenters urged HHS to create an exception for or
delete that reference in the preamble discussion to primary and
secondary schools because of employer or business partner relationships.
One federal agency suggested that the reference Alicensed health care
professionals located at a \[school\]@ be deleted from the preamble
because the definition of health care provider does not include a
reference to schools. The commenter also suggested that the Secretary
consider: adding language to the preamble to clarify that the rules do
not apply to clinics or school health care providers that only maintain
records that have been excepted from the definition of protected health
information, adding an exception to the definition of covered entities
for those schools, and limiting paperwork requirements for these
schools. Another commenter argued for deleting references to schools
because the proposed rule appeared to supersede or create ambiguity as
to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), which gives
parents the right to access Aeducation@ and health records of their
unemancipated minor children. However, in contrast, one commenter
supported the inclusion of health care professionals who provide
services at schools or businesses.

*Response:* We realize that our discussion of schools in the NPRM may
have been confusing. Therefore, we address these concerns and set forth
our policy regarding protected health information in educational
agencies and institutions in the ARelationship to Other Federal Laws@
discussion of FERPA, above.

*Comment:* Many commenters urged that direct contact with the patient be
necessary for an entity to be considered a health care provider.
Commenters suggested that persons and organizations that are remote to
the patient and have no direct contact should not be considered health
care providers. Several commenters argued that the definition of health
care provider covers a person that provides health care services or
supplies only when the provider furnishes to or bills the patient
directly. It was stated that the Secretary did not intend that
manufacturers, such as pharmaceutical, biologics, and device
manufacturers, health care suppliers, medical-surgical supply
distributors, health care vendors that offer medical record
documentation templates and that typically do not deal directly with the
patient, be considered health care providers and thus covered entities.
However, in contrast, one commenter argued that, as an in vitro
diagnostics manufacturer, it should be covered as a health care
provider.

*Response:* We disagree with the comments that urged that direct
dealings with an individual be a prerequisite to meeting the definition
of health care provider. Many providers included in the statutory
definition of provider, such as clinical labs, do not have direct
contact with patients. Further, the use and disclosure of protected
health information by indirect treatment providers can have a
significant effect on individuals= privacy. We acknowledge, however,
that providers who treat patients only indirectly need not have the full
array of responsibilities as direct treatment providers, and modify the
NPRM to make this distinction with respect to several provisions (see,
for example \' 164.506 regarding consent). We also clarify that
manufacturers and health care suppliers who are considered providers by
Medicare are providers under this rule.

*Comment:* Some commenters suggested that blood centers and plasma donor
centers that collect and distribute source plasma not be considered
covered health care providers because the centers do not provide Ahealth
care services@ and the blood donors are not Apatients@ seeking health
care. Similarly, commenters expressed concern that organ procurement
organizations might be considered health care providers.

*Response:* We agree and have deleted from the definition of Ahealth
care@ the term Aprocurement or banking of blood, sperm, organs, or any
other tissue for administration to patients.@ See prior discussion under
Ahealth care.@

*Comment:* Several commenters proposed to restrict coverage to only
those providers who furnished and were paid for services and supplies.
It was argued that a salaried employee of a covered entity, such as a
hospital-based provider, should not be covered by the rule because that
provider would be subject both directly to the rule as a covered entity
and indirectly as an employee of a covered entity.

*Response:* The Adual@ direct and indirect situation described in these
comments can arise only when a health care provider conducts standard
HIPAA transactions both for itself and for its employer. For example,
when the services of a provider such as a hospital-based physician are
billed through a standard HIPAA transaction conducted for the employer,
in this example the hospital, the physician does not become a covered
provider. Only when the provider uses a standard transaction on its own
behalf does he or she become a covered health care provider. Thus, the
result is typically as suggested by this commenter. When a
hospital-based provider is not paid directly, that is, when the standard
HIPAA transaction is not on its behalf, it will not become a covered
provider.

*Comment:* Other commenters argued that an employer who provides health
care services to its employees for whom it neither bills the employee
nor pays for the health care should not be considered health care
providers covered by the proposed rule.

*Response:* We clarify that the employer may be a health care provider
under the rule, and may be covered by the rule if it conducts standard
transactions. The provisions of \' 164.504 may also apply.

*Comment:* Some commenters were confused about the preamble statement:
Ain order to implement the principles in the Secretary\'s
Recommendations, we must impose any protections on the health care
providers that use and disclose the information, rather than on the
researcher seeking the information,@ with respect to the rule=s policy
that a researcher who provides care to subjects in a trial will be
considered a health care provider. Some commenters were also unclear
about whether the individual researcher providing health care to
subjects in a trial would be considered a health care provider or
whether the researcher=s home institution would be considered a health
care provider and thus subject to the rule.

*Response:* We clarify that, in general, a researcher is also a health
care provider if the researcher provides health care to subjects in a
clinical research study and otherwise meets the definition of Ahealth
care provider@ under the rule. However, a health care provider is only a
covered entity and subject to the rule if that provider conducts
standard transactions. With respect to the above preamble statement, we
meant that our jurisdiction under the statute is limited to covered
entities. Therefore, we cannot apply any restrictions or requirements on
a researcher in that person=s role as a researcher. However, if a
researcher is also a health care provider that conducts standard
transactions, that researcher/provider is subject to the rule with
regard to its provider activities.

As to applicability to a researcher/provider versus the researcher=s
home institution, we provide the following guidance. The rule applies to
the researcher as a covered entity if the researcher is a health care
provider who conducts standard transactions for services on his or her
own behalf, regardless of whether he or she is part of a larger
organization. However, if the services and transactions are conducted on
behalf of the home institution, then the home institution is the covered
entity for purposes of the rule and the researcher/provider is a
workforce member, not a covered entity.

*Comment:* One commenter expressed confusion about those instances when
a health care provider was a covered entity one day, and one who Aworks
under a contract@ for a manufacturer the next day.

*Response:* If persons are covered under the rule in one role, they are
not necessarily covered entities when they participate in other
activities in another role. For example, that person could be a covered
health care provider in a hospital one day but the next day read
research records for a different employer. In its role as researcher,
the person is not covered, and protections do not apply to those
research records.

*Comment:* One commenter suggested that the Secretary modify proposed \'
160.102, to add the following clause at the end (after (c)) (regarding
health care provider), AWith respect to any entity whose *primary*
business is not that of a health plan or health care provider licensed
under the applicable laws of any state, the standards, requirements, and
implementation specifications of this subchapter shall apply solely to
the component of the entity that engages in the transactions specified
in \[\'\] 160.103.@ (Emphasis added.) Another commenter also suggested
that the definition of Acovered entity@ be revised to mean entities that
are Aprimarily or exclusively engaged in health care-related activities
as a health plan, health care provider, or health care clearinghouse.@

*Response:* The Secretary rejects these suggestions because they will
impermissibly limit the entities covered by the rule. An entity that is
a health plan, health care provider, or health care clearinghouse meets
the statutory definition of covered entity regardless of how much time
is devoted to carrying out health care-related functions, or regardless
of what percentage of their total business applies to health
care-related functions.

*Comment:* Several commenters sought to distinguish a health care
provider from a business partner as proposed in the NPRM. For example, a
number of commenters argued that disease managers that provide services
Aon behalf of@ health plans and health care providers, and case managers
(a variation of a disease management service) are business partners and
not Ahealth care providers.@ Another commenter argued that a disease
manager should be recognized (presumably as a covered entity) because of
its involvement from the physician-patient level through complex
interactions with health care providers.

*Response:* To the extent that a disease or case manager provides
services on behalf of or to a covered entity as described in the rule=s
definition of business associate, the disease or case manager is a
business associate for purposes of this rule. However, if services
provided by the disease or case manager meet the definition of treatment
and the person otherwise meets the definition of Ahealth care provider,@
such a person is a health care provider for purposes of this rule.

*Comment:* One commenter argued that pharmacy employees who assist
pharmacists, such as technicians and cashiers, are not business
partners.

*Response:* We agree. Employees of a pharmacy that is a covered entity
are workforce members of that covered entity for purposes of this rule.

*Comment:* A number of commenters requested that we clarify the
definition of health care provider (A\...who furnishes, bills, or is
paid for health care services or supplies in the normal course of
business@) by defining the various terms Afurnish@, Asupply@, and Ain
the normal course of business.@ For instance, it was stated that this
would help employers recognize when services such as an employee
assistance program constituted health care covered by the rule.

*Response:* Although we understand the concern expressed by the
commenters, we decline to follow their suggestion to define terms at
this level of specificity. These terms are in common use today, and an
attempt at specific definition would risk the inadvertent creations of
conflict with industry practices. There is a significant variation in
the way employers structure their employee assistance programs (EAPs)
and the type of services that they provide. If the EAP provides direct
treatment to individuals, it may be a health care provider.

***Health Information*.**

The response to comments on health information is included in the
response to comments on individually identifiable health information, in
the preamble discussion of \' 164.501.

***Health Plan*.**

*Comment:* One commenter suggested that to eliminate any ambiguity, the
Secretary should clarify that the catch-all category under the
definition of health plan includes A24-hour coverage plans@ (whether
insured or self-insured) that integrate traditional employee health
benefits coverage and workers= compensation coverage for the treatment
of on-the-job injuries and illnesses under one program. It was stated
that this clarification was essential if the Secretary persisted in
excluding workers= compensation from the final rule.

*Response:* We understand concerns that such plans may use and disclose
individually identifiable health information. We therefore clarify that
to the extent that 24-hour coverage plans have a health care component
that meets the definition of Ahealth plan@ in the final rule, such
components must abide by the provisions of the final rule. In the final
rule, we have added a new provision to \' 164.512 that permits covered
entities to disclose information under workers= compensation and similar
laws. A health plan that is a 24-hour plan is permitted to make
disclosures as necessary to comply with such laws.

*Comment:* A number of commenters urged that certain types of insurance
entities, such as workers= compensation and automobile insurance
carriers, property and casualty insurance health plans, and certain
forms of limited benefits coverage, be included in the definition of
Ahealth plan.@ It was argued that consumers deserve the same protection
with respect to their health information, regardless of the entity using
it, and that it would be inequitable to subject health insurance
carriers to more stringent standards than other types of insurers that
use individually identifiable health information.

*Response:* The Congress did not include these programs in the
definition of a Ahealth plan@ under section 1171 of the Act. Further,
HIPAA=s legislative history shows that the House Report=s (H. Rep.
104-496) definition of Ahealth plan@ originally included certain benefit
programs, such as workers= compensation and liability insurance, but was
later amended to clarify the definition and remove these programs. Thus,
since the statutory definition of a health plan both on its face and
through legislative history evidence Congress= intention to exclude such
programs, we do not have the authority to require that these programs
comply with the standards. We have added explicit language to the final
rule which excludes the excepted benefit programs, as defined in section
2971(c)(1) of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300gg-91(c)(1).

*Comment:* Some commenters urged HHS to include entities such as stop
loss insurers and reinsurers in the definition of Ahealth plan.@ It was
observed that such entities have come to play important roles in managed
care delivery systems. They asserted that increasingly, capitated health
plans and providers contract with their reinsurers and stop loss
carriers to medically manage their high cost outlier cases such as organ
and bone marrow transplants, and therefore should be specifically cited
as subject to the regulations.

*Response:* Stop-loss and reinsurers do not meet the statutory
definition of health plan. They do not provide or pay for the costs of
medical care, as described in the statute, but rather insure health
plans and providers against unexpected losses. Therefore, we cannot
include them as health plans in the regulation.

*Comment:* A commenter asserted that there is a significant discrepancy
between the effect of the definition of Agroup health plan@ as proposed
in \' 160.103, and the anticipated impact in the cost estimates of the
proposed rule at 64 FR 60014. Paragraph (1) of the proposed definition
of Ahealth plan@ defined a Agroup health plan@ as an ERISA-defined
employee welfare benefit plan that provides medical care and that: A(i)
Has 50 or more participants, [or]{.underline} (ii) Is administered by an
entity other than the employer that established and maintains the
plan\[.\]@ (emphasis added) According to this commenter, under this
definition, the only insured or self-insured ERISA plans that would not
be regulated Ahealth plans@ would be those that have less than 50
participants [and]{.underline} are self administered.

The commenter presumed that the we had intended to exclude from the
definition of Ahealth plan@ (and from coverage under the proposed rule)
all ERISA plans that are small (less than 50 participants)
[or]{.underline} are administered by a third party, whether large or
small, based on the statement at 64 FR 60014, note 18. That footnote
stated that the Department had Anot included the 3.9 million \>other=
employer-health plans listed in HCFA=s administrative simplification
regulations because these plans are administered by a third party. The
proposed regulation will not regulate the employer plans but will
regulate the third party administrators of the plan.@ The commenter
urged us not to repeat the statutory definition, and to adopt the policy
implied in the footnote.

*Response:* We agree with the commenter=s observation that footnote 18
(64 FR 60014) was inconsistent with the proposed definition. We erred in
drafting that note. The definition of Agroup health plan@ is adopted
from the statutory definition at section 1171(5)(A), and excludes from
the rule as Ahealth plans@ only the few insured or self-insured ERISA
plans that have less than 50 participants [and]{.underline} are self
administered. We reject the commenter=s proposed change to the
definition as inconsistent with the statute.

*Comment:* A number of insurance companies asked that long term care
insurance policies be excluded from the definition of Ahealth plan.@ It
was argued that such policies do not provide sufficiently comprehensive
coverage of the cost of medical care, and are limited benefit plans that
provide or pay for the cost of custodial and other related services in
connection with a long term, chronic illness or disability.

These commenters asserted that HIPAA recognizes this nature of long term
care insurance, observing that, with respect to HIPAA=s portability
requirements, Congress enacted a series of exclusions for certain
defined types of health plan arrangements that do not typically provide
comprehensive coverage. They maintained that Congress recognized that
long term care insurance is excluded, so long as it is not a part of a
group health plan. Where a long term care policy is offered separately
from a group health plan it is considered an excepted benefit and is not
subject to the portability and guarantee issue requirements of HIPAA.
Although this exception does not appear in the Administrative
Simplification provisions of HIPAA, it was asserted that it is guidance
with respect to the treatment of long term care insurance as a limited
benefit coverage and not as coverage that is so Asufficiently
comprehensive@ that it is to be treated in the same manner as a typical,
comprehensive major medical health plan arrangement.

Another commenter offered a different perspective observing that there
are some long-term care policies that do not pay for medical care and
therefore are not Ahealth plans.@ It was noted that most long-term care
policies are reimbursement policiesBthat is, they reimburse the
policyholder for the actual expenses that the insured incurs for
long-term care services. To the extent that these constitute Amedical
care,@ this commenter presumed that these policies would be considered
Ahealth plans.@ Other long-term care policies, they pointed out, simply
pay a fixed dollar amount when the insured becomes chronically ill,
without regard to the actual cost of any long-term care services
received, and thus are similar to fixed indemnity critical illness
policies. The commenter suggested that while there was an important
distinction between indemnity based long-term care policies and expenses
based long-term care policies, it may be wise to exclude *all* long-term
care policies from the scope of the rule to achieve consistency with
HIPAA.

*Response:* We disagree. The statutory language regarding long-term care
policies in the portability title of HIPAA is different from the
statutory language regarding long-term care policies in the
Administrative Simplification title of HIPAA. Section 1171(5)(G) of the
Act means that issuers of long-term care policies are considered health
plans for purposes of administrative simplification. We also interpret
the statute as authorizing the Secretary to exclude nursing home
fixed-indemnity policies, not all long-term care policies, from the
definition of Ahealth plan,@ if she determines that these policies do
not provide Asufficiently comprehensive coverage of a benefit@ to be
treated as a health plan (see section 1171 of the Act). We interpret the
term Acomprehensive@ to refer to the breadth or scope of coverage of a
policy. AComprehensive@ policies are those that cover a range of
possible service options. Since nursing home fixed indemnity policies
are, by their own terms, limited to payments made solely for nursing
facility care, we have determined that they should not be included as
health plans for the purposes of the HIPAA regulations. The Secretary,
therefore, explicitly excluded nursing home fixed-indemnity policies
from the definition of Ahealth plan@ in the Transactions Rule, and this
exclusion is thus reflected in this final rule. Issuers of other
long-term care policies are considered to be health plans under this
rule and the Transactions Rule.

*Comment:* One commenter was concerned about the potential impact of the
proposed regulations on Aunfunded health plans,@ which the commenter
described as programs used by smaller companies to provide their
associates with special employee discounts or other membership
incentives so that they can obtain health care, including prescription
drugs, at reduced prices. The commenter asserted that if these discount
and membership incentive programs were covered by the regulation, many
smaller employers might discontinue offering them to their employees,
rather than deal with the administrative burdens and costs of complying
with the rule.

*Response:* Only those special employee discounts or membership
incentives that are Aemployee welfare benefit plans@ as defined in
section 3(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29
U.S.C. 1002(1), and provide Amedical care@ (as defined in section
2791(a)(2) of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 300gg-91(a)(2)),
are health plans for the purposes of this rule. Discount or membership
incentive programs that are not group health plans are not covered by
the rule.

*Comment:* Several commenters agreed with the proposal to exclude
Aexcepted benefits@ such as disability income insurance policies, fixed
indemnity critical illness policies, and per diem long-term care
policies from the definition of Ahealth plan,@ but were concerned that
the language of the proposed rule did not fully reflect this intent.
They asserted that clarification was necessary in order to avoid
confusion and costs to both consumers and insurers.

One commenter stated that, while HHS did not intend for the rule to
apply to every type of insurance coverage that paid for medical care,
the language of the proposed rule did not bear this out. The problem, it
was asserted, is that under the proposed rule any insurance policy that
pays for Amedical care@ would technically be a Ahealth plan.@ It was
argued that despite the statements in the narrative, there are no
provisions that would exempt any of the Aexcepted benefits@ from the
definition of Ahealth care.@ It was stated that:

> Although (with the exception of long-term care insurance), the
> proposed rule does not include the \>excepted benefits= in its list of
> sixteen examples of a health plan (proposed 45 CFR 160.104), it does
> not explicitly exclude them either. Because these types of policies in
> some instances pay benefits that could be construed as payments for
> medical care, we are concerned by the fact that they are not
> explicitly excluded from the definition of \>health plan= or the
> requirements of the proposed rule.@

Several commenters proposed that HHS adopt the same list of Aexcepted
benefits@ contained in 29 U.S.C. 1191b, suggesting that they could be
adopted either as exceptions to the definition of Ahealth plan@ or as
exceptions to the requirements imposed on Ahealth plans.@ They asserted
that this would promote consistency in the federal regulatory structure
for health plans.

It was suggested that HHS clarify whether the definition of health plan,
particularly the Agroup health plan@ and Ahealth insurance issuer@
components, includes a disability plan or disability insurer. It was
noted that a disability plan or disability insurer may cover only income
lost from disability and, as mentioned above, some rehabilitation
services, or a combination of lost income, rehabilitation services and
medical care. The commenter suggested that in addressing this coverage
issue, it may be useful to refer to the definitions of group health
plan, health insurance issuer and medical care set forth in Part I of
HIPAA, which the statutory provisions of the Administrative
Simplification subtitle expressly reference. See 42 U.S.C. 1320d(5)(A)
and(B).

*Response:* We agree that the NPRM may have been ambiguous regarding the
types of plans the rule covers. To remedy this confusion, we have added
language that specifically excludes from the definition any policy,
plan, or program providing or paying the cost of the excepted benefits,
as defined in section 2971(c)(1) of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C.
300gg-91(c)(1). As defined in the statute, this includes but is not
limited to benefits under one or more (or any combination thereof) of
the following: coverage only for accident, or disability income
insurance, or any combination thereof; liability insurance, including
general liability insurance and automobile liability insurance; and
workers= compensation or similar insurance.

However, the other excepted benefits as defined in section 2971(c)(2) of
the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300gg-91(c)(2), such as limited scope dental or
vision benefits, not explicitly excepted from the regulation could be
considered Ahealth plans@ under paragraph (1)(xvii) of the definition of
Ahealth plan@ in the final rule if and to the extent that they meet the
criteria for the definition of Ahealth plan.@ Such plans, unlike the
programs and plans listed at section 2971(c)(1), directly and
exclusively provide health insurance, even if limited in scope.

*Comment:* One commenter recommended that the Secretary clarify that
Ahealth plan@ does not include property and casualty benefit providers.
The commenter stated that the clarifying language is needed given the
Acatchall@ category of entities defined as Aany other individual plan or
group health plan, or combination thereof, that provides or pays for the
cost of medical care,@ and asserted that absent clarification there
could be serious confusion as to whether property and casualty benefit
providers are Ahealth plans@ under the rule.

*Response:* We agree and as described above have added language to the
final rule to clarify that the Aexcepted benefits@ as defined under 42
U.S.C. 300gg-91(c)(1), which includes liability programs such as
property and casualty benefit providers, are not health plans for the
purposes of this rule.

*Comment:* Some commenters recommended that the Secretary replace the
term Amedical care@ with Ahealth care.@ It was observed that Ahealth
care@ was defined in the proposal, and that this definition was used to
define what a health care provider does. However, they observed that the
definition of Ahealth plan@ refers to the provision of or payment for
Amedical care,@ which is not defined. Another commenter recommended that
HHS add the parenthetical phrase Aas such term is defined in section
2791 of the Public Health Service Act@ after the phrase Amedical care.@

*Response:* We disagree with the first recommendation. We understand
that the term Amedical care@ can be easily confused with the term
Ahealth care.@ However, the two terms are not synonymous. The term
Amedical care@ is a statutorily defined term and its use is critical in
making a determination as to whether a health plan is considered a
Ahealth plan@ for purposes of administrative simplification. In
addition, since the term Amedical care@ is used in the regulation only
in the context of the definition of Ahealth plan@ and we believe that
its inclusion in the regulatory text may cause confusion, we did not add
a definition of Amedical care@ in the final rule. However, consistent
with the second recommendation above, the statutory cite for Amedical
care@ was added to the definition of Ahealth plan@ in the Transactions
Rule, and thus is reflected in this final rule.

*Comment:* A number of commenters urged that the Secretary define more
narrowly what characteristics would make a government program that pays
for specific health care services a Ahealth plan.@ Commenters argued
that there are many Apayment@ programs that should not be included, as
discussed below, and that if no distinctions were made, Ahealth plan@
would mean the same as Apurchaser@ or even Apayor.@

Commenters asserted that there are a number of state programs that pay
for Ahealth care@ (as defined in the rule) but that are not health
plans. They said that examples include the WIC program (Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children) which
pays for nutritional assessment and counseling, among other services;
the AIDS Client Services Program (including AIDS prescription drug
payment) under the federal Ryan White Care Act and state law; the
distribution of federal family planning funds under Title X of the
Public Health Services Act; and the breast and cervical health program
which pays for cancer screening in targeted populations. Commenters
argued that these are not insurance plans and do not fall within the
Ahealth plan@ definition=s list of examples, all of which are either
insurance or broad-scope programs of care under a contract or statutory
entitlement. However, paragraph (16) in that list opens the door to
broader interpretation through the catchall phrase, Aany other
individual or group plan that provides or pays for the cost of medical
care.@ Commenters assert that clarification is needed.

A few commenters stated that other state agencies often work in
partnership with the state Medicaid program to implement certain
Medicaid benefits, such as maternity support services and prenatal
genetics screening. They concluded that while this probably makes parts
of the agency the Abusiness partner@ of a covered entity, they were
uncertain whether it also makes the same agency parts a Ahealth plan@ as
well.

*Response:* We agree with the commenters that clarification is needed as
to the rule=s application to government programs that pay for health
care services. Accordingly, in the final rule we have excepted from the
definition of Ahealth plan@ a government funded program which does not
have as its principal purpose the provision of, or payment for, the cost
of health care or which has as its principal purpose the provision,
either directly or by grant, of health care. For example, the principal
purpose of the WIC program is not to provide or pay for the cost of
health care, and thus, the WIC program is not a health plan for purposes
of this rule. The program of health care services for individuals
detained by the INS provides health care directly, and so is not a
health plan. Similarly, the family planning program authorized by Title
X of the Public Health Service Act pays for care exclusively through
grants, and so is not a health plan under this rule. These programs (the
grantees under the Title X program) may be or include health care
providers and may be covered entities if they conduct standard
transactions.

We further clarify that, where a public program meets the definition of
Ahealth plan,@ the government agency that administers the program is the
covered entity. Where two agencies administer a program jointly, they
are both a health plan. For example, both the Health Care Financing
Administration and the insurers that offers a Medicare+Choice plan are
Ahealth plans@ with respect to Medicare beneficiaries. An agency that
does not administer a program but which provides services for such a
program is not a covered entity by virtue of providing such services.
Whether an agency providing services is a business associate of the
covered entity depends on whether its functions for the covered entity
meet the definition of business associate in \' 164.501 and, in the
example described by this comment, in particular on whether the
arrangement falls into the exception in \' 164.504(e)(1)(ii)(C) for
government agencies that collect eligibility or enrollment information
for covered government programs.

*Comment:* Some commenters expressed support for retaining the category
in paragraph (16) of the proposal=s definition: AAny other individual or
group health plan, or combination thereof, that provides or pays for the
cost of medical care.@ Others asked that the Secretary clarify this
category. One commenter urged that the final rule clearly define which
plans would meet the criteria for this category.

*Response:* As described in the proposed rule, this category implements
the language at the beginning of the statutory definition of the term
Ahealth plan@: AThe term \>health plan= means an individual or group
plan that provides, or pays the cost of, medical care\... Such term
includes the following, and any combination thereof\...@ This statutory
language is general, not specific, and as such, we are leaving it
general in the final rule. However, as described above, we add explicit
language which excludes certain Aexcepted benefits@ from the definition
of Ahealth plan@ in an effort to clarify which plans are not health
plans for the purposes of this rule. Therefore, to the extent that a
certain benefits plan or program otherwise meets the definition of
Ahealth plan@ and is not explicitly excepted, that program or plan is
considered a Ahealth plan@ under paragraph (1)(xvii) of the final rule.

*Comment:* A commenter explained that HIPAA defines a group health plan
by expressly cross-referencing the statutory sections in the PHS Act and
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C.
1001, et seq., which define the terms \"group health plan,\" \"employee
welfare benefit plan\" and \"participant.\" See 29 U.S.C. 1002(l)
(definition of \"employee welfare benefit plan,\" which is the core of
the definition of group health plan under both ERISA and the PHS Act);
29 U.S.C. 100217) (definition of participant); 29 U.S.C. 1193(a)
(definition of \"group health plan,\" which is identical to that in
section 2791(a) of the PHS Act).

It was pointed out that the preamble and the text of the proposed rule
both limit the definition of all three terms to their current
definitions. The commenter reasoned that since the ERISA definitions may
change over time through statutory amendment, Department of Labor
regulations or judicial interpretation, it would not be clear what point
in time is to be considered current. Therefore, they suggested deleting
references to \"current\" or \"currently\" in the preamble and in the
regulation with respect to these three ERISA definitions.

In addition, the commenter stated that as the preamble to the NPRM
correctly reflected, HIPAA expressly cross-references ERISA\'s
definition of \"participant\" in section 3(7) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C.
1002(7). 42 U.S.C. 1320d(5)(A). The text of the privacy regulation,
however, omits this cross-reference. It was suggested that the reference
to section 3(7) of ERISA, defining Aparticipant,@ be included in the
regulation.

Finally, HIPAA incorporates the definition of a group health plan as set
forth in section 2791(a) of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300gg-91(a)(l). That
definition refers to the provision of medical care \"directly or through
insurance, reimbursement, or otherwise.\" The word \"reimbursement\" is
omitted in both the preamble and the text of the regulation; the
commenter suggested restoring it to both.

*Response:* We agree. These changes were made to the definition of
Ahealth plan@ as promulgated in the Transactions Rule, and are reflected
in this final rule.

***Small Health Plan*.**

*Comment:* One commenter recommended that we delete the reference to \$5
million in the definition and instead define a Asmall health plan@ as a
health plan with fewer than 50 participants. It was stated that using a
dollar limitation to define a Asmall health plan@ is not meaningful for
self-insured plans and some other types of health plan coverage
arrangements. A commenter pointed out that the general definition of a
health plan refers to A50 or more participants,@ and that using a dollar
factor to define a Asmall health plan@ would be inconsistent with this
definition.

*Response:* We disagree. The Small Business Administration (SBA)
promulgates size standards that indicate the maximum number of employees
or annual receipts allowed for a concern (13 CFR 121.105) and its
affiliates to be considered Asmall.@ The size standards themselves are
expressed either in number of employees or annual receipts (13 CFR
121.201). The size standards for compliance with programs of other
agencies are those for SBA programs which are most comparable to the
programs of such other agencies, unless otherwise agreed by the agency
and the SBA (13 CFR 121.902). With respect to the insurance industry,
the SBA has specified that annual receipts of \$5 million is the maximum
allowed for a concern and its affiliates to be considered small (13 CFR
121.201). Consequently, we retain the proposal=s definition in the final
rule to be consistent with SBA requirements.

We understand there may be some confusion as to the meaning of Aannual
receipts@ when applied to a health plan. For our purposes, therefore, we
consider Apure premiums@ to be equivalent to Aannual receipts.@

***Workforce*.**

*Comment:* Some commenters requested that we exclude Avolunteers@ from
the definition of workforce. They stated that volunteers are important
contributors within many covered entities, and in particular hospitals.
They argued that it was unfair to ask that these people donate their
time and at the same time subject them to the penalties placed upon the
paid employees by these regulations, and that it would discourage people
from volunteering in the health care setting.

*Response*: We disagree. We believe that differentiating those persons
under the direct control of a covered entity who are paid from those who
are not is irrelevant for the purposes of protecting the privacy of
health information, and for a covered entity=s management of its
workforce. In either case, the person is working for the covered entity.
With regard to implications for the individual, persons in a covered
entity=s workforce are not held personally liable for violating the
standards or requirements of the final rule. Rather, the Secretary has
the authority to impose civil monetary penalties and in some cases
criminal penalties for such violations on only the covered entity.

*Comment*: One commenter asked that the rule clarify that employees
administering a group health or other employee welfare benefit plan on
their employers= behalf are considered part of the covered entity=s
workforce.

*Response:* As long as the employees have been identified by the group
health plan in plan documents as performing functions related to the
group health plan (consistent with the requirements of \' 164.504(f)),
those employees may have access to protected health information.
However, they are not permitted to use or disclose protected health
information for employment-related purposes or in connection with any
other employee benefit plan or employee benefit of the plan sponsor.

**PART 160 B SUBPART B B PREEMPTION OF STATE LAW**

We summarize and respond below to comments received in the Transactions
rulemaking on the issue of preemption, as well as those received on this
topic in the Privacy rulemaking. Because no process was proposed in the
Transactions rulemaking for granting exceptions under section
1178(a)(2)(A), a process for making exception determinations was not
adopted in the Transactions Rule. Instead, since a process for making
exception determinations was proposed in the Privacy rulemaking, we
decided that the comments received in the Transactions rulemaking should
be considered and addressed in conjunction with the comments received on
the process proposed in the Privacy rulemaking. See 65 FR 50318 for a
fuller discussion. Accordingly, we discuss the preemption comments
received in the Transactions rulemaking where relevant below.

*Comment:* The majority of comments on preemption addressed the subject
in general terms. Numerous comments, particularly from plans and
providers, argued that the proposed preemption provisions were
burdensome, ineffective, or insufficient, and that complete federal
preemption of the Apatchwork@ of state privacy laws is needed. They also
argued that the proposed preemption provisions are likely to invite
litigation. Various practical arguments in support of this position were
made. Some of these comments recognized that the Secretary=s authority
under section 1178 of the Act is limited and acknowledged that the
Secretary=s proposals were within her statutory authority. One commenter
suggested that the exception determination process would result in a
very costly and laborious and sometimes inconsistent analysis of the
occasions in which state law would survive federal preemption, and thus
suggested the final privacy regulations preempt state law with only
limited exceptions, such as reporting child abuse. Many other comments,
however, recommended changing the proposed preemption provisions to
preempt state privacy laws on as blanket a basis as possible.

One comment argued that the assumption that more stringent privacy laws
are better is not necessarily true, citing a 1999 GAO report finding
evidence that the stringent state confidentiality laws of Minnesota
halted the collection of comparative information on health care quality.

Several comments in this vein were also received in the Transactions
rulemaking. The majority of these comments took the position that
exceptions to the federal standards should either be prohibited or
discouraged. It was argued that granting exceptions to the standards,
particularly the transactions standards, would be inconsistent with the
statute=s objective of promoting administrative simplification through
the use of uniform transactions.

Many other commenters, however, endorsed the Afederal floor@ approach of
the proposed rules. (These comments were made in the context of the
proposed privacy regulations.) These comments argued that this approach
was preferable because it would not impair the effectiveness of state
privacy laws that are more protective of privacy, while raising the
protection afforded medical information in states that do not enact laws
that are as protective as the rules below. Some comments argued,
however, that the rules should give even more deference to state law,
questioning in particular the definitions and the proposed addition to
the Aother purposes@ criterion for exception determinations in this
regard.

*Response:* With respect to the exception process provided for by
section 1178(a)(2)(A), the contention that the HIPAA standards should
uniformly control is an argument that should be addressed to the
Congress, not this agency. Section 1178 of the Act expressly gives the
Secretary authority to grant exceptions to the general rule that the
HIPAA standards preempt contrary state law in the circumstances she
determines come within the provisions at section 1178(a)(2)(A). We agree
that the underlying statutory goal of standardizing financial and
administrative health care transactions dictates that exceptions should
be granted only on narrow grounds. Nonetheless, Congress clearly
intended to accommodate some state laws in these areas, and the
Department is not free to disregard this Congressional choice. As is
more fully explained below, we have interpreted the statutory criteria
for exceptions under section 1178(a)(2)(A) to balance the need for
relative uniformity with respect to the HIPAA standards with state needs
to set certain policies in the statutorily defined areas.

The situation is different with respect to state laws relating to the
privacy of protected health information. Many of the comments arguing
for uniform standards were particularly concerned with discrepancies
between the federal privacy standards and various state privacy
requirements. Unlike the situation with respect to the transactions
standards, where states have generally not entered the field, all states
regulate the privacy of some medical information to a greater or lesser
extent. Thus, we understand the private sector=s concern at having to
reconcile differing state and federal privacy requirements.

This is, however, likewise an area where the policy choice has been made
by Congress. Under section 1178(a)(2)(B) of the Act and section
264(c)(2) of HIPAA, provisions of state privacy laws that are contrary
to and more stringent than the corresponding federal standard,
requirement, or implementation specification are not preempted. The
effect of these provisions is to let the law that is most protective of
privacy control (the Afederal floor@ approach referred to by many
commenters), and this policy choice is one with which we agree. Thus,
the statute makes it impossible for the Secretary to accommodate the
requests to establish uniformly controlling federal privacy standards,
even if doing so were viewed as desirable.

*Comment:* Numerous comments stated support for the proposal at proposed
Subpart B to issue advisory opinions with respect to the preemption of
state laws relating to the privacy of individually identifiable health
information. A number of these comments appeared to assume that the
Secretary=s advisory opinions would be dispositive of the issue of
whether or not a state law was preempted. Many of these commenters
suggested what they saw as improvements to the proposed process, but
supported the proposal to have the Department undertake this function.

*Response:* Despite the general support for the advisory opinion
proposal, we decided not to provide specifically for the issuance of
such opinions. The following considerations led to this decision. First,
the assumption by commenters that an advisory opinion would establish
what law applied in a given situation and thereby simplify the task of
ascertaining what legal requirements apply to a covered entity or
entities is incorrect. Any such opinion would be advisory only. Although
an advisory opinion issued by the Department would indicate to covered
entities how the Department would resolve the legal conflict in question
and would apply the law in determining compliance, it would not bind the
courts. While we assume that most courts would give such opinions
deference, the outcome could not be guaranteed.

Second, the thousands of questions raised in the public comment about
the interpretation, implications, and consequences of all of the
proposed regulatory provisions have led us to conclude that significant
advice and technical assistance about all of the regulatory requirements
will have to be provided on an ongoing basis. We recognize that the
preemption concerns that would have been addressed by the proposed
advisory opinions were likely to be substantial. However, there is no
reason to assume that they will be the most substantial or urgent of the
questions that will most likely need to be addressed. It is our intent
to provide as much technical advice and assistance to the regulated
community as we can with the resources available. Our concern is that
setting up an advisory opinion process for just one of the many types of
issues that will have to be addressed will lead to a non-optimal
allocation of those resources. Upon careful consideration, therefore, we
have decided that we will be better able to prioritize our workload and
be better able to be responsive to the most urgent and substantial
questions raised to the Department, if we do not provide for a formal
advisory opinion process on preemption as proposed.

*Comment:* A few commenters argued that the Privacy Rule should preempt
state laws that would impose more stringent privacy requirements for the
conduct of clinical trials. One commenter asserted that the existing
federal regulations and guidelines for patient informed consent,
together with the proposed rule, would adequately protect patient
privacy.

*Response*: The Department does not have the statutory authority under
HIPAA to preempt state laws that would impose more stringent privacy
requirements on covered entities. HIPAA provides that the rule
promulgated by the Secretary may not preempt state laws that are in
conflict with the regulatory requirements and that provide greater
privacy protections.

**SECTION 160.201 B APPLICABILITY**

*Comment:* Several commenters indicated that the guidance provided by
the definitions at proposed \' 160.202 would be of substantial benefit
both to regulated entities and to the public. However, these commenters
argued that the applicability of such definitions would be too limited
as drafted, since proposed \' 160.201 provided that the definitions
applied only to Adeterminations and advisory opinions issued by the
Secretary pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1320d-7.@ The commenters stated that it
would be far more helpful to make the definitions in proposed \' 160.202
more broadly applicable, to provide general guidance on the issue of
preemption.

*Response:* We agree with the comments on this issue, and have revised
the applicability provision of subpart B below accordingly. Section
160.201 below sets out that Subpart B implements section 1178. This
means, in our view, that the definitions of the statutory terms at \'
160.202 are legislative rules that apply when those statutory terms are
employed, whether by HHS, covered entities, or the courts.

**SECTION 160.202 B DEFINITIONS**

***Contrary***

*Comment:* Some commenters asserted that term Acontrary@ as defined at
\' 160.202 was overly broad and that its application would be
time-consuming and confusing for states. These commenters argued that,
under the proposed definition, a state would be required to examine all
of its laws relating to health information privacy in order to determine
whether or not its law were contrary to the requirements proposed. It
was also suggested that the definition contain examples of how it would
work in practical terms.

A few commenters, however, argued that the definition of Acontrary@ as
proposed was too narrow. One commenter argued that the Secretary erred
in her assessment of the case law analyzing what is known as Aconflict
preemption@ and which is set forth in shorthand in the tests set out at
\' 160.202.

*Response:* We believe that the definition proposed represents a policy
that is as clear as is feasible and which can be applied nationally and
uniformly. As was noted in the preamble to the proposed rules (at 64 FR
59997), the tests in the proposed definition of Acontrary@ are adopted
from the jurisprudence of Aconflict preemption.@ Since preemption is a
judicially developed doctrine, it is reasonable to interpret this term
as indicating that the statutory analysis should tie in to the
analytical formulations employed by the courts. Also, while the
court-developed tests may not be as clear as commenters would like, they
represent a long-term, thoughtful consideration of the problem of
defining when a state/federal conflict exists. They will also, we
assume, generally be employed by the courts when conflict issues arise
under the rules below. We thus see no practical alternative to the
proposed definition and have retained it unchanged. With respect to
various suggestions for shorthand versions of the proposed tests, such
as the arguably broader term Ainconsistent with,@ we see no operational
advantages to such terms.

*Comment:* One comment asked that the Department clarify that if state
law is not preempted, then the federal law would not also apply.

*Response:* This comment raises two issues, both of which deserve
discussion. First, a state law may not be preempted because there is no
conflict with the analogous federal requirement; in such a situation,
both laws can, and must, be complied with. We thus do not accept this
suggestion, to the extent that it suggests that the federal law would
give way in this situation. Second, a state law may also not be
preempted because it comes within section 1178(a)(2)(B), section
1178(b), or section 1178(c); in this situation, a contrary federal law
would give way.

*Comment:* One comment urged the Department to take the position that
where state law exists and no analogous federal requirement exists, the
state requirement would not be Acontrary to@ the federal requirement and
would therefore not trigger preemption.

*Response:* We agree with this comment.

*Comment:* One commenter criticized the definition as unhelpful in the
multi-state transaction context. For example, it was asked whether the
issue of whether a state law was Acontrary to@ should be determined by
the law of the state where the treatment is provided, where the claim
processor is located, where the payment is issued, or the data
maintained, assuming all are in different states.

*Response:* This is a choice of law issue, and, as is discussed more
fully below, is a determination that is routinely made today in
connection with multi-state transactions. See discussion below under
Exception Determinations (Criteria for Exception Determinations).

***State Law***

*Comment:* Comments noted that the definition of Astate law@ does not
explicitly include common law and recommended that it be revised to do
so or to clarify that the term includes evidentiary privileges
recognized at state law. Guidance concerning the impact of state
privileges was also requested.

*Response:* As requested, we clarify that the definition of Astate law@
includes common law by including the term Acommon law.@ In our view,
this phrase encompasses evidentiary privileges recognized at state law
(which may also, we note, be embodied in state statutes).

*Comment:* One comment criticized this definition as unwieldy, in that
locating state laws pertaining to privacy is likely to be difficult. It
was noted that Florida, for example, has more than 60 statutes that
address health privacy.

*Response:* To the extent that state laws currently apply to covered
entities, they have presumably determined what those laws require in
order to comply with them. Thus, while determining which laws are
Acontrary@ to the federal requirements will require additional work in
terms of comparing state law with the federal requirements, entities
should already have acquired the knowledge of state law needed for this
task in the ordinary course of doing business.

*Comment:* The New York City Department of Health noted that in many
cases, provisions of New York State law are inapplicable within New York
City, because the state legislature has recognized that the local code
is tailored to the particular needs of the City. It urged that the New
York City Code be treated as state law, for preemption purposes.

*Response:* We agree that, to the extent a state treats local law as
substituting for state law it could be considered to be Astate law@ for
purposes of this definition. If, however, a local law is local in scope
and effect, and a tier of state law exists over the same subject matter,
we do not think that the local law could or should be treated as Astate
law@ for preemption purposes. We do not have sufficient information to
assess the situation raised by this comment with respect to this
principle, and so express no opinion thereon.

***More Stringent***

*Comment:* Many commenters supported the policy in the proposed
definition of Aindividual@ at proposed \' 164.502, which would have
permitted unemancipated minors to exercise, on their own behalf, rights
granted to individuals in cases where they consented to the underlying
health care. Commenters stated, however, that the proposed preemption
provision would leave in place state laws authorizing or prohibiting
disclosure to parents of the protected health information of their minor
children and would negate the proposed policy for the treatment of
minors under the rule. The comments stated that such state laws should
be treated like other state laws, and preempted to the extent that they
are less protective of the privacy of minors.

Other commenters supported the proposed preemption provision\--not to
preempt a state law to the extent it authorizes or prohibits disclosure
of protected health information regarding a minor to a parent.

*Response:* Laws regarding access to health care for minors and
confidentiality of their medical records vary widely; this regulation
recognizes and respects the current diversity of state law in this area.
Where states have considered the balance involved in protecting the
confidentiality of minors= health information and have explicitly acted,
for example, to authorize disclosure, defer the decision to disclose to
the discretion of the health care provider, or prohibit disclosure of
minor=s protected health information to a parent, the rule defers to
these decisions to the extent that they regulate such disclosures.

*Comment:* The proposed definition of Amore stringent@was criticized as
affording too much latitude to for granting exceptions for state laws
that are not protective of privacy. It was suggested that the test
should be Amost protective of the individual=s privacy.@

*Response:* We considered adopting this test. However, for the reasons
set out at 64 FR 59997, we concluded that this test would not provide
sufficient guidance. The comments did not address the concerns we raised
in this regard in the preamble to the proposed rules, and we continue to
believe that they are valid.

*Comment:* A drug company expressed concern with what it saw as the
expansive definition of this term, arguing that state governments may
have less experience with the special needs of researchers than federal
agencies and may unknowingly adopt laws that have a deleterious effect
on research. A provider group expressed concern that allowing stronger
state laws to prevail could result in diminished ability to get enough
patients to complete high quality clinical trials.

*Response:* These concerns are fundamentally addressed to the Afederal
floor@ approach of the statute, not to the definition proposed: even if
the definition of Amore stringent@ were narrowed, these concerns would
still exist. As discussed above, since the Afederal floor@ approach is
statutory, it is not within the Secretary=s authority to change the
dynamics that are of concern.

*Comment:* One comment stated that the proposed rule seemed to indicate
that the Amore stringent@ and Acontrary to@ definitions implied that
these standards would apply to ERISA plans as well as to non-ERISA
plans.

*Response:* The concern underlying this comment is that ERISA plans,
which are not now subject to certain state laws because of the Afield@
preemption provision of ERISA but which are subject to the rules below,
will become subject to state privacy laws that are Amore stringent@ than
the federal requirements, due to the operation of section 1178(a)(2)(B),
together with section 264(c)(2). We disagree that this is the case.
While the courts will have the final say on these questions, it is our
view that these sections simply leave in place more stringent state laws
that would otherwise apply; to the extent that such state laws do not
apply to ERISA plans because they are preempted by ERISA, we do not
think that section 264(c)(2) overcomes the preemption effected by
section 514(a) of ERISA. For more discussion of this point, see 64 FR
60001.

*Comment:* The Lieutenant Governor=s Office of the State of Hawaii
requested a blanket exemption for Hawaii from the federal rules, on the
ground that its recently enacted comprehensive health privacy law is, as
a whole, more stringent than the proposed federal standards. It was
suggested that, for example, special weight should be given to the
severity of Hawaii=s penalties. It was suggested that a new definition
(Acomprehensive@) be added, and that Amore stringent@ be defined in that
context as whether the state act or code as a whole provides greater
protection.

An advocacy group in Vermont argued that the Vermont legislature was
poised to enact stronger and more comprehensive privacy laws and stated
that the group would resent a federal prohibition on that.

*Response:* The premise of these comments appears to be that the
provision-by-provision approach of Subpart B, which is expressed in the
definition of the term Acontrary@, is wrong. As we explained in the
preamble to the proposed rules (at 64 FR 59995), however, the statute
dictates a provision-by- provision comparison of state and federal
requirements, not the overall comparison suggested by these comments. We
also note that the approach suggested would be practically and
analytically problematic, in that it would be extremely difficult, if
not impossible, to determine what is a legitimate stopping point for the
provisions to be weighed on either the state side or the federal side of
the scale in determining which set of laws was the Amore stringent.@ We
accordingly do not accept the approach suggested by these comments.

With respect to the comment of the Vermont group, nothing in the rules
below prohibits or places any limits on states enacting stronger or more
comprehensive privacy laws. To the extent that states enact privacy laws
that are stronger or more comprehensive than contrary federal
requirements, they will presumably not be preempted under section
1178(a)(2)(B). To the extent that such state laws are not contrary to
the federal requirements, they will act as an overlay on the federal
requirements and will have effect.

*Comment:* One comment raised the issue of whether a private right of
action is a greater penalty, since the proposed federal rule has no
comparable remedy.

*Response:* We have reconsidered the proposed Apenalty@ provision of the
proposed definition of Amore stringent@ and have eliminated it. The
HIPAA statute provides for only two types of penalties: fines and
imprisonment. Both types of penalties could be imposed in addition to
the same type of penalty imposed by a state law, and should not
interfere with the imposition of other types of penalties that may be
available under state law. Thus, we think it is unlikely that there
would be a conflict between state and federal law in this respect, so
that the proposed criterion is unnecessary and confusing. In addition,
the fact that a state law allows an individual to file a lawsuit to
protect privacy does not conflict with the HIPAA penalty provisions.

***Relates to the Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health
Information***

*Comment:* One comment criticized the definition of this term as too
narrow in scope and too uncertain. The commenter argued that determining
the specific purpose of a state law may be difficult and speculative,
because many state laws have incomplete, inaccessible, or non-existent
legislative histories. It was suggested that the definition be revised
by deleting the word Aspecific@ before the word Apurpose.@ Another
commenter argued that the definition of this term should be narrowed to
minimize reverse preemption by more stringent state laws. One commenter
generally supported the proposed definition of this term.

*Response:* We are not accepting the first comment. The purpose of a
given state enactment should be ascertainable, if not from legislative
history or a purpose statement, then from the statute viewed as a whole.
The same should be true of state regulations or rulings. In any event,
it seems appropriate to restrict the field of state laws that may
potentially trump the federal standards to those that are clearly
intended to establish state public policy and operate in the same area
as the federal standards. To the extent that the definition in the rules
below does this, we have accommodated the second comment. We note,
however, that we do not agree that the definition should be further
restricted to minimize Areverse preemption,@ as suggested by this
comment, as we believe that state laws that are more protective of
privacy than contrary federal standards should remain, in order to
ensure that the privacy of individuals= health information receives the
maximum legal protection available.

**SECTIONS 160.203 and 160.204 B EXCEPTION DETERMINATIONS AND ADVISORY
OPINIONS**

Most of the comments received on proposed Subpart B lumped together the
proposed process for exception determinations under section
1178(a)(2)(A) with the proposed process for issuing advisory opinions
under section 1178(a)(2)(B), either because the substance of the comment
applied to both processes or because the commenters did not draw a
distinction between the two processes. We address these general comments
in this section.

*Comment:* Numerous commenters, particularly providers and provider
groups, recommended that exception determinations and advisory opinions
[not]{.underline} be limited to states and advocated allowing all
covered entities (including individuals, providers and insurers), or
private sector organizations, to request determinations and opinions
with respect to preemption of state laws. Several commenters argued that
limiting requests to states would deny third party stakeholders, such as
life and disability income insurers, any means of resolving complex
questions as to what rule they are subject to. One commenter noted that
because it is an insurer who will be liable if it incorrectly analyzes
the interplay between laws and reaches an incorrect conclusion, there
would be little incentive for the states to request clarification. It
would also cause large administrative burdens which, it was stated,
would be costly and confusing. It was also suggested that the request
for the exception be made to the applicable state=s attorney general or
chief legal officer, as well as the Secretary. Various changes to the
language were suggested, such as adding that Aa covered entity, or any
other entity impacted by this rule@ be allowed to submit the written
request.

*Response:* We agree, and have changed \' 164.204(a) below accordingly.

The decision to eliminate advisory opinions makes this issue moot with
respect to those opinions.

*Comment:* Several commenters noted that it was unclear under the
proposed rule which state officials would be authorized to request a
determination.

*Response:* We agree that the proposed rule was unclear in this respect.
The final rule clarifies who may make the request for a state, with
respect to exception determinations. See, \' 160.204(a). The language
adopted should ensure that the Secretary receives an authoritative
statement from the state. At the same time, this language provides
states with flexibility, in that the governor or other chief elected
official may choose to designate other state officials to make such
requests.

*Comment:* Many commenters recommended that a process be established
whereby HHS performs an initial state-by-state critical analysis to
provide guidance on which state laws will not be preempted; most
suggested that such an analysis (alternatively referred to as a database
or clearinghouse) should be completed before providers would be required
to come into compliance. Many of these comments argued that the
Secretary should bear the cost for the analyses of state law,
disagreeing with the premise stated in the preamble to the proposed
rules that it is more efficient for the private market to complete the
state-by-state review. Several comments also requested that HHS continue
to maintain and monitor the exception determination process, and update
the database over time in order to provide guidance and certainty on the
interaction of the federal rules with newly enacted or amended state
laws that are produced after the final rule. Some comments recommended
that each state be required to certify agreement with the HHS analyses.

In contrast, one hospital association noted concerns that the Secretary
would conduct a nationwide analysis of state laws. The comment stated
that implementation would be difficult since much of the law is a
product of common law, and such state-specific research should only be
attempted by experienced health care attorneys in each jurisdiction.

*Response:* These comments seem to be principally concerned with
potential conflicts between state privacy laws and the privacy
standards, because, as is more fully explained below, preemption of
contrary state laws not relating to privacy is automatic unless the
Secretary affirmatively acts under section 1178(a)(2)(A) to grant an
exception. We recognize that the provisions of sections 1178(b) (state
public health laws), and 1178(c) (state regulation of health plans)
similarly preserve state laws in those areas, but very little of the
public comment appeared to be concerned with these latter statutory
provisions. Accordingly, we respond below to what we see as the
commenters= main concern.

The Department will not do the kind of global analysis requested by many
of these comments. What these comments are in effect seeking is a global
advisory opinion as to when the federal privacy standards will control
and when they will not. We understand the desire for certainty
underlying these comments. Nonetheless, the reasons set out above as the
basis for our decision not to establish a formal advisory opinion
process apply equally to these requests. We also do not agree that the
task of evaluating the requirements below in light of existing state law
is unduly burdensome or unreasonable. Rather, it is common for new
federal requirements to necessitate an examination by the regulated
entities of the interaction between existing state law and the federal
requirements incident to coming into compliance.

We agree, however, that the case is different where the Secretary has
affirmatively acted, either through granting an exception under section
1178(a)(2)(A) or by making a specific determination about the effect of
a particular state privacy law in, for example, the course of
determining an entity=s compliance with the privacy standards. As is
discussed below, the Department intends to make notice of exception
determinations that it makes routinely available.

We do not agree with the comments suggesting that compliance by covered
entities be delayed pending completion of an analysis by the Secretary
and that states be required to certify agreement with the Secretary=s
analysis, as we are not institutionalizing the advisory opinion/analysis
process upon which these comments are predicated. Furthermore, with
respect to the suggestion regarding delaying the compliance date,
Congress provided in section 1175(b) of the Act for a delay in when
compliance is required to accommodate the needs of covered entities to
address implementation issues such as those raised by these comments.
With respect to the suggestion regarding requiring states to certify
their agreement with the Secretary=s analysis, we have no authority to
do this.

*Comment:* Several commenters criticized the proposed provision for
annual publication of determinations and advisory opinions in the
[Federal Register]{.underline} as inadequate. They suggested that more
frequent notices should be made and the regulation be changed
accordingly, to provide for publication either quarterly or within a few
days of a determination. A few commenters suggested that any
determinations made, or opinions issued, by the Secretary be published
on the Department=s website within 10 days or a few days of the
determination or opinion.

*Response:* We agree that the proposed provision for annual publication
was inadequate and have accordingly deleted it. Subpart B contains no
express requirement for publication, as the Department is free to
publish its determinations absent such a requirement. It is our
intention to publish notice of exception determinations on a periodic
basis in the [Federal Register]{.underline}. We will also consider other
avenues of making such decisions publicly available as we move into the
implementation process.

*Comment:* A few commenters argued that the process for obtaining an
exception determination or an advisory opinion from the Secretary will
result in a period of time in which there is confusion as to whether
state or federal law applies. The proposed regulations say that the
federal provisions will remain effective until the Secretary makes a
determination concerning the preemption issue. This means that, for
example, a state law that was enacted and enforced for many years will
be preempted by federal law for the period of time during which it takes
the Secretary to make a determination. Then if the Secretary determines
that the state law is not preempted, the state law will again become
effective. Such situations will result in confusion and unintended
violations of the law. One of the commenters suggested that requests for
exceptions be required only when a challenge is brought against a
particular state law, and that a presumption of validity should lie with
state laws. Another commenter, however, urged that Ainstead of the
presumption of preemption, the state laws in question would be presumed
to be subject to the exception unless or until the Secretary makes a
determination to the contrary.@

*Response:* It is true that the effect of section 1178(a)(2)(A) is that
the federal standards will preempt contrary state law and that such
preemption will not be removed unless and until the Secretary acts to
grant an exception under that section (assuming, of course, that another
provision of section 1178 does not apply). We do not agree, however,
that confusion should result, where the issue is whether a given state
law has been preempted under section 1178(a)(2)(A). Because preemption
is automatic with respect to state laws that do not come within the
other provisions of section 1178 (i.e., sections 1178(a)(2)(B), 1178(b),
and 1178(c)), such state laws are preempted until the Secretary
affirmatively acts to preserve them from preemption by granting an
exception under section 1178(a)(2)(A).

We cannot accept the suggestion that a presumption of validity attach to
state laws, and that states not be required to request exceptions except
in very narrow circumstances. The statutory scheme is the opposite: the
statute effects preemption in the section 1178(a)(2)(A) context unless
the Secretary affirmatively acts to except the contrary state law in
question.

With respect to preemption under sections 1178(b) and 1178(c) (the
carve-outs for state public health laws and state regulation of health
plans), we do not agree that preemption is likely to be a major cause of
uncertainty. We have deferred to Congressional intent by crafting the
permissible releases for public health, abuse, and oversight broadly.
See, \'\' 164.512(b) - (d) below. Since there must first be a conflict
between a state law and a federal requirement in order for an issue of
preemption to even arise, we think that, as a practical matter, few
preemption questions should arise with respect to sections 1178(b) and
1178(c).

With respect to preemption of state privacy laws under section
1178(a)(2)(B), however, we agree that the situation may be more
difficult to ascertain, because the Secretary does not determine the
preemption status of a state law under that section, unlike the
situation with respect to section 1178(a)(2)(A). We have tried to define
the term Amore stringent@ to identify and particularize the factors to
be considered by courts to those relevant to privacy interests. The more
specific (than the statute) definition of this term at \' 160.202 below
should provide some guidance in making the determination as to which law
prevails. Ambiguity in the state of the law might also be a factor to be
taken into account in determining whether a penalty should be applied.

*Comment:* Several comments recommended that exception determinations or
advisory opinions encompass a state act or code in its entirety (in lieu
of a provision-specific evaluation) if it is considered more stringent
as a whole than the regulation. It was argued that since the provisions
of a given law are typically interconnected and related, adopting or
overriding them on a provision-by-provision basis would result in
distortions and/or unintended consequences or loopholes. For example,
when a state law includes authorization provisions, some of which are
consistent with the federal requirements and some which are not, the
cleanest approach is to view the state law as inconsistent with the
federal requirements and thus preempted in its entirety. Similarly,
another comment suggested that state confidentiality laws written to
address the specific needs of individuals served within a discreet
system of care be considered as a whole in assessing whether they are as
stringent or more stringent than the federal requirements. Another
comment requested explicit clarification that state laws with a broader
scope than the regulation will be viewed as more stringent and be
allowed to stand.

*Response:* We have not adopted the approach suggested by these
comments. As discussed above with respect to the definition of the term
Amore stringent,@ it is our view that the statute precludes the approach
suggested. We also suggest that this approach ignores the fact that each
separate provision of law usually represents a nuanced policy choice to,
for example, permit this use or prohibit that disclosure; the aggregated
approach proposed would fail to recognize and weigh such policy choices.

*Comment:* One comment recommended that the final rule: permit requests
for exception determinations and advisory opinions as of the date of
publication of the final rule, require the Secretary to notify the
requestor within a specified short period of time of all additional
information needed, and prohibit enforcement action until the Secretary
issues a response.

*Response:* With respect to the first recommendation, we clarify that
requests for exception determinations may be made at any time; since the
process for issuing advisory opinions has not been adopted, this
recommendation is moot as it pertains to advisory opinions. With respect
to the second recommendation, we will undertake to process exception
requests as expeditiously as possible, but, for the reasons discussed
below in connection with the comments relating to setting deadlines for
those determinations, we cannot commit at this time to a Aspecified
short period of time@ within which the Secretary may request additional
information. We see no reason to agree to the third recommendation.
Because contrary state laws for which an exception is available only
under section 1178(a)(2)(A) will be preempted by operation of law unless
and until the Secretary acts to grant an exception, there will be an
ascertainable compliance standard for compliance purposes, and
enforcement action would be appropriate where such compliance did not
occur.

**Sections 160.203(a) and 160.204(a) B Exception Determinations**

***Section 160.203(a) B Criteria for Exception Determinations***

*Comment:* Numerous comments criticized the proposed criteria for their
substance or lack thereof. A number of commenters argued that the
effectiveness language that was added to the third statutory criterion
made the exception so massive that it would swallow the rule. These
comments generally expressed concern that laws that were less protective
of privacy would be granted exceptions under this language. Other
commenters criticized the criteria generally as creating a large
loophole that would let state laws that do not protect privacy trump the
federal privacy standards.

*Response:* We agree with these comments. The scope of the statutory
criteria is ambiguous, but they could be read so broadly as to largely
swallow the federal protections. We do not think that this was
Congress=s intent. Accordingly, we have added language to most of the
statutory criteria clarifying their scope. With respect to the criteria
at 1178(a)(2)(A)(i), this clarifying language generally ties the
criteria more specifically to the concern with protecting and making
more efficient the health care delivery and payment system that
underlies the Administrative Simplification provisions of HIPAA, but,
with respect to the catch-all provision at section 1178(a)(2)(A)(i)(IV),
also requires that privacy interests be balanced with such concerns, to
the extent relevant. We require that exceptions for rules to ensure
appropriate state regulation of insurance and health plans be stated in
a statute or regulation, so that such exceptions will be clearly tied to
statements of priorities made by publicly accountable bodies (e.g.,
through the public comment process for regulations, and by elected
officials through statutes). With respect to the criterion at section
1178(a)(2)(A)(ii), we have further delineated what Aaddresses controlled
substances@ means. The language provided, which builds on concepts at 21
U.S.C. 821 and the Medicare regulations at 42 CFR 1001.2, delineates the
area within which the government traditionally regulates controlled
substances, both civilly and criminally; it is our view that HIPAA was
not intended to displace such regulation.

*Comment:* Several commenters urged that the request for determination
by the Secretary under proposed \' 160.204(a) be limited to cases where
an exception is absolutely necessary, and that in making such a
determination, the Secretary should be required to make a determination
that the benefits of granting an exception outweigh the potential harm
and risk of disclosure in violation of the regulation.

*Response:* We have not further defined the statutory term Anecessary@,
as requested. We believe that the determination of what is Anecessary@
will be fact-specific and context dependent, and should not be further
circumscribed absent such specifics. The state will need to make its
case that the state law in question is sufficiently Anecessary@ to
accomplish the particular statutory ground for exception that it should
trump the contrary federal standard, requirement, or implementation
specification.

*Comment:* One commenter noted that a state should be required to
explain whether it has taken any action to correct any less stringent
state law for which an exception has been requested. This commenter
recommended that a section be added to proposed \' 160.204(a) stating
that Aa state must specify what, if any, action has been taken to amend
the state law to comply with the federal regulations.@ Another comment,
received in the Transactions rulemaking, took the position that
exception determinations should be granted only if the state standards
in question exceeded the national standards.

*Response:* The first and last comments appear to confuse the Amore
stringent@ criterion that applies under section 1178(a)(2)(B) of the Act
with the criteria that apply to exceptions under section 1178(a)(2)(A).
We are also not adopting the language suggested by the first comment,
because we do not agree that states should necessarily have to try to
amend their state laws as a precondition to requesting exceptions under
section 1178(a)(2)(A). Rather, the question should be whether the state
has made a convincing case that the state law in question is
sufficiently necessary for one of the statutory purposes that it should
trump the contrary federal policy.

*Comment:* One commenter stated that exceptions for state laws that are
contrary to the federal standards should not be preempted where the
state and federal standards are found to be equal.

*Response:* This suggestion has not been adopted, as it is not
consistent with the statute. With respect to the administrative
simplification standards in general, it is clear that the intent of
Congress was to preempt contrary state laws except in the limited areas
specified as exceptions or carve-outs. See, section 1178. This statutory
approach is consistent with the underlying goal of simplifying health
care transactions through the adoption of uniform national standards.
Even with respect to state laws relating to the privacy of medical
information, the statute shields such state laws from preemption by the
federal standards only if they are Amore@ stringent than the related
federal standard or implementation specification.

*Comment:* One commenter noted that determinations would apply only to
transactions that are wholly intrastate. Thus, any element of a health
care transaction that would implicate more than one state=s law would
automatically preclude the Secretary=s evaluation as to whether the laws
were more or less stringent than the federal requirement. Other
commenters expressed confusion about this proposed requirement, noting
that providers and plans operate now in a multi-state environment.

*Response:* We agree with the commenters and have dropped the proposed
requirement. As noted by the commenters, health care entities now
typically operate in a multi-state environment, so already make the
choice of law judgements that are necessary in multi-state transactions.
It is the result of that calculus that will have to be weighed against
the federal standards, requirements, and implementation specifications
in the preemption analysis.

*Comment:* One comment received in the Transactions rulemaking suggested
that the Department should allow exceptions to the standard transactions
to accommodate abbreviated transactions between state agencies, such as
claims between a public health department and the state Medicaid agency.
Another comment requested an exception for Home and Community Based
Waiver Services from the transactions standards.

*Response:* The concerns raised by these comments would seem to be more
properly addressed through the process established for maintaining and
modifying the transactions standards. If the concerns underlying these
comments cannot be addressed in this manner, however, there is nothing
in the rules below to preclude states from requesting exceptions in such
cases. They will then have to make the case that one or more grounds for
exception applies.

\' 160.204(a) - Process for Exception Determinations - Comments and
Responses

*Comment:* Several comments received in the Transactions rulemaking
stated that the process for applying for and granting exception
determinations (referred to as Awaivers@ by some) needed to be spelled
out in the final rule.

*Response:* We agree with these comments. As noted above, since no
process was proposed in the Transactions rulemaking, a process for
making exception determinations was not adopted in those final rules.
Subpart B below adopts a process for making exception determinations,
which responds to these comments.

*Comment:* Comments stated that the exception process would be
burdensome, unwieldy, and time-consuming for state agencies as well as
the Department. One comment took the position that states should not be
required to submit exception requests to the Department under proposed
\' 160.203(a), but could provide documentation that the state law meets
one of the conditions articulated in proposed \' 160.203.

*Response:* We disagree that the process adopted at \' 164.204 below
will be burdensome, unwieldy, or time-consuming. The only thing the
regulation describes is the showings that a requestor must make as part
of its submission, and all are relevant to the issue to be determined by
the Secretary. How much information is submitted is, generally speaking,
in the requestor=s control, and the regulation places no restrictions on
how the requestor obtains it, whether by acting directly, by working
with providers and/or plans, or by working with others. With respect to
the suggestion that states not be required to submit exception requests,
we disagree that this suggestion is either statutorily authorized or
advisable. We read this comment as implicitly suggesting that the
Secretary must proactively identify instances of conflict and evaluate
them. This suggestion is, thus, at bottom the same as the many
suggestions that we create a database or compendium of controlling law,
and it is rejected for the same reasons.

*Comment:* Several comments urged that all state requests for
non-preemption include a process for public participation. These
comments believe that members of the public and other interested
stakeholders should be allowed to submit comments on a state=s request
for exception, and that these comments should be reviewed and considered
by the Secretary in determining whether the exception should be granted.
One comment suggested that the Secretary at least give notice to the
citizens of the state prior to granting an exception.

*Response:* The revision to \' 160.204(a), to permit requests for
exception determinations by any person, responds to these comments.

*Comment:* Many commenters noted that the lack of a clear and reasonable
time line for the Secretary to issue an exception determination would
not provide sufficient assurance that the questions regarding what rules
apply will be resolved in a time frame that will allow business to be
conducted properly, and argued that this would increase confusion and
uncertainty about which statutes and regulations should be followed.
Timeframes of 60 or 90 days were suggested. One group suggested that, if
a state does not receive a response from HHS within 60 days, the waiver
should be deemed approved.

*Response:* The workload prioritization and management considerations
discussed above with respect to advisory opinions are also relevant here
and make us reluctant to agree to a deadline for making exception
determinations. This is particularly true at the outset, since we have
no experience with such requests. We therefore have no basis for
determining how long processing such requests will take, how many
requests we will need to process, or what resources will be available
for such processing. We agree that states and other requesters should
receive timely responses and will make every effort to make
determinations as expeditiously as possible, but we cannot commit to
firm deadlines in this initial rule. Once we have experience in handling
exception requests, we will consult with states and others in regard to
their experiences and concerns and their suggestions for improving the
Secretary=s expeditious handling of such requests.

We are not accepting the suggestion that requests for exception be
deemed approved if not acted upon in some defined time period. Section
1178(a)(2)(A) requires a specific determination by the Secretary. The
suggested policy would not be consistent with this statutory
requirement. It is also inadvisable from a policy standpoint, in that it
would tend to maximize exceptions. This would be contrary to the
underlying statutory policy in favor of uniform federal standards.

*Comment:* One commenter took exception to the requirement for states to
seek a determination from the Department that a provision of state law
is necessary to prevent fraud and abuse or to ensure appropriate state
regulation of insurance plans, contending that this mandate could
interfere with the Insurance Commissioners= ability to do their jobs.
Another commenter suggested that the regulation specifically recognize
the broad scope of state insurance department activities, such as market
conduct examinations, enforcement investigations, and consumer complaint
handling.

*Response:* The first comment raises an issue that lies outside our
legal authority to address, as section 1178(a)(2)(A) clearly mandates
that the Secretary make a determination in these areas. With respect to
the second comment, to the extent these concerns pertain to health
plans, we believe that the provisions at \' 164.512 relating to
oversight and disclosures required by law should address the concerns
underlying this comment.

***Section 160.204(a)(4) - Period of Effectiveness of Exception
Determinations***

*Comment:* Numerous commenters stated that the proposed three year
limitation on the effectiveness of exception determinations would pose
significant problems and should be limited to one year, since a one year
limitation would provide more frequent review of the necessity for
exceptions. The commenters expressed concern that state laws which
provide less privacy protection than the federal regulation would be
given exceptions by the Secretary and thus argued that the exceptions
should be more limited in duration or that the Secretary should require
that each request, regardless of duration, include a description of the
length of time such an exception would be needed.

One state government commenter, however, argued that the 3 year limit
should be eliminated entirely, on the ground that requiring a
redetermination every three years would be burdensome for the states and
be a waste of time and resources for all parties. Other commenters,
including two state agencies, suggested that the exemption should remain
effective until either the state law or the federal regulation is
changed. Another commenter suggested that the three year sunset be
deleted and that the final rule provide for automatic review to
determine if changes in circumstance or law would necessitate amendment
or deletion of the opinion. Other recommendations included deeming the
state law as continuing in effect upon the submission of a state
application for an exemption rather than waiting for a determination by
the Secretary that may not occur for a substantial period of time.

*Response:* We are persuaded that the proposed 3 year limit on exception
determinations does not make sense where neither law providing the basis
for the exception has changed in the interim. We also agree that where
either law has changed, a previously granted exception should not
continue. Section 160.205(a) below addresses these concerns.

**Sections 160.203(b) and 160.204(b) B Advisory Opinions**

***Section 160.203(b) B Effect of Advisory Opinions***

*Comment:* Several commenters questioned whether or not DHHS has
standing to issue binding advisory opinions and recommended that the
Department clarify this issue before implementation of this regulation.
One respondent suggested that the Department clarify in the final rule
the legal issues on which it will opine in advisory opinion requests,
and state that in responding to requests for advisory opinions the
Department will not opine on the preemptive force of ERISA with respect
to state laws governing the privacy of individually identifiable health
information, since interpretations as to the scope and extent of ERISA=s
preemption provisions are outside of the Department=s jurisdictional
authority.

One commenter asked whether a state could enforce a state law which the
Secretary had indicated through an advisory opinion is preempted by
federal law. This commenter also asked whether the state would be
subject to penalties if it chose to continue to enforce its own laws.

*Response:* As discussed above, in part for reasons raised by these
comments, the Department has decided not to have a formal process for
issuing advisory opinions, as proposed.

Several of these concerns, however, raise issues of broader concern that
need to be addressed. First, we disagree that the Secretary lacks legal
authority to opine on whether or not state privacy laws are preempted.
The Secretary is charged by law with determining compliance, and where
state law and the federal requirements conflict, a determination of
which law controls will have to be made in order to determine whether
the federal standard, requirement, or implementation specification at
issue has been violated. Thus, the Secretary cannot carry out her
enforcement functions without making such determinations. It is further
reasonable that, if the Secretary makes such determinations, she can
make those determinations known, for whatever persuasive effect they may
have.

The questions as to whether a state could enforce, or would be subject
to penalties if it chose to continue to enforce, its own laws following
a denial by the Secretary of an exception request under \' 160.203 or a
holding by a court of competent jurisdiction that a state privacy law
had been preempted by a contrary federal privacy standard raise several
issues. First, a state law is preempted under the Act only to the extent
that it applies to covered entities; thus, a state is free to continue
to enforce a Apreempted@ state law against non-covered entities to which
the state law applies. If there is a question of coverage, states may
wish to establish processes to ascertain which entities within their
borders are covered entities within the meaning of these rules. Second,
with respect to covered entities, if a state were to try to enforce a
preempted state law against such entities, it would presumably be acting
without legal authority in so doing. We cannot speak to what remedies
might be available to covered entities to protect themselves against
such wrongful state action, but we assume that covered entities could
seek judicial relief, if all else failed. With respect to the issue of
imposing penalties on states, we do not see this as likely. The only
situation that we can envision in which penalties might be imposed on a
state would be if a state agency were itself a covered entity and
followed a preempted state law, thereby violating the contrary federal
standard, requirement, or implementation specification.

***Section 160.204(b) - Process for Advisory Opinions***

*Comment:* Several commenters stated that it was unclear whether a state
would be required to submit a request for an advisory opinion in order
for the law to be considered more stringent and thus not preempted. The
Department should clarify whether a state law could be non-preempted
even without such an advisory opinion. Another commenter requested that
the final rule explicitly state that the stricter rule always applies,
whether it be state or federal, and regardless of whether there is any
conflict between state and federal law.

*Response:* The elimination of the proposed process for advisory
opinions renders moot the first question. Also, the preceding response
clarifies that which law preempts in the privacy context (assuming that
the state law and federal requirement are Acontrary@) is a matter of
which one is the Amore stringent.@ This is not a matter which the
Secretary will ultimately determine; rather, this is a question about
which the courts will ultimately make the final determination. With
respect to the second comment, we believe that \' 160.203(b) below
responds to this issue, but we would note that the statute already
provides for this.

*Comment:* Several commenters supported the decision to limit the
parties who may request advisory opinions to the state. These commenters
did not believe that insurers should be allowed to request an advisory
opinion and open every state law up to challenge and review.

Several commenters requested that guidance on advisory opinions be
provided in [all]{.underline} circumstances, not only at the Secretary=s
discretion. It was suggested that proposed \' 160.204(b)(2)(iv) be
revised to read as follows: AA state may submit a written request to the
Secretary for an advisory opinion under this paragraph. The request must
include the following information: the reasons why the state law
[should]{.underline} or [should not be]{.underline} preempted by the
federal standard, requirement, or implementation specification,
including how the state law meets the criteria at \' 160.203(b).@

*Response:* The decision not to have a formal process for issuing
advisory opinions renders these issues moot.

**Sections 160.203(c) and 160.203(d) B Statutory Carve-Outs**

*Comment:* Several commenters asked that the Department provide more
specific examples itemizing activities traditionally regulated by the
state that could constitute Acarve-out@ exceptions. These commenters
also requested that the Department include language in the regulation
stating that if a state law falls within several different exceptions,
the state chooses which determination exception shall apply.

*Response:* We are concerned that itemizing examples in this way could
leave out important state laws or create inadvertent negative
implications that laws not listed are not included. However, as
explained above, we have designed the types of activities that are
permissive disclosures for public health under \' 164.512(b) below in
part to come within the carve-out effected by section 1178(b); while the
state regulatory activities covered by section 1178(c) will generally
come within \' 164.512(d) below. With respect to the comments asking
that a state get to Achoose@ which exception it comes under, we have in
effect provided for this with respect to exceptions under section
1178(a)(2)(A), by giving the state the right to request an exception
under that section. With respect to exceptions under section
1178(a)(2)(B), those exceptions occur by operation of law, and it is not
within the Secretary=s power to Alet@ the state choose whether an
exception occurs under that section.

*Comment:* Several commenters took the position that the Secretary
should not limit the procedural requirements in proposed \' 160.204(a)
to only those applications under proposed \' 160.203(a). They urged that
the requirements of proposed \' 160.204(a) should also apply to
preemption under sections 1178(a)(2)(B), 1178(b) and 1178(c). It was
suggested that the rules should provide for exception determinations
with respect to the matters covered by these provisions of the statute;
such additional provisions would provide clear procedures for states to
follow and ensure that requests for exceptions are adequately
documented.

A slightly different approach was taken by several commenters, who
recommended that proposed \' 160.204(b) be amended to clarify that the
Secretary will also issue advisory opinions as to whether a state law
constitutes an exception under proposed \'\' 160.203(c) and 160.203(d).
This change would, they argued, give states the same opportunity for
guidance that they have under \' 160.203(a) and (b), and as such, avoid
costly lawsuits to preserve state laws.

*Response:* We are not taking either of the recommended courses of
action. With respect to the recommendation that we expand the exception
determination process to encompass exceptions under sections
1178(a)(2)(B), 1178(b), and 1178(c), we do not have the authority to
grant exceptions under these sections. Under section 1178, the Secretary
has authority to make exception determinations only with respect to the
matters covered by section 1178(a)(2)(A); contrary state laws coming
within section 1178(a)(2)(B) are preempted if not more stringent, while
if a contrary state law comes within section 1178(b) or section 1178(c),
it is not preempted. These latter statutory provisions operate by their
own terms. Thus, it is not within the Secretary=s authority to establish
the determination process which these comments seek.

With respect to the request seeking advisory opinions in the section
1178(b) and 1178(c) situations, we agree that we have the authority to
issue such opinions. However, the considerations described above that
have led us not to adopt a formal process for issuing advisory opinions
in the privacy context apply with equal force and effect here.

*Comment:* One commenter argued that it would be unnecessarily
burdensome for state health data agencies (whose focus is on the cost of
healthcare or improving Medicare, Medicaid, or the healthcare system) to
obtain a specific determination from the Department for an exception
under proposed \' 160.203(c). States should be required only to notify
the Secretary of their own determination that such collection is
necessary. It was also argued that cases where the statutory carve-outs
apply should not require a Secretarial determination.

*Response:* We clarify that no Secretarial determination is required for
activities that fall into one of the statutory carve-outs. With respect
to data collections for state health data agencies, we note that
provision has been made for many of these activities in several
provisions of the rules below, such as the provisions relating to
disclosures required by law (\' 164.512(a)), disclosures for oversight
(\' 164.512(d)), and disclosures for public health (\' 164.512(b)). Some
disclosures for Medicare and Medicaid purposes may also come within the
definition of health care operations. A fuller discussion of this issue
appears in connection with \' 164.512 below.

**Constitutional Comments and Responses**

*Comment:* Several commenters suggested that as a general matter the
rule is unconstitutional.

*Response:* We disagree that the rule is unconstitutional. The
particular grounds for this conclusion are set out with respect to
particular constitutional issues in the responses below. With respect to
the comments that simply made this general assertion, the lack of detail
of the comments makes a substantive response impossible.

***Article II***

*Comment:* One commenter contended that the Secretary improperly
delegated authority to private entities by requiring covered entities to
enter into contracts with, monitor, and take action for violations of
the contract against their business partners. These comments assert that
the selection of these entities to Aenforce@ the regulations violates
the Executive Powers Clause and the Appointments and Take Care Clauses.

*Response:* We reject the assertion that the business associate
provisions constitute an improper delegation of executive power to
private entities. HIPAA provides HHS with authority to enforce the
regulation against covered entities. The rules below regulate only the
conduct of the covered entity; to the extent a covered entity chooses to
conduct its funding through a business associate, those functions are
still functions of the covered entity. Thus, no improper delegation has
occurred because what is being regulated are the actions of the covered
entity, not the actions of the business associate in its independent
capacity.

We also reject the suggestion that the business associates provisions
constitute an improper appointment of covered entities to enforce the
regulation and violate the Take Care Clause. Because the Secretary has
not delegated authority to covered entities, the inference that she has
appointed covered entities to exercise such authority misses the mark.

***Commerce Clause***

*Comment:* A few commenters suggested that the privacy regulation
regulates activities that are not in interstate commerce and which are,
therefore, beyond the powers the U.S. Constitution gives the federal
government.

*Response:* We disagree. Health care providers, health plans, and health
care clearinghouses are engaged in economic and commercial activities,
including the exchange of individually identifiable health information
electronically across state lines. These activities constitute
interstate commerce. Therefore, they come within the scope of Congress=
power to regulate interstate commerce.

***Nondelegation Doctrine***

*Comment:* Some commenters objected to the manner by which Congress
provided the Secretary authority to promulgate this regulation. These
comments asserted that Congress violated the nondelegation doctrine by
(1) not providing an Aintelligible principle@ to guide the agency, (2)
not establishing Aascertainable standards,@ and (3) improperly
permitting the Secretary to make social policy decisions.

*Response:* We disagree. HIPAA clearly delineates Congress= general
policy to establish strict privacy protections for individually
identifiable health information to encourage electronic transactions.
Congress also established boundaries limiting the Secretary=s authority.
Congress established these limitations in several ways, including by
calling for privacy standards for Aindividually identifiable health
information@; specifying that privacy standards must address
individuals= rights regarding their individually identifiable health
information, the procedures for exercising those rights, and the
particular uses and disclosures to be authorized or required;
restricting the direct application of the privacy standards to Acovered
entities,@ which Congress defined; requiring consultation with the
National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics and the Attorney
General; specifying the circumstances under which the federal
requirements would supersede state laws; and specifying the civil and
criminal penalties the Secretary could impose for violations of the
regulation. These limitations also serve as Aascertainable standards@
upon which reviewing courts can rely to determine the validity of the
exercise of authority.

Although Congress could have chosen to impose expressly an exhaustive
list of specifications that must be met in order to achieve the
protective purposes of the HIPAA, it was entirely permissible for
Congress to entrust to the Secretary the task of providing these
specifications based on her experience and expertise in dealing with
these complex and technical matters.

We disagree with the comments that Congress improperly delegated
Congressional policy choices to her. Congress clearly decided to create
federal standards protecting the privacy of Aindividually identifiable
health information@ and not to preempt state laws that are more
stringent. Congress also determined over whom the Secretary would have
authority, the type of information protected, and the minimum level of
regulation.

***Separation of Powers***

*Comment:* Some commenters asserted that the federal government may not
preempt state laws that are not as strict as the privacy regulation
because to do so would violate the separation of powers in the U.S.
Constitution. One comment suggested that the rules raised a substantial
constitutional issue because, as proposed, they permitted the Secretary
to make determinations on preemption, which is a role reserved for the
judiciary.

*Response:* We disagree. We note that this comment only pertains to
determinations under section 1178(a)(2)(A); as discussed above, the
rules below provide for no Secretarial determinations with respect to
state privacy laws coming within section 1178(a)(2)(B). With respect to
determinations under section 1178(a)(2)(A), however, the final rules,
like the proposed rules, provide that at a state=s request the Secretary
may make certain determinations regarding the preemptive effect of the
rules on a particular state law. As usually the case with any
administrative decisions, these are subject to judicial review pursuant
to the Administrative Procedure Act.

***First Amendment***

*Comment:* Some comments suggested that the rules violated the First
Amendment. They asserted that if the rule included Christian Science
practitioners as covered entities it would violate the separation of
church and state doctrine.

*Response:* We disagree. The First Amendment does not always prohibit
the federal government from regulating secular activities of religious
organizations. However, we address concerns relating to Christian
Science practitioners more fully in the response to comments discussion
of the definition of Acovered entity@ in \' 160.103.

***Fourth Amendment***

*Comment:* Many comments expressed Fourth Amendment concerns about
various proposed provisions. These comments fall into two
categoriesBgeneral concerns about warrantless searches and specific
concerns about administrative searches. Several comments argued that the
proposed regulations permit law enforcement and government officials
access to protected health information without first requiring a
judicial search warrant or an individual=s consent. These comments
rejected the applicability of any of the existing exceptions permitting
warrantless searches in this context. Another comment argued that
federal and state police should be able to obtain personal medical
records only with the informed consent of an individual. Many of these
comments also expressed concern that protected health information could
be provided to government or private agencies for inclusion in a
governmental health data system.

*Response:* We disagree that the provisions of these rules that permit
disclosures for law enforcement purposes and governmental health data
systems generally violate the Fourth Amendment. The privacy regulation
does not create new access rights for law enforcement. Rather, it
refrains from placing a significant barrier in front of access rights
that law enforcement currently has under existing legal authority. While
the regulation may *permit* a covered entity to make disclosures in
specified instances, it does not *require* the covered entity make the
disclosure. Thus, because we are not modifying existing law regarding
disclosures to law enforcement officials, except to strengthen the
requirements related to requests already authorized under law, and are
not requiring any such disclosures, the privacy regulation does not
infringe upon individual=s Fourth Amendment rights. We discuss the
rationale underlying the permissible disclosures to law enforcement
officials more fully in the preamble discussion relating to \'
164.512(f).

We note that the proposed provision relating to disclosures to
government health data systems has been eliminated in the final rule.
However, to the extent that the comments can be seen as raising concern
over disclosure of protected health information to government agencies
for public health, health oversight, or other purposes permitted by the
final rule, the reasoning in the previous paragraph applies.

*Comment:* One commenter suggested that the rules violate the Fourth
Amendment by requiring covered entities to provide access to the
Secretary to their books, records, accounts, and facilities to ensure
compliance with these rules. The commenter also suggested that the
requirement that covered entities enter into agreements with their
business partners to make their records available to the Secretary for
inspection as well also violates the warrant requirement of the Fourth
Amendment.

*Response:* We disagree. These requirements are consistent with U.S.
Supreme Court cases holding that warrantless administrative searches of
commercial property are not per se violations of the Fourth Amendment.
The provisions requiring that covered entities provide access to certain
material to determine compliance with the regulation come within the
well-settled exception regarding closely regulated businesses and
industries to the warrant requirement. From state and local licensure
laws to the federal fraud and abuse statutes and regulations, the health
care industry is one of the most tightly regulated businesses in the
country. Because the industry has such an extensive history of
government oversight and involvement, those operating within it have no
reasonable expectation of privacy from the government such that a
warrant would be required to determine compliance with the rules.

In addition, the cases cited by the commenters concern unannounced
searches of the premises and facilities of particular entities. Because
our enforcement provisions only provide for the review of books,
records, and other information and only during normal business hours
with notice, except for exceptional situations, this case law does not
apply.

As for business associates, they voluntarily enter into their agreements
with covered entities. This agreement, therefore, functions as knowing
and voluntary consents to the search (even assuming it could be
understood to be a search) and obviates the need for a warrant.

***Fifth Amendment***

*Comment:* Several comments asserted that the proposed rules violated
the Fifth Amendment because in the commenters= views they authorized the
taking of privacy property without just compensation or due process of
law.

*Response:* We disagree. The rules set forth below do not address the
issue of who owns an individual=s medical record. Instead, they address
what uses and disclosures of protected health information may be made by
covered entities with or without a consent or authorization. As
described in response to a similar comment, medical records have been
the property of the health care provider or medical facility that
created them, historically. In some states, statutes directly provide
these entities with ownership. These laws are limited by laws that
provide patients or their representatives with access to the records or
that provide the patient with an ownership interest in the information
within the records. As we discuss, the final rule is consistent with
current state law that provides patients access to protected health
information, but not ownership of medical records. State laws that
provide patients with greater access would remain in effect. Therefore,
because patients do not own their records, no taking can occur. As for
their interest in the information, the final rule retains their rights.
As for covered entities, the final rule does not take away their
ownership rights or make their ownership interest in the protected
health information worthless. Therefore, no taking has occurred in these
situations either.

***Ninth and Tenth Amendments***

*Comment:* Several comments asserted that the proposed rules violated
the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. One commenter suggested that the Ninth
Amendment prohibits long and complicated regulations. Other commenters
suggested that the proposed rules authorized the compelled disclosure of
individually identifiable health information in violation of State
constitutional provisions, such as those in California and Florida.
Similarly, a couple of commenters asserted that the privacy rules
violate the Tenth Amendment.

*Response:* We disagree. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments address the
rights retained by the people and acknowledge that the States or the
people are reserved the powers not delegated to the federal government
and not otherwise prohibited by the Constitution. Because HHS is
regulating under a delegation of authority from Congress in an area that
affects interstate commerce, we are within the powers provided to
Congress in the Constitution. Nothing in the Ninth Amendment, or any
other provision of the Constitution, restricts the length or complexity
of any law. Additionally, we do not believe the rules below
impermissibly authorize behavior that violates State constitutions. This
rule requires disclosure only to the individual or to the Secretary to
enforce this rule. As noted in the preamble discussion of APreemption,@
these rules do not preempt State laws, including constitutional
provisions, that are contrary to and more stringent, as defined at \'
160.502, than these rules. See the discussion of APreemption@ for
further clarification. Therefore, if these State constitutions are
contrary to the rule below and provide greater protection, they remain
in full force; if they do not, they are preempted, in accordance with
the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

***Right to Privacy***

*Comment:* Several comments suggested that the proposed regulation would
violate the right to privacy guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, and
Ninth Amendments because it would permit covered entities to disclose
protected health information without the consent of the individual.

*Response:* These comments did not provide specific facts or legal basis
for the claims. We are, thus, unable to provide a substantive response
to these particular comments. However, we note that the rule requires
disclosures only to the individual or to the Secretary to determine
compliance with this rule. Other uses or disclosures under this rule are
permissive, not required. Therefore, if a particular use or disclosure
under this rule is viewed as interfering with a right that prohibited
the use or disclosure, the rule itself is not what requires the use or
disclosure.

***Void for Vagueness***

*Comment:* One comment suggested that the Secretary=s use of a
Areasonableness@ standard is unconstitutionally vague. Specifically,
this comment objected to the requirement that covered entities use
Areasonable@ efforts to use or disclose the minimum amount of protected
health information, to ensure that business partners comply with the
privacy provisions of their contracts, to notify business partners of
any amendments or corrections to protected health information, and to
verify the identity of individuals requesting information, as well as
charge only a Areasonable@ fee for inspecting and copying health
information. This comment asserted that the Secretary provided
Ainadequate guidance@ as to what qualifies as Areasonable.@

*Response:* We disagree with the comment=s suggestion that by applying a
Areasonableness@ standard, the regulation has failed to provide for
Afair warning@ or Afair enforcement.@ The Areasonableness@ standard is
well-established in law; for example, it is the foundation of the common
law of torts. Courts also have consistently held as constitutional
statutes that rely upon a Areasonableness@ standard. Our reliance upon a
Areasonableness@ standard, thus, provides covered entities with
constitutionally sufficient guidance.

***Criminal Intent***

*Comment:* One comment argued that the regulation=s reliance upon a
Areasonableness@ standard criminalizes Aunreasonable efforts@ without
requiring criminal intent or *mens rea*.

*Response:* We reject this suggestion because HIPAA clearly provides the
criminal intent requirement. Specifically, HIPPA provides that a Aperson
who *knowingly* and in violation of this part B (1) uses or causes to be
used a unique health identifier; (2) obtains individually identifiable
health information relating to an individual; or (3) discloses
individually identifiable health information to another person, shall be
punished as provided in subsection (b).@ HIPAA section 1177 (emphasis
added). Subsection (b) also relies on a knowledge standard in outlining
the three levels of criminal sanctions. Thus, Congress, not the
Secretary, established the *mens rea* by including the term Aknowingly@
in the criminal penalty provisions of HIPAA.

***Data Collection***

*Comment:* One commenter suggested that the U.S. Constitution authorized
the collection of data on individuals only for the purpose of the
census.

*Response:* While it might be true that the U.S. Constitution expressly
discusses the national census, it does not forbid federal agencies from
collecting data for other purposes. The ability of agencies to collect
non-census data has been upheld by the courts.

**Relationship to Other Federal Laws**

*Comment*: We received several comments that sought clarification of the
interaction of various federal laws and the privacy regulation. Many of
these comments simply listed federal laws and regulations with which the
commenter currently must comply. For example, commenters noted that they
must comply with regulations relating to safety, public health, and
civil rights, including Medicare and Medicaid, the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Federal Aviation
Administration regulations, the Department of Transportation
regulations, the Federal Highway Administration regulations, the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations, and the
Environmental Protection Agency regulations, and alcohol and drug free
workplace rules. These commenters suggested that the regulation state
clearly and unequivocally that uses or disclosures of protected health
information for these purposes were permissible. Some suggested
modifying the definition of health care operations to include these uses
specifically. Another suggestion was to add a section that permitted the
transmission of protected health information to employers when
reasonably necessary to comply with federal, state, or municipal laws
and regulations, or when necessary for public or employee safety and
health.

*Response:* Although we sympathize with entities= needs to evaluate the
existing laws with which they must comply in light of the requirements
of the final regulation, we are unable to respond substantially to
comments that do no pose specific questions. We offer, however, the
following guidance: if an covered entity is required to disclose
protected health information pursuant to a specific statutory or
regulatory scheme, the covered entity generally will be permitted under
\' 164.512(a) to make these disclosures without a consent or
authorization; if, however, a statute or regulation merely suggests a
disclosure, the covered entity will need to determine if the disclosure
comes within another category of permissible disclosure under \'\'
164.510 or 164.512 or, alternatively, if the disclosure would otherwise
come within \' 164.502. If not, the entity will need to obtain a consent
or authorization for the disclosure.

*Comment:* One commenter sought clarification as to when a disclosure is
considered to be Arequired@ by another law versus Apermitted@ by that
law.

*Responses:* We use these terms according to their common usage. By
Arequired by law,@ we mean that a covered entity has a legal obligation
to disclose the information. For example, if a statute states that a
covered entity must report the names of all individuals presenting with
gun shot wounds to the emergency room or else be fined \$500 for each
violation, a covered entity would be required by law to disclose the
protected health information necessary to comply with this mandate. The
privacy regulation permits this type of disclosure, but does not require
it. Therefore, if a covered entity chose not to comply with the
reporting statute it would violate only the reporting statute and not
the privacy regulation.

On the other hand, if a statute stated that a covered entity may or is
permitted to report the names of all individuals presenting with gun
shot wounds to the emergency room and, in turn, would receive \$500 for
each month it made these reports, a covered entity would not be
permitted by \' 164.512(a) to disclose the protected health information.
Of course, if another permissible provision applied to these facts, the
covered entity could make the disclosure under that provision, but it
would not be considered to be a disclosure. See discussion under \'
164.512(a) below.

*Comment:* Several commenters suggested that the proposed rule was
unnecessarily duplicative of existing regulations for federal programs,
such as Medicare, Medicaid, and the Federal Employee Health Benefit
Program.

*Response:* Congress specifically subjected certain federal programs,
including Medicare, Medicaid, and the Federal Employee Health Benefit
Program to the privacy regulation by including them within the
definition of Ahealth plan.@ Therefore, covered entities subject to
requirements of existing federal programs will also have to comply with
the privacy regulation. *Comment:* One comment asserts that the
regulation would not affect current federal requirements if the current
requirements are weaker than the requirements of the privacy regulation.
This same commenter suggested that current federal requirements will
trump both state law and the proposed regulation, even if Medicaid
transactions remain wholly intrastate.

*Response:* We disagree. As noted in our discussion of ARelationship to
Other Federal Laws,@ each law or regulation will need to be evaluated
individually. We similarly disagree with the second assertion made by
the commenter. The final rule will preempt state laws only in specific
instances. For a more detailed analysis, see the preamble discussion of
APreemption.@

***Administrative Subpoenas***

*Comment:* One comment stated that the final rule should not impose new
standards on administrative subpoenas that would conflict with existing
laws or administrative or judicial rules that establish standards for
issuing subpoenas. Nor should the final rule conflict with established
standards for the conduct of administrative, civil, or criminal
proceedings, including the rules regarding the discovery of evidence.
Other comments sought further restrictions on access to protected health
information in this context.

*Response:* Section 164.512(e) below addresses disclosures for judicial
and administrative proceedings. The final rules generally do not
interfere with these existing processes to the extent an individual
served with a subpoena, court order, or other similar process is able to
raise objections already available. See the discussion below under \'
164.512(e) for a fuller response.

***Americans with Disabilities Act***

*Comment:* Several comments discussed the intersection between the
proposed Privacy Rule and the Americans with Disabilities Act (AADA@)
and sections 503 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. One comment
suggested that the final rule explicitly allows disclosures authorized
by the Americans with Disabilities Act without an individual=s
authorization, because this law, in the commenter=s view, provides more
than adequate protection for the confidentiality of medical records in
the employment context. The comment noted that under these laws
employers may receive information related to fitness for duty,
pre-employment physicals, routine examinations, return to work
examinations, examinations following other types of absences,
examinations triggered by specific events, changes in circumstances,
requests for reasonable accommodations, leave requests, employee
wellness programs, and medical monitoring.

Other commenters suggested that the ADA requires the disclosure of
protected health information to employers so that the employee may take
advantage of the protections of these laws. They suggested that the
final rules clarify that employment may be conditioned on obtaining an
authorization for disclosure of protected health information for lawful
purposes and provide guidance concerning the interaction of the ADA with
the final regulation=s requirements. Several commenters wanted
clarification that the privacy regulation would not permit employers to
request or use protected health information in violation of the ADA.

*Response:* We disagree with the comment that the final rule should
allow disclosures of protected health information authorized by the ADA
without the individual=s authorization. We learned from the comments
that access to and use of protected health information by employers is
of particular concern to many people. With regard to employers, we do
not have statutory authority to regulate them. Therefore, it is beyond
the scope of this regulation to prohibit employers from requesting or
obtaining protected health information. Covered entities may disclose
protected health information about individuals who are members of an
employer=s workforce with an authorization. Nothing in the privacy
regulation prohibits employers from obtaining that authorization as a
condition of employment. We note, however, that employers must comply
with other laws that govern them, such as nondiscrimination laws. For
example, if an employer receives a request for a reasonable
accommodation, the employer may require reasonable documentation about
the employee=s disability and the functional limitations that require
the reasonable accommodation, if the disability and the limitations are
not obvious. If the individual provides insufficient documentation and
does not provide the missing information in a timely manner after the
employer=s subsequent request, the employer may require the individual
to go to an appropriate health professional of the employer=s choice. In
this situation, the employee does not authorize the disclosure of
information to substantiate the disability and the need for reasonable
accommodation, the employer need not provide the accommodation.

We agree that this rule does not permit employers to request or use
protected health information in violation of the ADA or other
antidiscrimination laws.

***Appropriations Laws***

*Comment:* One comment suggested that the penalty provisions of HIPAA,
if extended to the privacy regulation, would require the Secretary to
violate AAppropriations Laws@ because the Secretary could be in the
position of assessing penalties against her own and other federal
agencies in their roles as covered entities. Enforcing penalties on
these entities would require the transfer of agency funds to the General
Fund.

*Response:* We disagree. Although we anticipate achieving voluntary
compliance and resolving any disputes prior to the actual assessment of
penalties, the Department of Justice=s Office of Legal Counsel has
determined in similar situations that federal agencies have authority to
assess penalties against other federal agencies and that doing so is not
in violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. 1341.

***Balanced Budget Act of 1997***

*Comment:* One comment expressed concern that the regulation would place
tremendous burdens on providers already struggling with the effects of
the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.

*Response:* We appreciate the costs covered entities face when complying
with other statutory and regulatory requirements, such as the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997. However, HHS cannot address the impact of the
Balanced Budget Act or other statutes in the context of this regulation.

*Comment:* Another comment stated that the regulation is in direct
conflict with the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (ABBA@). The comment
asserts that the regulation=s compliance date conflicts with the BBA, as
well as Generally Acceptable Accounting Principles. According to the
comment, covered entities that made capital acquisitions to ensure
compliance with the year 2000 (AY2K@) problem would not be able to
account for the full depreciation of these systems until 2005. Because
HIPAA requires compliance before that time, the regulation would force
premature obsolescence of this equipment because while it is Y2K
compliant, it may be HIPAA non-compliant.

*Response:* This comment raises two distinct issuesB(1) the investment
in new equipment and (2) the compliance date. With regard to the first
issue, we reject the comment=s assertion that the regulation requires
covered entities to purchase new information systems or information
technology equipment, but realize that some covered entities may need to
update their equipment. We have tried to minimize the costs, while
responding appropriately to Congress= mandate for privacy rules. We have
dealt with the cost issues in detail in the ARegulatory Impact Analysis@
section of this Preamble. With regard to the second issue, Congress, not
the Secretary, established the compliance data at section 1175(b) of the
Act.

***Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act***

*Comment:* A few comments expressed concern that the privacy regulation
would inadvertently hinder the Department of Justice Civil Rights
Divisions= investigations under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized
Persons Act (ACRIPA@). These comments suggested clearly including civil
rights enforcement activities as health care oversight.

*Response:* We agree with this comment. We do not intend for the privacy
rules to hinder CRIPA investigations. Thus, the final rule includes
agencies that are authorized by law to Aenforce civil rights laws for
which health information is relevant@ in the definition of Ahealth
oversight agency@ at \' 164.501. Covered entities are permitted to
disclose protected health information to health oversight agencies under
\' 164.512(d) without an authorization. Therefore, we do not believe the
final rule should hinder the Department of Justice=s ability to conduct
investigations pursuant to its authority in CRIPA.

***Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments***

*Comment:* One comment expressed concern that the proposed definition of
health care operations did not include activities related to the quality
control clinical studies performed by laboratories to demonstrate the
quality of patient test results. Because the Clinical Laboratory
Improvement Amendments of 1988 (ACLIA@) requires these studies that the
comment asserted require the use of protected health information, the
comment suggested including this specific activity in the definition of
Ahealth care operations.@

*Response:* We do not intend for the privacy regulation to impede the
ability of laboratories to comply with the requirements of CLIA. Quality
control activities come within the definition of Ahealth care
operations@ in \' 164.501 because they come within the meaning of the
term Aquality assurance activities.@ To the extent they would not come
within health care operations, but are required by CLIA, the privacy
regulation permits clinical laboratories that are regulated by CLIA to
comply with mandatory uses and disclosures of protected health
information pursuant to \' 164.512(a).

*Comment:* One comment stated that the proposed regulation=s right of
access for inspection and copying provisions were contrary to CLIA in
that CLIA permits laboratories to disclose lab test results only to
Aauthorized persons.@ This comment suggested that the final rule include
language adopting this restriction to ensure that patients not obtain
laboratory test results before the appropriate health care provider has
reviewed and explained those results to the patients.

A similar comment stated that the lack of preemption of state laws could
create problems for clinical laboratories under CLIA. Specifically, this
comment noted that CLIA permits clinical laboratories to perform tests
only upon the written or electronic request of, and to provide the
results to, an Aauthorized person.@ State laws define who is an
Aauthorized person.@ The comment expressed concern as to whether the
regulation would preempt state laws that only permit physicians to
receive test results.

*Response:* We agree that CLIA controls in these cases. Therefore, we
have amended the right of access, \' 164.524(a), so that a covered
entity that is subject to CLIA does not have to provide access to the
individual to the extent such access would be prohibited by law. Because
of this change, we believe the preemption concern is moot.

***Controlled Substance Act***

*Comment:* One comment expressed concern that the privacy regulation as
proposed would restrict the Drug Enforcement Agency=s (Athe DEA@)
enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act (ACSA@). The comment
suggested including enforcement activities in the definition of Ahealth
oversight agency.@

*Response:* In our view, the privacy regulation should not impede the
DEA=s ability to enforce the CSA. First, to the extent the CSA requires
disclosures to the DEA, these disclosures would be permissible under \'
164.512(a). Second, some of the DEA=s CSA activities come within the
exception for health oversight agencies which permits disclosures to
health oversight agencies for:

> activities authorized by law, including audits; civil, administrative,
> or criminal investigations; inspections . . . civil, administrative,
> or criminal proceedings or actions; and other activity necessary for
> appropriate oversight of the health care system.

Therefore, to the extent the DEA is enforcing the CSA, disclosures to it
in its capacity as a health oversight agency are permissible under \'
164.512(d). Alternatively, CSA required disclosures to the DEA for law
enforcement purposes are permitted under \' 164.512(f). When acting as a
law enforcement agency under the CSA, the DEA may obtain the information
pursuant to \' 164.512(f). Thus, we do not agree that the privacy
regulation will impede the DEA=s enforcement of the CSA. See the
preamble discussion of \' 164.512 for further explanation.

*Comment:* One commenter suggested clarifying the provisions allowing
disclosures that are Arequired by law@ to ensure that the mandatory
reporting requirements the CSA imposes on covered entities, including
making available reports, inventories, and records of transactions, are
not preempted by the regulation.

*Response:* We agree that the privacy regulation does not alter covered
entities= obligations under the CSA. Because the CSA requires covered
entities manufacturing, distributing, and/or dispensing controlled
substances to maintain and provide to the DEA specific records and
reports, the privacy regulation permits these disclosures under \'
164.512(a). In addition, when the DEA seeks documents to determine an
entity=s compliance with the CSA, such disclosures are permitted under
\' 164.512(d).

*Comment:* The same commenter expressed concern that the proposed
privacy regulation inappropriately limits voluntary reporting and would
prevent or deter employees of covered entities from providing the DEA
with information about violations of the CSA.

*Response:* We agree with the general concerns expressed in this
comment. We do not believe the privacy rules will limit voluntary
reporting of violations of the CSA. The CSA requires certain entities to
maintain several types of records that may include protected health
information. Although reports that included protected health information
may be restricted under these rules, reporting the fact that an entity
is not maintaining proper reports is not. If it were necessary to obtain
protected health information during the investigatory stages following
such a voluntary report, the DEA would be able to obtain the information
in other ways, such as by following the administrative procedures
outlined in \' 164.512(e).

We also agree that employees of covered entities who report violations
of the CSA should not be subjected to retaliation by their employers.
Under \' 164.502(j), we specifically state that a covered entity is not
considered to have violated the regulation if a workforce member or
business associate in good faith reports violations of laws or
professional standards by covered entities to appropriate authorities.
*See* discussion of \' 164.502(j) below.

***Department of Transportation***

*Comment:* Several commenters stated that the Secretary should recognize
in the preamble that it is permissible for employers to condition
employment on an individual=s delivering a consent to certain medical
tests and/or examinations, such as drug-free workplace programs and
Department of Transportation (ADOT@)-required physical examinations.
These comments also suggested that employers should be able to receive
certain information, such as pass/fail test and examination results,
fitness-to-work assessments, and other legally required or permissible
physical assessments without obtaining an authorization. To achieve this
goal, these comments suggested defining Ahealth information@ to exclude
information such as information about how much weight a specific
employee can lift.

*Response:* We reject the suggestion to define Ahealth information,@
which Congress defined in HIPAA, so that it excludes individually
identifiable health information that may be relevant to employers for
these types of examinations and programs. We do not regulate employers.
Nothing in the rules prohibit employers from conditioning employment on
an individual signing the appropriate consent or authorization. By the
same token, however, the rules below do not relieve employers from their
obligations under the ADA and other laws that restrict the disclosure of
individually identifiable health information.

*Comment:* One commenter asserted that the proposed regulation conflicts
with the DOT guidelines regarding positive alcohol and drug tests that
require the employer be notified in writing of the results. This
document contains protected health information. In addition, the
treatment center records must be provided to the Substance Abuse
Professional (ASAP@) and the employer must receive a report from SAP
with random drug testing recommendations.

*Response:* It is our understanding that DOT requires drug testing of
all applicants for employment in safety-sensitive positions or
individuals being transferred to such positions. Employers, pursuant to
DOT regulations, may condition an employee=s employment or position upon
first obtaining an authorization for the disclosure of results of these
tests to the employer. Therefore, we do not believe the final rules
conflict with the DOT requirements, which do not prohibit obtaining
authorizations before such information is disclosed to employers.

***Developmental Disabilities Act***

*Comment:* One commenter urged HHS to ensure that the regulation would
not impede access to individually identifiable health information to
entities that are part of the Protection and Advocacy System to
investigate abuse and neglect as authorized by the Developmental
Disabilities Bill of Rights Act.

*Response:* The Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights
Act of 2000 (ADD Act@) mandates specific disclosures of individually
identifiable health information to Protection and Advocacy systems
designated by the chief elected official of the states and Territories.
Therefore, covered entities may make these disclosures under \'
164.512(a) without first obtaining an individual=s authorization, except
in those circumstances in which the DD Act requires the individual=s
authorization. Therefore, the rules below will not impede the
functioning of the existing Protection and Advocacy System.

***Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974***

*Comment:* Several commenters objected to the fact that the NPRM did not
clarify the scope of preemption of state laws under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). These commenters
asserted that the final rule must state that ERISA preempts all state
laws (including those relating to the privacy of individually
identifiable health information) so that multistate employers could
continue to administer their group health plans using a single set of
rules. In contrast, other commenters criticized the Department for its
analysis of the current principles governing ERISA preemption of state
law, pointing out that the Department has no authority to interpret
ERISA.

*Response:* This Department has no authority to issue regulations under
ERISA as requested by some of these commenters, so the rule below does
not contain the statement requested. See the discussion of this point
under APreemption@ above.

*Comment:* One commenter requested that the final rule clarify that
section 264(c)(2) of HIPAA does not save state laws that would otherwise
be preempted by the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. The
commenter noted that in the NPRM this statement was made with respect to
Medicare and ERISA, but not the law governing the FEHBP.

*Response:* We agree with this comment. The preemption analysis set out
above with respect to ERISA applies equally to the Federal Employees
Health Benefit Program.

*Comment:* One commenter noted that the final rule should clarify the
interplay between state law, the preemption standards in Subtitle A of
Title I of HIPAA (Health Care Access, Portability and Renewability), and
the preemption standards in the privacy requirements in Subtitle F of
Title II of HIPAA (Administrative Simplification).

*Response:* The NPRM described only the preemption standards that apply
with respect to the statutory provisions of HIPAA that were implemented
by the proposed rule. We agree that the preemption standards in Subtitle
A of Title I of HIPAA are different. Congress expressly provided that
the preemption provisions of Title I apply only to Part 7, which
addresses portability, access, and renewability requirements for Group
Health Plans. To the extent state laws contain provisions regarding
portability, access, or renewability, as well as privacy requirements, a
covered entity will need to evaluate the privacy provisions under the
Title II preemption provisions, as explained in the preemption
provisions of the rules, and the other provisions under the Title I
preemption requirements.

***European Union Privacy Directive and U.S. Safe Harbors***

*Comment:* Several comments stated that the privacy regulation should be
consistent with the European Union=s Directive on Data Protection.
Others sought guidance as to how to comply with both the E.U. Directive
on Data Protection and the U.S. Safe Harbor Privacy Principles.

*Response:* We appreciate the need for covered entities obtaining
personal data from the European Union to understand how the privacy
regulation intersects with the Data Protection Directive. We have
provided guidance as to this interaction in the AOther Federal Laws@
provisions of the preamble.

*Comment:* A few comments expressed concern that the proposed definition
of Aindividual@ excluded foreign military and diplomatic personnel and
their dependents, as well as overseas foreign national beneficiaries.
They noted that the distinctions are based on nationality and are
inconsistent with the stance of the E.U. Directive on Data Protection
and the Department of Commerce=s assurances to the European Commission.

*Response:* We agree with the general principle that privacy protections
should protect every person, regardless of nationality. As noted in the
discussion of the definition of Aindividual,@ the final regulation=s
definition does not exclude foreign military and diplomatic personnel,
their dependents, or overseas foreign national beneficiaries from the
definition of individual. As described in the discussion of \' 164.512
below, the final rule applies to foreign diplomatic personnel and their
dependents like all other individuals. Foreign military personnel
receive the same treatment under the final rule as U.S. military
personnel do, as discussed with regard to \' 164.512 below. Overseas
foreign national beneficiaries to the extent they receive care for the
Department of Defense or a source acting on behalf of the Department of
Defense remain generally excluded from the final rules protections. For
a more detailed explanation, see \' 164.500.

***Fair Credit Reporting Act***

*Comment:* A few commenters requested that we exclude information
maintained, used, or disclosed pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(AFCRA@) from the requirements of the privacy regulation. These
commenters noted that the protection in the privacy regulation duplicate
those in the FCRA.

*Response*: Although we realize that some overlap between FCRA and the
privacy rules may exist, we have chosen not to remove information that
may come within the purview of FCRA from the scope of our rules because
FCRA=s focus is not the same as our Congressional mandate to protect
individually identifiable health information.

To the extent a covered entity seeks to engage in collection activities
or other payment-related activities, it may do so pursuant to the
requirements of this rule related to payment. See discussion of \'\'
164.501 and 164.502 below.

We understand that some covered entities may be part of, or contain
components that are, entities which meet the definition of Aconsumer
reporting agencies.@ As such, these entities are subject to the FCRA. As
described in the preamble to \' 164.504, covered entities must designate
what parts of their organizations will be treated as covered entities
for the purpose of these privacy rules. The covered entity component
will need to comply with these rules, while the components that are
consumer reporting agencies will need to comply with FCRA.

*Comment:* One comment suggested that the privacy regulation would
conflict with the FCRA if the regulation=s requirement applied to
information disclosed to consumer reporting agencies.

*Response:* To the extent a covered entity is required to disclose
protected health information to a consumer reporting agency, it may do
so under \' 164.512(a). *See also* discussion under the definition of
Apayment@ below.

***Fair Debt Collection and Practices Act***

*Comment:* Several comments expressed concern that health plans and
health care providers be able to continue using debt collectors in
compliance with the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act and related
laws.

*Response:* In our view, health plans and health care providers will be
able to continue using debt collectors. Using the services of a debt
collector to obtain payment for the provision of health care comes
within the definition of Apayment@ and is permitted under the
regulation. Thus, so long as the use of debt collectors is consistent
with the regulatory requirements (such as, providers obtain the proper
consents, the disclosure is of the minimum amount of information
necessary to collect the debt, the provider or health plan enter into a
business associate agreement with the debt collector, etc.), relying
upon debt collectors to obtain reimbursement for the provision of health
care would not be prohibited by the regulation.

***Family Medical Leave Act***

*Comment:* One comment suggested that the proposed regulation adversely
affects the ability of an employer to determine an employee=s
entitlement to leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (AFMLA@) by
affecting the employer=s right to receive medical certification of the
need for leave, additional certifications, and fitness for duty
certification at the end of the leave. The commenter sought
clarification as to whether a provider could disclose information to an
employer without first obtaining an individual=s consent or
authorization. Another commenter suggested that the final rule
explicitly exclude from the rule disclosures authorized by the FMLA,
because, in the commenter=s view, it provides more than adequate
protection for the confidentiality of medical records in the employment
context.

*Response:* We disagree that the FMLA provides adequate privacy
protections for individually identifiable health information. As we
understand the FMLA, the need for employers to obtain protected health
information under the statute is analogous to the employer=s need for
protected health information under the ADA. In both situations,
employers may need protected health information to fulfill their
obligations under these statutes, but neither statute requires covered
entities to provide the information directly to the employer. Thus,
covered entities in these circumstances will need an individual=s
authorizations before the disclosure is made to the employer.

***Federal Common Law***

*Comment:* One commenter did not want the privacy rules to interfere
with the federal common law governing collective bargaining agreements
permitting employers to insist on the cooperation of employees with
medical fitness evaluations.

*Response:* We do not seek to interfere with legal medical fitness
evaluations. These rules require a covered entity to have an
individual=s authorization before the information resulting from such
evaluations is disclosed to the employer unless another provision of the
rule applies. We do not prohibit employers from conditioning employment,
accommodations, or other benefits, when legally permitted to do so, upon
the individual/employee providing an authorization that would permit the
disclosure of protected health information to employers by covered
entities. *See* \' 164.508(b)(4) below.

***Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act***

*Comment:* A few commenters supported the exclusion of Aeducation
records@ from the definition of Aprotected health information.@ However,
one commenter requested that Atreatment records@ of students who are 18
years or older attending post-secondary education institutions be
excluded from the definition of Aprotected health information@ as well
to avoid confusion.

*Response:* We agree with these commenters. See ARelationship to Other
Federal Laws@ for a description of our exclusion of FERPA Aeducation
records@ and records defined at 20 U.S.C. 1232g(a)(4)(B)(iv), commonly
referred to as Atreatment records,@ from the definition of Aprotected
health information.@

*Comment:* One comment suggested that the regulation should not apply to
any health information that is part of an Aeducation record@ in any
educational agency or institution, regardless of its FERPA status.

*Response:* We disagree. As noted in our discussion of ARelationship of
Other Federal Laws,@ we exclude education records from the definition of
protected health information because Congress expressly provided privacy
protections for these records and explained how these records should be
treated in FERPA.

*Comment:* One commenter suggested eliminating the preamble language
that describes school nurses and on-site clinics as acting as providers
and subject to the privacy regulation, noting that this language is
confusing and inconsistent with the statements provided in the preamble
explicitly stating that HIPAA does not preempt FERPA.

*Response:* We agree that this language may have been confusing. We have
provided a clearer expression of when schools may be required to comply
with the privacy regulation in the ARelationship to Other Federal Laws@
section of the preamble.

*Comment:* One commenter suggested adding a discussion of FERPA to the
ARelationship to Other Federal Laws@ section of the preamble.

*Response:* We agree and have added FERPA to the list of federal laws
discussed in ARelationship to Other Federal Laws@ section of the
preamble.

*Comment:* One commenter stated that school clinics should not have to
comply with the Aancillary@ administrative requirements, such as
designating a privacy official, maintaining documentation of their
policies and procedures, and providing the Secretary of HHS with access.

*Response:* We disagree. Because we have excluded education records and
records described at 20 U.S.C. 1232g(a)(4)(B)(iv) held by educational
agencies and institutions subject to FERPA from the definition of
protected health information, only non-FERPA schools would be subject to
the administrative requirements. Most of these school clinics will also
not be covered entities because they are not engaged in HIPAA
transactions and these administrative requirements will not apply to
them. However, to the extent a school clinic is within the definition of
a health care provider, as Congress defined the term, and the school
clinic is engaged in HIPAA transactions, it will be a covered entity and
must comply with the rules below.

*Comment:* Several commenters expressed concern that the privacy
regulation would eliminate the parents= ability to have access to
information in their children=s school health records. Because the
proposed regulation suggests that school-based clinics keep health
records separate from other educational files, these comments argued
that the regulation is contrary to the spirit of FERPA, which provides
parents with access rights to their children=s educational files.

*Response:* As noted in the ARelationship to Other Federal Laws@
provision of the preamble, to the extent information in school-based
clinics is not protected health information because it is an education
record, the FERPA access requirements apply and this regulation does
not. For more detail regarding the rule=s application to unemancipated
minors, see the preamble discussion about APersonal Represenatives.@

***Federal Employees Compensation Act***

*Comment:* One comment noted that the Federal Employees Compensation Act
(AFECA@) requires claimants to sign a release form when they file a
claim. This commenter suggested that the privacy regulation should not
place additional restrictions on this type of release form.

*Response:* We agree. In the final rule, we have added a new provision,
\' 164.512(l), that permits covered entities to make disclosures
authorized under workers= compensation and similar laws. This provision
would permit covered entities to make disclosures authorized under FECA
and not require a different release form.

***Federal Employees Health Benefits Program***

*Comment:* A few comments expressed concern about the preemption effect
on FEHBP and wanted clarification that the privacy regulation does not
alter the existing preemptive scope of the program.

*Response:* We do not intend to affect the preemptive scope of the
FEHBP. The Federal Employee Health Benefit Act of 1998 preempts any
state law that Arelates to@ health insurance or plans. 5 U.S.C. 8902(m).
The final rule does not attempt to alter the preemptive scope Congress
has provided to the FEHBP.

*Comment:* One comment suggested that in the context of FEHBP HHS should
place the enforcement responsibilities of the privacy regulation with
Office of Personnel Management, as the agency responsible for
administering the program.

*Response:* We disagree. Congress placed enforcement with the Secretary.
*See* section 1176 of the Act.

***Federal Rules of Civil Procedure***

*Comment:* A few comments suggested revising proposed \' 164.510(d) so
that it is consistent with the existing discovery procedure under the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or local rules.

*Response:* We disagree that the rules regarding disclosures and uses of
protected health information for judicial and administrative procedures
should provide only those protections that exist under existing
discovery rules. Although the current process may be appropriate for
other documents and information requested during the discovery process,
the current system, as exemplified by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, does not provide sufficient protection for protected health
information. Under current discovery rules, private attorneys,
government officials, and others who develop such requests make the
initial determinations as to what information or documentation should be
disclosed. Independent third-party review, such as that by a court, only
becomes necessary if a person of whom the request is made refuses to
provide the information. If this happens, the person seeking discovery
must obtain a court order or move to compel discovery. In our view this
system does not provide sufficient protections to ensure that
unnecessary and unwarranted disclosures of protected health information
does not occur. For a related discuss, see the preamble regarding
ADisclosures for Judicial and Administrative Proceedings@ under \'
164.512(e).

***Federal Rules of Evidence***

*Comment:* Many comments requested clarification that the privacy
regulation does not conflict or interfere with the federal or state
privileges. In particular, one of these comments suggested that the
final regulation provide that disclosures for a purpose recognized by
the regulation not constitute a waiver of federal or state privileges.

*Response:* We do not intend for the privacy regulation to interfere
with federal or state rules of evidence that create privileges.
Consistent with The Uniform Health-Care Information Act drafted by the
National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, we do not
view a consent or an authorization to function as a waiver of federal or
state privileges. For further discussion of the effect of consent or
authorization on federal or state privileges, see preamble discussions
in \'\' 164.506 and 164.508.

*Comment:* Other comments applauded the Secretary=s references to
*Jaffee v. Redman*, 518 U.S. 1 (1996), which recognized a
psychotherapist-patient privilege, and asked the Secretary to
incorporate expressly this privilege into the final regulation.

*Response:* We agree that the psychotherapist-patient relationship is an
important one that deserves protection. However, it is beyond the scope
our mandate to create specific evidentiary privileges. It is also
unnecessary because the United States Supreme Court has adopted this
privilege.

*Comment:* A few comments discussed whether one remedy for violating the
privacy regulation should be to exclude or suppress evidence obtained in
violation of the regulation. One comment supported using this penalty,
while another opposed it.

*Response:* We do not have the authority to mandate that courts apply or
not apply the exclusionary rule to evidence obtained in violation of the
regulation. This issue is in the purview of the courts.

***Federal Tort Claims Act***

*Comment:* One comment contended that the proposed regulation=s
requirement mandating covered entities to name the subjects of protected
health information disclosed under a business partner contract as third
party intended beneficiaries under the contract would have created an
impermissible right of action against the government under the Federal
Tort Claims Act (AFTCA@).

*Response:* Because we have deleted the third party beneficiary
provisions from the final rules, this comment is moot.

*Comment:* Another comment suggested the regulation would hamper the
ability of federal agencies to disclose protected health information to
their attorneys, the Department of Justice, during the initial stages of
the claims brought under the FTCA.

*Response:* We disagree. The regulation applies only to federal agencies
that are covered entities. To the extent an agency is not a covered
entity, it is not subject to the regulation; to the extent an agency is
a covered entity, it must comply with the regulation. A covered entity
that is a federal agency may disclose relevant information to its
attorneys, who are business associates, for purposes of health care
operations, which includes uses or disclosures for legal functions.
*See* \' 164.501 (definitions of Abusiness associate@ and Ahealth care
operations@). The final rule provides specific provisions describing how
federal agencies may provide adequate assurances for these types of
disclosures of protected health information. See \' 164.504(e)(3).

***Food and Drug Administration***

*Comment:* A few comments expressed concerns about the use of protected
health information for reporting activities to the Food and Drug
Administration (AFDA@). Their concern focused on the ability to obtain
or disclose protected health information for pre- and post-marketing
adverse event reports, device tracking, and post-marketing safety and
efficacy evaluation.

*Response:* We agree with this comment and have provided that covered
entities may disclose protected health information to persons subject to
the jurisdiction of the FDA, to comply with the requirements of, or at
the direction of, the FDA with regard to reporting adverse events (or
similar reports with respect to dietary supplements), the tracking of
medical devices, other post-marketing surveillance, or other similar
requirements described at \' 164.512(b).

***Foreign Standards***

*Comment:* One comment asked how the regulation could be enforced
against foreign countries (or presumably entities in foreign countries)
that solicit medical records from entities in the United States.

*Response:* We do not regulate solicitations of information. To the
extent a covered entity wants to comply with a request for disclosure of
protected health information to foreign countries or entities within
foreign countries, it will need to comply with the privacy rules before
making the disclosure. If the covered entity fails to comply with the
rules, it will be subject to enforcement proceedings.

***Freedom of Information Act***

*Comment:* One comment asserted that the proposed privacy regulation
conflicts with the Freedom of Information Act (AFOIA@). The comment
argued that the proposed restriction on disclosures by agencies would
not come within one of the permissible exemptions to the FOIA. In
addition, the comment noted that only in exceptional circumstances would
the protected health information of deceased individuals come within an
exemption because, for the most part, death extinguishes an individual=s
right to privacy.

*Response:* Section 164.512(a) below permits covered entities to
disclose protected health information when such disclosures are required
by other laws as long as they follow the requirements of those laws.
Therefore, the privacy regulation will not interfere with the ability of
federal agencies to comply with FOIA, when it requires the disclosure.

We disagree, however, that most protected health information will not
come within Exemption 6 of FOIA. See the discussion above under
ARelationship to Other Federal Laws@ for our review of FOIA. Moreover,
we disagree with the comment=s assertion that the protected health
information of deceased individuals does not come within Exemption 6.
Courts have recognized that a deceased individual=s surviving relatives
may have a privacy interest that federal agencies may consider when
balancing privacy interests against the public interest in disclosure of
the requested information. Federal agencies will need to consider not
only the privacy interests of the subject of the protected health
information in the record requested, but also, when appropriate, those
of a deceased individual=s family consistent with judicial rulings.

If an agency receives a FOIA request for the disclosure of protected
health information of a deceased individual, it will need to determine
whether or not the disclosure comes within Exemption 6. This evaluation
must be consistent with the court=s rulings in this area. If the
exemption applies, the federal agency will not have to release the
information. If the federal agency determines that the exemption does
not apply, may release it under \' 164.512(a) of this regulation.

*Comment:* One commenter expressed concern that our proposal to protect
the individually identifiable health information about the deceased for
two years following death would impede public interest reporting and
would be at odds with many state Freedom of Information laws that make
death records and autopsy reports public information. The commenter
suggested permitting medical information to be available upon the death
of an individual or, at the very least, that an appeals process be
permitted so that health information trustees would be allowed to
balance the interests in privacy and in public disclosure and release or
not release the information accordingly.

*Response*: These rules permit covered entities to make disclosures that
are required by state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) laws under
164.512(a). Thus, if a state FOIA law designates death records and
autopsy reports as public information that must be disclosed, a covered
entity may disclose it without an authorization under the rule. To the
extent that such information is required to be disclosed by FOIA or
other law, such disclosures are permitted under the final rule. In
addition, to the extent that death records and autopsy reports are
obtainable from non-covered entities, such as state legal authorities,
access to this information is not impeded by this rule.

If another law does not require the disclosure of death records and
autopsy reports generated and maintained by a covered entity, which are
protected health information, covered entities are not allowed to
disclose such information except as permitted or required by the final
rule, even if another entity discloses them.

*Comment:* One comment sought clarification of the relationship between
the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, and the privacy rules.

*Response:* We have provided this analysis in the ARelationship to Other
Federal Laws@ section of the preamble in our discussion of the Freedom
of Information Act.

***Gramm-Leach-Bliley***

*Comments:* One commenter noted that the Financial Services
Modernization Act, also known as Gramm-Leach-Bliley (AGLB@), requires
financial institutions to provide detailed privacy notices to
individuals. The commenter suggested that the privacy regulation should
not require financial institutions to provide additional notice.

*Response:* We disagree. To the extent a covered entity is required to
comply with the notice requirements of GLB and those of our rules, the
covered entity must comply with both. We will work with the FTC and
other agencies implementing GLB to avoid unnecessary duplication. For a
more detailed discussion of GLB and the privacy rules, see the
ARelationship to Other Federal Laws@ section of the preamble.

*Comment:* A few commenters asked that the Department clarify that
financial institutions, such as banks, that serve as payors are covered
entities. The comments explained that with the enactment of the
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, banks are able to form holding companies that
will include insurance companies (that may be covered entities). They
recommended that banks be held to the rule=s requirements and be
required to obtain authorization to conduct non-payment activities, such
as for the marketing of health and non-health items and services or the
use and disclosure to non-health related divisions of the covered
entity.

*Response:* These comments did not provide specific facts that would
permit us to provide a substantive response. An organization will need
to determine whether it comes within the definition of Acovered entity.@
An organization may also need to consider whether or not it contains a
health care component. Organizations that are uncertain about the
application of the regulation to them will need to evaluate their
specific facts in light of this rule.

***Inspector General Act***

*Comment:* One comment requested the Secretary to clarify in the
preamble that the privacy regulation does not preempt the Inspector
General Act.

*Response:* We agree that to the extent the Inspector General Act
requires uses or disclosures of protected health information, the
privacy regulation does not preempt it. The final rule provides that to
the extent required under section 201(a)(5) of the Act, nothing in this
subchapter should be construed to diminish the authority of any
Inspector General, including the authority provided in the Inspector
General Act of 1978. See discussion of \' 160.102 above.

***Medicare and Medicaid***

*Comment:* One comment suggested possible inconsistencies between the
regulation and Medicare/Medicaid requirements, such as those under the
Quality Improvement System for Managed Care. This commenter asked that
HHS expand the definition of health care operations to include health
promotion activities and avoid potential conflicts.

*Response:* We disagree that the privacy regulation would prohibit
managed care plans operating in the Medicare or Medicaid programs from
fulfilling their statutory obligations. To the extent a covered entity
is required by law to use or disclose protected health information in a
particular manner, the covered entity may make such a use or disclosure
under \' 164.512(a). Additionally, quality assessment and improvement
activities come within the definition of Ahealth care operations.@
Therefore, the specific example provided by the commenter would seem to
be a permissible use or disclosure under \' 164.502, even if it were not
a use or disclosure Arequired by law.@

*Comment:* One commenter stated that Medicare should not be able to
require the disclosure of psychotherapy notes because it would destroy a
practitioner=s ability to treat patients effectively.

*Response:* If the Title XVIII of the Social Security Act requires the
disclosure of psychotherapy notes, the final rule permits, but does not
require, a covered entity to make such a disclosure under \' 164.512(a).
If, however, the Social Security Act does not require such disclosures,
Medicare does not have the discretion to require the disclosure of
psychotherapy notes as a public policy matter because the final rule
provides that covered entities, with limited exceptions, must obtain an
individual=s authorization before disclosing psychotherapy notes. *See*
\' 164.508(a)(2).

***National Labor Relations Act***

*Comment:* A few comments expressed concern that the regulation did not
address the obligation of covered entities to disclose protected health
information to collective bargaining representatives under the National
Labor Relations Act.

*Response:* The final rule does not prohibit disclosures that covered
entities must make pursuant to other laws. To the extent a covered
entity is required by law to disclose protected health information to
collective bargaining representatives under the NLRA, it may to so
without an authorization. Also, the definition of Ahealth care
operations@ at \' 164.501 permits disclosures to employee
representatives for purposes of grievance resolution.

***Organ Donation***

*Comment:* One commenter expressed concern about the potential impact of
the regulation on the organ donation program under 42 CFR Part 482.

*Response:* In the final rule, we add provisions allowing the use or
disclosure of protected health information to organ procurement
organizations or other entities engaged in the procurement, banking, or
transplantation of cadaveric organs, eyes, or tissue for the purpose of
facilitating donation and transplantation. See \' 164.512(h).

***Privacy Act Comments***

*Comment:* One comment suggested that the final rule unambiguously
permit the continued operation of the statutorily established or
authorized discretionary routine uses permitted under the Privacy Act
for both law enforcement and health oversight.

*Response:* We disagree. See the discussion of the Privacy Act in
ARelationship to Other Federal Laws@ above.

***Public Health Services Act***

*Comment:* One comment suggested that the Public Health Service Act
places more stringent rules regarding the disclosure of information on
Federally Qualified Health Centers than the proposed privacy regulation
suggested. Therefore, the commenter suggested that the final rule exempt
Federally Qualified Health Centers from the rules requirements

*Response:* We disagree. Congress expressly included Federally Qualified
Health Centers, a provider of medical or other health services under the
Social Security Act section 1861(s), within of its definition health
care provider in section 1171 of the Act; therefore, we cannot exclude
them from the regulation.

*Comment:* One commenter noted that no conflicts existed between the
proposed rule and the Public Health Services Act.

*Response:* As we discuss in the ARelationship to Other Federal Laws@
section of the preamble, the Public Health Service Act contains explicit
confidentiality requirements that are so general as not to create
problems of inconsistency. We recognized, however, that in some cases,
that law or its accompanying regulations may contain greater
restrictions. In those situations, a covered entity=s ability to make
what are permissive disclosures under this privacy regulation would be
limited by those laws.

***Reporting Requirement***

*Comment:* One comment noted that federal agencies must provide
information to certain entities pursuant to various federal statutes.
For example, federal agencies must not withhold information from a
Congressional oversight committee or the General Accounting Office.
Similarly, some federal agencies must provide the Bureau of the Census
and the National Archives and Records Administration with certain
information. This comment expressed concern that the privacy regulation
would conflict with these requirements. Additionally, the commenter
asked whether the privacy notice would need to contain these uses and
disclosures and recommended that a general statement that these federal
agencies would disclose protected health information when required by
law be considered sufficient to meet the privacy notice requirements.

*Response:* To the extent a federal agency acting as a covered entity is
required by federal statute to disclose protected health information,
the regulation permits the disclosure as required by law under \'
164.512(a). The notice provisions at \' 164.520(b)(1)(ii)(B) require
covered entities to provide a brief description of the purposes for
which the covered entity is permitted or required by the rules to use or
disclose protected health information without an individual=s written
authorization. If these statutes require the disclosures, covered
entities subject to the requirement may make the disclosure pursuant to
\' 164.512(a). Thus, their notice must include a description of the
category of these disclosures. For example, a general statement such as
the covered entity Awill disclose your protected health information to
comply with legal requirements@ should suffice.

*Comment:* One comment stressed that the final rule should not
inadvertently preempt mandatory reporting laws duly enacted by federal,
state, or local legislative bodies. This commenter also suggested that
the final rule not prevent the reporting of violations to law
enforcement agencies.

*Response:* We agree. Like the proposed rule, the final rule permits
covered entities to disclose protected health information when required
by law under \' 164.512(a). To the extent a covered entity is required
by law to make a report to law enforcement agencies or is otherwise
permitted to make a disclosure to a law enforcement agency as described
in \' 164.512(f), it may do so without an authorization. Alternatively,
a covered entity may always request that individuals authorize these
disclosures.

***Security Standards***

*Comment:* One comment called for HHS to consider the privacy regulation
in conjunction with the other HIPAA standards. In particular, this
comment focused on the belief that the security standards should be
compatible with the existing and emerging health care and information
technology industry standards.

*Response:* We agree that the security standards and the privacy rules
should be compatible with one another and are working to ensure that the
final rules in both areas function together. Because we are addressing
comments regarding the privacy rules in this preamble, we will consider
the comment about the security standard as we finalize that set of
rules.

***Substance Abuse Confidentiality Statute and Regulations***

*Comment:* Several commenters noted that many health care providers are
bound by the federal restrictions governing alcohol and drug abuse
records. One commenter noted that the NPRM differed substantially from
the substance abuse regulations and would have caused a host of
practical problems for covered entities. Another commenter, however,
supported the NPRM=s analysis that stated that more stringent provisions
of the substance abuse provisions would apply. This commenter suggested
an even stronger approach of including in the text a provision that
would preserve existing federal law. Yet, one comment suggested that the
regulation as proposed would confuse providers by making it difficult to
determine when they may disclose information to law enforcement because
the privacy regulation would permit disclosures that the substance abuse
regulations would not.

*Response:* We appreciate the need of some covered entities to evaluate
the privacy rules in light of federal requirements regarding alcohol and
drug abuse records. Therefore, we provide a more detailed analysis in
the ARelationship to Other Federal Laws@ section of the preamble.

*Comment:* Some of these commenters also noted that state laws contain
strict confidentiality requirements. A few commenters suggested that HHS
reassess the regulations to avoid inconsistencies with state privacy
requirements, implying that problems exist because of conflicts between
the federal and state laws regarding the confidentiality of substance
abuse information.

*Response:* As noted in the preamble section discussing preemption, the
final rules do not preempt state laws that provide more privacy
protections. For a more detailed analysis of the relationship between
state law and the privacy rules, see the APreemption@ provisions of the
preamble.

***Tribal Law***

*Comments*: One commenter suggested that the consultation process with
tribal governments described in the NPRM was inadequate under Executive
Order No. 13084. In addition, the commenter expressed concern that the
disclosures for research purposes as permitted by the NPRM would
conflict with a number of tribal laws that offer individuals greater
privacy rights with respect to research and reflects cultural
appropriateness. In particular, the commenter referenced the Health
Research Code for the Navajo Nation which creates a entity with broader
authority over research conducted on the Navajo Nation than the local
IRB and requires informed consent by study participants. Other laws
mentioned by the commenter included the Navajo Nation Privacy and Access
to Information Act and a similar policy applicable to all health care
providers within the Navajo Nation. The commenter expressed concern that
the proposed regulation research provisions would override these tribal
laws.

*Response*: We disagree with the comment that the consultation with
tribal governments undertaken prior to the proposed regulation is
inadequate under Executive Order No. 13084. As stated in the proposed
regulation, the Department consulted with representatives of the
National Congress of American Indians and the National Indian Health
Board, as well as others, about the proposals and the application of
HIPAA to the Tribes, and the potential variations based on the
relationship of each Tribe with the IHS for the purpose of providing
health services. In addition, Indian and tribal governments had the
opportunity to, and did, submit substantive comments on the proposed
rules.

Additionally, disclosures permitted by this regulation do not conflict
with the policies as described by this commenter. Disclosures for
research purposes under the final rule, as in the proposed regulation,
are permissive disclosures only. The rule describes the outer boundaries
of permissible disclosures. A covered health care provider that is
subject to the tribal laws of the Navajo Nation must continue to comply
with those tribal laws. If the tribal laws impose more stringent privacy
standards on disclosures for research, such as requiring informed
consent in all cases, nothing in the final rule would preclude
compliance with those more stringent privacy standards. The final rule
does not interfere with the internal governance of the Navajo Nation or
otherwise adversely affect the policy choices of the tribal government
with respect to the cultural appropriateness of research conducted in
the Navajo Nation.

***TRICARE***

*Comment:* One comment expressed concern regarding the application of
the Aminimum necessary@ standard to investigations of health care
providers under the TRICARE (formerly the CHAMPUS) program. The comment
also expressed concern that health care providers would be able to avoid
providing their records to such investigators because the proposed \'
164.510 exceptions were not mandatory disclosures.

*Response:* In our view, neither the minimum necessary standard nor the
final \'\' 164.510 and 164.512 permissive disclosures will impede such
investigations. The regulation requires covered entities to make all
reasonable efforts not to disclose more than the minimum amount of
protected health information necessary to accomplish the intended
purpose of the use or disclosure. This requirement, however, does not
apply to uses or disclosures that are required by law. *See* \'
164.502(b)(2)(iv). Thus, if the disclosure to the investigators is
required by law, the minimum necessary standard will not apply.
Additionally, the final rule provides that covered entities rely, if
such reliance is reasonable, on assertions from public officials about
what information is reasonably necessary for the purpose for which it is
being sought. See \' 164.514(d)(3)(iii).

We disagree with the assertion that providers will be able to avoid
providing their records to investigators. Nothing in this rule permits
covered entities to avoid disclosures required by other laws.

***Veterans Affairs***

*Comment:* One comment sought clarification about how disclosures of
protected health information would occur within the Veterans Affairs
programs for veterans and their dependents. *Response:* We appreciate
the commenter=s request for clarification as to how the rules will
affect disclosures of protected health information in the specific
context of Veteran=s Affairs programs. Veterans health care programs
under 38 U.S.C. chapter 17 are defined as Ahealth plans.@ Without
sufficient details as to the particular aspects of the Veterans Affairs
programs that this comment views as problematic, we cannot comment
substantively on this concern.

*Comment:* One comment suggested that the final regulation clarify that
the analysis applied to the substance abuse regulations apply to laws
governing Veteran=s Affairs health records.

*Response:* Although we realize some difference may exist between the
laws, we believe the discussion of federal substance abuse
confidentiality regulations in the ARelationship to Other Federal Laws@
preamble provides guidance that may be applied to the laws governing
Veteran=s Affairs (AVA@) health records. In most cases, a conflict will
not exist between these privacy rules and the VA programs. For example,
some disclosures allowed without patient consent or authorization under
the privacy regulation may not be within the VA statutory list of
permissible disclosures without a written consent. In such
circumstances, the covered entity would have to abide by the VA statute,
and no conflict exists. If the disclosures permitted by the VA statute
come within the permissible disclosures of our rules, no conflict
exists. In some cases, our rules may demand additional requirements,
such as obtaining the approval of a privacy board or Institutional
Review Board if a covered entity seeks to disclose protected health
information for research purposes without the individual=s
authorization. A covered entity subject to the VA statute will need to
ensure that it meets the requirements of both that statute and the
regulation below. If a conflict arises, the covered entity should
evaluate the specific potential conflicting provisions under the implied
repeal analysis set forth in the ARelationship to Other Federal Laws@
discussion in the preamble.

***WIC***

*Comment:* One comment called on other federal agencies to examine their
regulations and policies regarding the use and disclosure of protected
health information. The comment suggested that other agencies revise
their regulations and policies to avoid duplicative, contradictory, or
more stringent requirements. The comment noted that the U.S. Department
of Agriculture=s Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants, and Children (AWIC@) does not release WIC data. Because the
commenter believed the regulation would not prohibit the disclosure of
WIC data, the comment stated that the Department of Agriculture should
now release such information.

*Response:* We support other federal agencies to whom the rules apply in
their efforts to review existing regulations and policies regarding
protected health information. However, we do not agree with the
suggestion that other federal agencies that are not covered entities
must reduce the protections or access-related rights they provide for
individually identifiable health information they hold.

**PART 160, SUBPART C - COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT**

**Section 160.306(a) B Who Can File Complaints with the Secretary**

*Comment:* The proposed rule limited those who could file a complaint
with the Secretary to individuals. A number of commenters suggested that
other persons with knowledge of a possible violation should also be able
to file complaints. Examples that were provided included a mental health
care provider with first hand knowledge of a health plan improperly
requiring disclosure of psychotherapy notes and an occupational health
nurse with knowledge that her human resources manager is improperly
reviewing medical records. A few comments raised the concern that
permitting any person to file a complaint lends itself to abuse and is
not necessary to ensure privacy rights and that the complainant should
be a person for whom there is a duty to protect health information.

*Response:* As discussed below, the rule defines Aindividual@ as the
person who is the subject of the individually identifiable health
information. However, the covered entity may allow other persons, such
as personal representatives, to exercise the rights of the individual
under certain circumstances, e.g., for a deceased individual. We agree
with the commenters that any person may become aware of conduct by a
covered entity that is in violation of the rule. Such persons could
include the covered entity=s employees, business associates, patients,
or accrediting, health oversight, or advocacy agencies or organizations.
Many persons, such as the covered entity=s employees, may, in fact, be
in a better position than the Aindividual@ to know that a violation has
occurred. Another example is a state Protection and Advocacy group that
may represent persons with developmental disabilities. We have decided
to allow complaints from any person. The term Aperson@ is not restricted
here to human beings or natural persons, but also includes any type of
association, group, or organization.

Allowing such persons to file complaints may be the only way the
Secretary may learn of certain possible violations. Moreover,
individuals who are the subject of the information may not be willing to
file a complaint because of fear of embarrassment or retaliation. Based
on our experience with various civil rights laws, such as Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, that allow any person to file a complaint with the
Secretary, we do not believe that this practice will result in abuse.
Finally, upholding privacy protections benefits all persons who have or
may be served by the covered entity as well as the general public, and
not only the subject of the information.

If a complaint is received from someone who is not the subject of
protected health information, the person who is the subject of this
information may be concerned with the Secretary=s investigation of this
complaint. While we did not receive comments on this issue, we want to
protect the privacy rights of this individual. This might involve the
Secretary seeking to contact the individual to provide information as to
how the Secretary will address individual=s privacy concerns while
resolving the complaint. Contacting all individuals may not be
practicable in the case of allegations of systemic violations (e.g.,
where the allegation is that hundreds of medical records were wrongfully
disclosed).

***Requiring That a Complainant Exhaust the Covered Entity=s Internal
Complaint Process Prior to Filing a Complaint with the Secretary***

*Comment:* A number of commenters, primarily health plans, suggested
that individuals should not be permitted to file a complaint with the
Secretary until they exhaust the covered entity=s own complaint process.
Commenters stated that covered entities should have a certain period of
time, such as ninety days, to correct the violation. Some commenters
asserted that providing for filing a complaint with the Secretary will
be very expensive for both the public and private sectors of the health
care industry to implement. Other commenters suggested requiring the
Secretary to inform the covered entity of any complaint it has received
and not initiate an investigation or Atake enforcement action@ before
the covered entity has time to address the complaint.

*Response:* We have decided, for a number of reasons, to retain the
approach as presented in the proposed rule. First, we are concerned that
requiring that complainants first notify the covered entity would have a
chilling effect on complaints. In the course of investigating individual
complaints, the Secretary will often need to reveal the identity of the
complainant to the covered entity. However, in the investigation of
cases of systemic violations and some individual violations, individual
names may not need to be identified. Under the approach suggested by
these commenters, the covered entity would learn the names of all
persons who file complaints with the Secretary. Some individuals might
feel uncomfortable or fear embarrassment or retaliation revealing their
identity to the covered entity they believe has violated the regulation.
Individuals may also feel they are being forced to enter into
negotiations with this entity before they can file a complaint with the
Secretary.

Second, because some potential complainants would not bring complaints
to the covered entity, possible violations might not become known to the
Secretary and might continue. Third, the delay in the complaint coming
to the attention of the Secretary because of the time allowed for the
covered entity to resolve the complaint may mean that significant
violations are not addressed expeditiously. Finally, the process
proposed by these commenters is arguably unnecessary because an
individual who believes that an agreement can be reached with the
covered entity, can, through the entity=s internal complaint process or
other means, seek resolution before filing a complaint with the
Secretary.

Our approach is consistent with other laws and regulations protecting
individual rights. None of the civil rights laws enforced by the
Secretary require a complainant to provide any notification to the
entity that is alleged to have engaged in discrimination (e.g.,
Americans with Disabilities Act, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and the Age Discrimination Act). The
concept of Aexhaustion@ is used in laws that require individuals to
pursue administrative remedies, such as that provided by a governmental
agency, before bringing a court action. Under HIPAA, individuals do not
have a right to court action.

Some commenters seemed to believe that the Secretary would pursue
enforcement action without notifying the covered entity. It has been the
Secretary=s practice in investigating cases under other laws, such as
various civil rights laws, to inform entities that we have received a
complaint against them and to seek early resolution if possible. In
enforcing the privacy rule, the Secretary will generally inform the
covered entity of the nature of any complaints it has received against
the entity. (There may be situations where information is withheld to
protect the privacy interests of the complainant or others or where
revealing information would impede the investigation of the covered
entity.) The Secretary will also generally afford the entity an
opportunity to share information with the Secretary that may result in
an early resolution. Our approach will be to seek informal resolution of
complaints whenever possible, which includes allowing covered entities a
reasonable amount of time to work with the Secretary to come into
compliance before initiating action to seek civil monetary penalties.

**Section 160.306(b)(3) - Requiring that Complaints be Filed with the
Secretary Within a Certain Period of Time**

*Comment:* A number of commenters, primarily privacy and disability
advocacy organizations, suggested that the regulation require that
complaints be filed with the Secretary by a certain time. These
commenters generally recommended that the time period for filing a
complaint should commence to run from the time when the individual knew
or had reason to know of the violation or omission. Another comment
suggested that a requirement to file a complaint with the Secretary
within 180 days of the alleged noncompliance is a problem because a
patient may, because of his or her medical condition, be unable to
access his or her records within that time frame.

*Response:* We agree with the commenters that complainants should
generally be required to submit complaints in a timely fashion. Federal
regulations implementing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
provide that A\[a\] complaint must be filed not later than \>180 days
from the date of the alleged discrimination= unless the time for filing
is extended by the responsible Department official or his designee.@ 45
CFR 80.7(b). Other civil rights laws, such as the Age Discrimination
Act, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (state and local government
services), also use this approach. Under civil rights laws administered
by the EEOC, individuals have 180 days of the alleged discriminatory act
to file a charge with EEOC (or 300 days if there is a state or local
fair employment practices agency involved).

Therefore, in the final rule we require that complaints be filed within
180 days of when the complainant knew or should have known that the act
or omission complained of occurred unless this time limit is waived by
the Secretary for good cause shown. We believe that an investigation of
a complaint is likely to be most effective if persons can be interviewed
and documents reviewed as close to the time of the alleged violation as
possible. Requiring that complaints generally be filed within a certain
period of time increases the likelihood that the Secretary will have
necessary and reliable information. Moreover, we are taking this
approach in order to encourage complainants to file complaints as soon
as possible. By receiving complaints in a timely fashion, we can, if
such complaints prove valid, reduce the harm caused by the violation.

**Section 160.308 B Basis for Conducting Compliance Reviews**

*Comment:* A number of comments expressed concern that the Secretary
would conduct compliance reviews without having received a complaint or
having reason to believe there is noncompliance. A number of these
commenters appeared to believe that the Secretary would engage in
Aroutine visits.@ Some commenters suggested that the Secretary should
only be able to conduct compliance reviews if the Secretary has
initiated an investigation of a complaint regarding the covered entity
in the preceding twelve months. Some commenters suggested that there
should only be compliance reviews based on established criteria for
reviews (e.g., finding of Areckless disregard@). Many of these
commenters stated that cooperating with compliance reviews is
potentially burdensome and expensive.

One commenter asked whether the Secretary will have a process for
reviewing all covered entities to determine how they are complying with
requirements. This commenter questioned whether covered entities will be
required to submit plans and wait for Departmental approval.

Another commenter suggested that the Secretary specify a time limit for
the completion of a compliance review.

*Response:* We disagree with the commenters that the final rule should
restrict the Secretary=s ability to conduct compliance reviews. The
Secretary needs to maintain the flexibility to conduct whatever reviews
are necessary to ensure compliance with the rule.

**Section 160.310(a) and (c) - The Secretary=s Access to Information in
Determining Compliance**

*Comment:* Some commenters raised objections to provisions in the
proposed rule which required that covered entities maintain records and
submit compliance reports as the Secretary determines is necessary to
determine compliance and required that covered entities permit access by
the Secretary during normal business hours to its books, records,
accounts, and other sources of information, including protected health
information, and its facilities, that are pertinent to ascertaining
compliance with this subpart. One commenter stated that the Secretary=s
access to private health information without appropriate patient consent
is contrary to the intent of HIPAA. Another commenter expressed the view
that, because covered entities face criminal penalties for violations,
these provisions violate the Fifth Amendment protections against forced
self incrimination. Other commenters stated that covered entities should
be given the reason the Secretary needs to have access to its books and
records. Another commenter stated that there should be a limit to the
frequency or extent of intrusion by the federal government into the
business practices of a covered entity and that these provisions violate
the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.

Finally, a coalition of church plans suggested that the Secretary
provide church plans with additional procedural safeguards to reduce
unnecessary intrusion into internal church operations. These suggested
safeguards included permitting HHS to obtain records and other documents
only if they are relevant and necessary to compliance and enforcement
activities related to church plans, requiring a senior official to
determine the appropriateness of compliance-related activities for
church plans, and providing church plans with a self-correcting period
similar to that Congress expressly provided in Title I of HIPAA under
the tax code.

*Response:* The final rule retains the proposed language in these two
provisions with one change. The rule adds a provision indicating that
the Secretary=s access to information held by the covered entity may be
at any time and without notice where exigent circumstances exist, such
as where time is of the essence because documents might be hidden or
destroyed. Thus, covered entities will generally receive notice before
the Secretary seeks to access the entity=s books or records.

Other than the exigent circumstances language, the language in these two
provisions is virtually the same as the language in this Department=s
regulation implementing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 45 CFR
80.6(b) and (c). The Title VI regulation is incorporated by reference in
other Department regulations prohibiting discrimination of the basis of
disability. 45 CFR 84.61. Similar provisions allowing this Department
access to recipient information is found in the Secretary=s regulation
implementing the Age Discrimination Act. 45 CFR 91.34. These provisions
have not proved to be burdensome to entities that are subject to these
civil rights regulations (i.e., all recipients of Department funds).

We do not interpret Constitutional case law as supporting the view that
a federal agency=s review of information pursuant to statutory mandate
violates the Fifth Amendment protections against forced self
incrimination. Nor would such a review of this information raise Fourth
Amendment problems. See discussion above regarding Constitutional
comments and responses.

We appreciate the concern that the Secretary not involve herself
unnecessarily into the internal operations of church plans. However, by
providing health insurance or care to their employees, church plans are
engaging in a secular activity. Under the regulation, church plans are
subject to the same compliance and enforcement requirements with which
other covered entities must comply. Because Congress did not carve out
specific exceptions or require stricter standards for investigations
related to church plans, incorporating such measures into the regulation
would be inappropriate.

Additionally, there is no indication that the regulation will directly
interfere with the religious practices of church plans. Also, the
regulation as written appropriately limits the ability of investigators
to obtain information from covered entities. The regulation provides
that the Secretary may obtain access only to information that is
pertinent to ascertain compliance with the regulation. We do not
anticipate asking for information that is not necessary to assess
compliance with the regulation. The purpose of obtaining records and
similar materials is to determine compliance, not to engage in any sort
of review or evaluation of religious activities or beliefs. Therefore,
we believe the regulation appropriately balances the need to access
information to determine compliance with the desire of covered entities
to avoid opening every record in their possession to the government.

***Provision of Technical Assistance***

*Comment:* A number of commenters inquired as to how a covered entity
can request technical assistance from the Secretary to come into
compliance. A number of commenters suggested that the Secretary provide
interpretive guidance to assist with compliance. Others recommended that
the Secretary have a contact person or privacy official, available by
telephone or email, to provide guidance on the appropriateness of a
disclosure or a denial of access. One commenter suggested that there be
a formal process for a covered entity to submit compliance activities to
the Secretary for prior approval and clarification. This commenter
suggested that clarifications be published on a contemporaneous basis in
the Federal Register to help correct any ambiguities and confusion in
implementation. It was also suggested that the Secretary undertake an
assessment of Abest practices@ of covered entities and document and
promote the findings to serve as a convenient Aroad map@ for other
covered entities. Another commenter suggested that we work with
providers to create implementation guidelines modeled after the
interpretative guidelines that HCFA creates for surveyors on the
conditions of participation for Medicare and Medicaid contractors.

*Response:* While we have not in the final rule committed the Secretary
to any specific model of providing guidance or assistance, we do state
our intent, subject to budget and staffing constraints, to develop a
technical assistance program that will include the provision of written
material when appropriate to assist covered entities in achieving
compliance. We will consider other models including HCFA=s Medicare and
Medicaid interpretative guidelines. Further information regarding the
Secretary=s technical assistance program may be provided in the Federal
Register and on the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) Web Site. While
OCR plans to have fully trained staff available to respond to questions,
its ability to provide individualized advice in regard to such matters
as the appropriateness of a particular disclosure or the sufficiency of
compliance activities will be based on staff resources and demands. The
idea of looking at Abest practices@ and sharing information with all
covered entities is a good one and we will explore how best to do this.
We note that a covered entity is not excused from compliance with the
regulation because of any failure to receive technical assistance or
guidance.

***Basis for Violation Findings and Enforcement***

*Comment:* A number of commenters asked that covered entities not be
liable for violations of the rule if they have acted in good faith. One
commenter indicated that enforcement actions should not be pursued
against covered entities that make legitimate business decisions about
how to comply with the privacy standards.

*Response:* The commenters seemed to argue that even if a covered entity
does not comply with a requirement of the rule, the covered entity
should not be liable if there was an honest and sincere intention or
attempt to fulfill its obligations. The final rule, however, does not
take this approach but instead draws careful distinctions between what a
covered entity must do unconditionally, and what a covered entity must
make certain reasonable efforts to do. In addition, the final rule is
clear as to the specific provisions where Agood faith@ is a
consideration. For example, a covered entity is permitted to use and
disclose protected health information without authorization based on
criteria that includes a good faith belief that such use or disclosure
is necessary to avert an imminent threat to health or safety (\'
164.512(j)(1)(i)). Therefore, covered entities need to pay careful
attention to the specific language in each requirement. However, we note
that many of these provisions can be implemented in a variety of ways;
e.g, covered entities can exercise business judgement regarding how to
conduct staff training.

As to enforcement, a covered entity will not necessarily suffer a
penalty solely because an act or omission violates the rule. As we
discuss elsewhere, the Department will exercise discretion to consider
not only the harm done, but the willingness of the covered entity to
achieve voluntary compliance. Further, the Administrative Simplification
provisions of HIPAA provide that whether a violation was known or not is
relevant in determining whether civil or criminal penalties apply. In
addition, if a civil penalty applies, HIPAA allows the Secretary, where
the failure to comply was due to reasonable cause and not to willful
neglect, to delay the imposition of the penalty to allow the covered
entity to comply. The Department will develop and release for public
comment an enforcement regulation applicable to all the administrative
simplification regulations that will address these issues.

*Comment:* One commenter asked whether hospitals will be vicariously
liable for the violations of their employees and expressed concern that
hospitals and other providers will be the ones paying large fines.

*Response:* The enforcement regulation will address this issue. However,
we note that section 1128A(1) of the Social Security Act, which applies
to the imposition of civil monetary penalties under HIPAA, provides that
a principal is liable for penalties for the actions of its agent acting
within the scope of the agency. Therefore, a covered entity will
generally be responsible for the actions of its employees such as where
the employee discloses protected health information in violation of the
regulation.

*Comment:* A commenter expressed the concern that if a covered entity
acquires a non-compliant health plan, it would be liable for financial
penalties. This commenter suggested that, at a minimum, the covered
entity be given a grace period of at least a year, but not less than six
months to bring any acquisition up to standard. The commenter stated
that the Secretary should encourage, not discourage, compliant companies
to acquire non-compliant ones. Another commenter expressed a general
concern about resolution of enforcement if an entity faced with a HIPAA
complaint acquires or merges with an entity not covered by HIPAA.

*Response:* As discussed above, the Secretary will encourage voluntary
efforts to cure violations of the rule, and will consider that fact in
determining whether to bring a compliance action. We do not agree,
however, that we should limit our authority to pursue violations of the
rule if the situation warrants it.

*Comment:* One commenter was concerned about the Aundue risk@ of
liability on originators of information, stemming from the fact that
Athe number of covered entities is limited and they are unable to
restrict how a recipient of information may use or re-disclose
information\...@

*Response:* Under this rule, we do not hold covered entities responsible
for the actions of recipients of protected health information, unless
the recipient is a business associate of the covered entity. We agree
that it is not fair to hold covered entities responsible for the actions
of persons with whom they have no on-going relationship, but believe it
is fair to expect covered entities to hold their business associates to
appropriate standards of behavior with respect to health information.

***Other Compliance and Enforcement Comments***

*Comment:* A number of comments raised questions regarding the
Secretary=s priorities for enforcement. A few commenters stated that
they supported deferring enforcement until there is experience using the
proposed standards. One organization asked that we clarify that the
regulation does not replace or otherwise modify the
self-regulatory/consumer empowerment approach to consumer privacy in the
online environment.

*Response:* We have not made any decisions regarding enforcement
priorities. It appears that some commenters believe that no enforcement
action will be taken against a given covered entity until that entity
has had some time to comply. Covered entities have two years to come
into compliance with the regulation (three years in the case of small
health plans). Some covered entities will have had experience using the
standards prior to the compliance date. We do not agree that we should
defer enforcement where violations of the rule occur. It would be wrong
for covered entities to believe that enforcement action is based on
their not having much experience in using a particular standard or
meeting another requirement.

We support a self-regulation approach in that we recognize that most
compliance will be achieved by the voluntary activities of covered
entities rather than by our enforcement activities. Our emphasis will be
on education, technical assistance, and voluntary compliance and not on
finding violations and imposing penalties. We also support a consumer
empowerment approach. A knowledgeable consumer is key to the
effectiveness of this rule. A consumer familiar with the requirements of
this rule will be equipped to make choices regarding which covered
entity will best serve their privacy interests and will know their
rights under the rule and how they can seek redress for violations of
this rule. Privacy-minded consumers will seek to protect the privacy
rights of others by bringing concerns to the attention of covered
entities, the public, and the Secretary. However, we do not agree that
we should defer enforcement where violations of the rule occur.

*Comment:* One commenter expressed concern that by filing a complaint an
individual would be required to reveal sensitive information to the
public. Another commenter suggested that complaints regarding
noncompliance in regard to psychotherapy notes should be made to a panel
of mental health professionals designated by the Secretary. This
commenter also proposed that all patient information be maintained as
privileged, not be revealed to the public, and be kept under seal after
the case is reviewed and closed.

*Response:* We appreciate this concern and will seek to ensure that
individually identifiable health information and other personal
information contained in complaints will not be available to the public.
The privacy regulation provides, at \' 160.310(c)(3), that protected
health information obtained by the Secretary in connection with an
investigation or compliance review will not be disclosed except if
necessary for ascertaining or enforcing compliance with the regulation
or if required by law. In addition, this Department generally seeks to
protect the privacy of individuals to the fullest extent possible, while
permitting the exchange of records required to fulfill its
administrative and program responsibilities. The Freedom of Information
Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, and the HHS implementing regulation, 45 CFR Part 5,
provide substantial protection for records about individuals where
disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of their personal
privacy. In implementing the privacy regulation, OCR plans to continue
its current practice of protecting its complaint files from disclosure.
OCR treats these files as investigatory records compiled for law
enforcement purposes. Moreover, OCR maintains that disclosing protected
health information in these files generally constitutes an unwarranted
invasion of personal privacy.

It is not clear in regarding the use of mental health professionals,
whether the commenter believes that such professionals should be
involved because they would be best able to keep psychotherapy notes
confidential or because such professionals can best understand the
meaning or relevance of such notes. OCR anticipates that it will not
have to obtain a copy or review psychotherapy notes in investigating
most complaints regarding noncompliance in regard to such notes. There
may be some cases where a review of the notes may be needed such as
where we need to identify that the information a covered entity
disclosed was in fact psychotherapy notes. If we need to obtain a copy
of psychotherapy notes, we will keep these notes confidential and
secure. OCR investigative staff will be trained to ensure that they
fully respect the confidentiality of personal information. In addition,
while the specific contents of these notes is generally not relevant to
violations under this rule, if such notes are relevant, we will secure
the expertise of mental health professionals if needed in reviewing
psychotherapy notes.

*Comment:* A member of Congress and a number of privacy and consumer
groups expressed concern with whether OCR has adequate funding to carry
out the major responsibility of enforcing the complaint process
established by this rule. The Senator stated that \"\[d\]ue to the
limited enforcement ability allowed for in this rule by HIPAA, it is
essential that OCR have the capacity to enforce the regulations. Now is
the time for OCR to begin building the necessary infrastructure to
enforce the regulation effectively.\"

*Response*: We agree and are committed to an effective enforcement
program. We are working with Congress to ensure that the Secretary has
the necessary funds to secure voluntary compliance through education and
technical assistance, to investigate complaints and conduct compliance
reviews, to provide states with exception determinations, and to use
civil and criminal penalties when necessary. We will continue to work
with Congress and within the new Administration in this regard.

***Coordination with Reviewing Authorities***

*Comment:* A number of commenters referenced other entities that already
consider the privacy of health information. One commenter indicated
opposition to the delegation of inspections to third party
organizations, such as the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of
Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO). A few commenters indicated that state
agencies are already authorized to investigate violations of state
privacy standards and that we should rely on those agencies to
investigate alleged violations of the privacy rules or delegate its
complaint process to states that wish to carry out this responsibility
or to those states that have a complaint process in place. Another
commenter argued that individuals should be required to exhaust any
state processes before filing a complaint with the Secretary. Others
referenced the fact that state medical licensing boards investigate
complaints against physicians for violating patient confidentiality. One
group asked that the federal government streamline all of these
activities so physicians can have a single entity to whom they must be
responsive. Another group suggested that OMB should be given
responsibility for ensuring that FEHB Plans operate in compliance with
the privacy standards and for enforcement.

A few commenters stated that the regulation might be used as a basis for
violation findings and subsequent penalties under other Department
authorities, such as under Medicare=s Conditions of Participation
related to patient privacy and right to confidentiality of medical
records. One commenter wanted some assurance that this regulation will
not be used as grounds for sanctions under Medicare. Another commenter
indicated support for making compliance with the privacy regulation a
Condition of Participation under Medicare.

*Response:* HIPAA does not give the Secretary the authority to delegate
her responsibilities to other private or public agencies such as JCAHO
or state agencies. However, we plan to explore ways that we may benefit
from current activities that also serve to protect the privacy of
individually identifiable health information. For example, if we conduct
an investigation or review of a covered entity, that entity may want to
share information regarding findings of other bodies that conducted
similar reviews. We would welcome such information. In developing its
enforcement program, we may explore ways it can coordinate with other
regulatory or oversight bodies so that we can efficiently and
effectively pursue our joint interests in protecting privacy.

We do not accept the suggestion that individuals be required to exhaust
their remedies under state law before filing a complaint with the
Secretary. Our rationale is similar to that discussed above in regard to
the suggestion that covered entities be required to exhaust a covered
entity=s internal complaint process before filing a complaint with the
Secretary. Congress provided for federal privacy protection and we want
to allow individuals the right to this protection without barriers or
delay. Covered entities may in their privacy notice inform individuals
of any rights they have under state law including any right to file
privacy complaints. We do not have the authority to interfere with state
processes and HIPAA explicitly provides that we cannot preempt state
laws that provide greater privacy protection.

We have not yet addressed the issue as to whether this regulation might
be used as a basis for violation findings or penalties under other
Department authorities. We note that Medicare conditions of
participation require participating providers to have procedures for
ensuring the confidentiality of patient records, as well as afford
patients with the right to the confidentiality of their clinical
records.

***Penalties***

*Comment:* Many commenters considered the statutory penalties
insufficient to protect privacy, stating that the civil penalties are
too weak to have the impact needed to reduce the risk of inappropriate
disclosure. Some commenters took the opposing view and stated that large
fines and prison sentences for violations would discourage physicians
from transmitting any sort of health care information to any other
agency, regardless of the medical necessity. Another comment expressed
the concern that doctors will be at risk of going to jail for protecting
the privacy of individuals (by not disclosing information the government
believes should be released).

*Response:* The enforcement regulation will address the application of
the civil monetary and criminal penalties under HIPAA. The regulation
will be published in the Federal Register as a proposed regulation and
the public will have an opportunity to comment. We do not believe that
our rule, and the penalties available under it, will discourage
physicians and other providers from using or disclosing necessary
information. We believe that the rule permits physicians to make the
disclosures that they need to make under the health care system without
exposing themselves to jeopardy under the rule. We believe that the
penalties under the statute are woefully inadequate. We support
legislation that would increase the amount of these penalties.

*Comment:* A number of commenters stated that the regulations should
permit individuals to sue for damages caused by breaches of privacy
under these regulations. Some of these commenters specified that
damages, equitable relief, attorneys fees, and punitive damages should
be available. Conversely, one comment stated that strong penalties are
necessary and would preclude the need for a private right of action.
Another commenter stated that he does not believe that the statute
intended to give individuals the equivalent of a right to sue, which
results from making individuals third party beneficiaries to contracts
between business partners.

*Response:* We do not have the authority to provide a private right of
action by regulation. As discussed below, the final rule deletes the
third party beneficiary provision that was in the proposed rule.

However, we believe that, in addition to strong civil monetary
penalties, federal law should allow any individual whose rights have
been violated to bring an action for actual damages and equitable
relief. The Secretary=s Recommendations, which were submitted to
Congress on September 11, 1997, called for a private right of action to
permit individuals to enforce their privacy rights.

*Comment:* One comment stated that, in calculating civil monetary
penalties, the criteria should include aggravating or mitigating
circumstances and whether the violation is a minor or first time
violation. Several comments stated that penalties should be tiered so
that those that commit the most egregious violations face stricter civil
monetary penalties.

*Response:* As mentioned above, issues regarding civil fines and
criminal penalties will be addressed in the enforcement regulation.

*Comment:* One comment stated that the regulation should clarify whether
a single disclosure that involved the health information of multiple
parties would constitute a single or multiple infractions, for the
purpose of calculating the penalty amount.

*Response:* The enforcement regulation will address the calculation of
penalties. However, we note that section 1176 subjects persons to civil
monetary penalties of not more than \$100 for each violation of a
requirement or prohibition and not more than \$25,000 in a calendar year
for all violations of an identical requirement or prohibition. For
example, if a covered entity fails to permit amendment of protected
health information for 10 patients in one calendar year, the entity may
be fined up to \$1000 (\$100 times 10 violations equals \$1000).

**PART 164 B SUBPART A B GENERAL REQUIREMENTS**

**PART 164 B SUBPART B-D B RESERVED**

**PART 164 B SUBPART E B PRIVACY**

**SECTION 164.500 B APPLICABILITY**

***Covered Entities***

The response to comments on covered entities is included in the response
to comments on the definition of Acovered entity@ in the preamble
discussion of \' 160.103.

***Covered Information***

The response to comments on covered information is included in the
response to comments on the definition of Aprotected health information@
in the preamble discussion of \' 164.501.

**SECTION 164.501CDEFINITIONS**

***Designated record set*.**

*Comment*: Many commenters generally supported our proposed definition
of designated record set. Commenters suggested different methods for
narrowing the information accessible to individuals, such as excluding
information obtained without face-to-face interaction (e.g., phone
consultations). Other commenters recommended broadening the information
accessible to individuals, such as allowing access to Athe entire
medical record,@ not just a designated record set. Some commenters
advocated for access to all information about individuals. A few
commenters generally supported the provision but recommended that
consultation and interpretative assistance be provided when the
disclosure may cause harm or misunderstanding.

*Response*: We believe individuals should have a right to access any
protected health information that may be used to make decisions about
them and modify the final rule to accomplish this result. This approach
facilitates an open and cooperative relationship between individuals and
covered health care providers and health plans and allows individuals
fair opportunities to know what health information may be used to make
decisions about them. We list certain records that are always part of
the designated record set. For covered providers these are the medical
record and billing record. For health plans these are the enrollment,
payment, claims adjudication, and case or medical management records.
The purpose of these specified records is management of the accounts and
health care of individuals. In addition, we include in the designated
record set to which individuals have access any record used, in whole or
in part, by or for the covered entity to make decisions about
individuals. Only protected health information that is in a designated
record set is covered. Therefore, if a covered provider has a phone
conversation, information obtained during that conversation is subject
to access only to the extent that it is recorded in the designated
record set.

We do not require a covered entity to provide access to all individually
identifiable health information, because the benefits of access to
information not used to make decisions about individuals is limited and
is outweighed by the burdens on covered entities of locating,
retrieving, and providing access to such information. Such information
may be found in many types of records that include significant
information not relevant to the individual as well as information about
other persons. For example, a hospital=s peer review files that include
protected health information about many patients but are used only to
improve patient care at the hospital, and not to make decisions about
individuals, are not part of that hospital=s designated record sets.

We encourage but do not require covered entities to provide interpretive
assistance to individuals accessing their information, because such a
requirement could impose administrative burdens that outweigh the
benefits likely to accrue.

The importance to individuals of having the right to inspect and copy
information about them is supported by a variety of industry groups and
is recognized in current state and federal law. The July 1977 Report of
the Privacy Protection Study Commission recommended that individuals
have access to medical records and medical record information.[^2] The
Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) requires government agencies to permit
individuals to review records and have a copy made in a form
comprehensible to the individual. In its report ABest Principles for
Health Privacy,@ the Health Privacy Working Group recommended that
individuals should have the right to access information about them.[^3]
The National Association of Insurance Commissioners= Health Information
Privacy Model Act establishes the right of an individual to examine or
receive a copy of protected health information in the possession of the
carrier or a person acting on behalf of the carrier.

Many states also establish a right for individuals to access health
information about them. For example, Alaska law (AK Code 18.23.005)
entitles patients Ato inspect and copy any records developed or
maintained by a health care provider or other person pertaining to the
health care rendered to the patient.@ Hawaii law (HRS section 323C-11)
requires health care providers and health plans, among others, to permit
individuals to inspect and copy protected health information about them.
Many other states have similar provisions.

Industry and standard-setting organizations also have developed policies
to enable individual access to health information. The National
Committee for Quality Assurance and the Joint Commission on
Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations issued recommendations
stating, APatients= confidence in the protection of their information
requires that they have the means to know what is contained in their
records. The opportunity for patients to review their records will
enable them to correct any errors and may provide them with a better
understanding of their health status and treatment.@[^4] Standards of
the American Society for Testing and Materials state, AThe patient or
his or her designated personal representative has access rights to the
data and information in his or her health record and other health
information databases except as restricted by law. An individual should
be able to inspect or see his or her health information or request a
copy of all or part of the health information, or both.@[^5] We build on
this well-established principle in this final rule.

*Comment*: Several commenters advocated for access to not only
information that has already been used to make decisions, but also
information that may be used to make decisions. Other commenters
believed accessible information should be more limited; for example,
some commenters argued that accessible information should be restricted
to only information used to make health care decisions.

*Response*: We agree that it is desirable that individuals have access
to information reasonably likely to be used to make decisions about
them. On the other hand, it is desirable that the category of records
covered be readily ascertainable by the covered entity. We therefore
define Adesignated record set@ to include certain categories of records
(a provider=s medical record and billing record, the enrollment records,
and certain other records maintained by a health plan) that are normally
used, and are reasonably likely to be used, to make decisions about
individuals. We also add a category of other records that are, in fact,
used, in whole or in part, to make decisions about individuals. This
category includes records that are used to make decisions about any
individuals, whether or not the records have been used to make a
decision about the particular individual requesting access.

We disagree that accessible information should be restricted to
information used to make health care decisions, because other decisions
by covered entities can also affect individuals= interests. For example,
covered entities make financial decisions about individuals, such as
whether an individual=s deductible has been met. Because such decisions
can significantly affect individuals= interests, we believe they should
have access to any protected health information included in such
records.

*Comment*: Some commenters believed the rule should use the term
Aretrievable@ instead of Aretrieved@ to describe information accessible
to individuals. Other commenters suggested that the rule follow the
Privacy Act=s principle of allowing access only when entities retrieve
records by individual identifiers. Some commenters requested
clarification that covered entities are not required to maintain
information by name or other patient identifier.

*Response*: We have modified the proposed definition of the designated
record set to focus on how information is used, not how it is retrieved.
Information may be retrieved or retrievable by name, but if it is never
used to make decisions about any individuals, the burdens of requiring a
covered entity to find it and to redact information about other
individuals outweigh any benefits to the individual of having access to
the information. When the information might be used to affect the
individual=s interests, however, that balance changes and the benefits
outweigh the burdens. We confirm that this regulation does not require
covered entities to maintain any particular record set by name or
identifier.

*Comment*: A few commenters recommended denial of access for information
relating to investigations of claims, fraud, and misrepresentations.
Many commenters suggested that sensitive, proprietary, and legal
documents that are Atypical state law privileges@ be excluded from the
right to access. Specific suggestions for exclusion, either from the
right of access or from the definition of designated record set, include
quality assurance activities, information related to medical appeals,
peer review and credentialing, attorney-client information, and
compliance committee activities. Some commenters suggested excluding
information already supplied to individuals on previous requests and
information related to health care operations. However, some commenters
felt that such information was already excluded from the definition of
designated record set. Other commenters requested clarification that
this provision will not prevent patients from getting information
related to medical malpractice.

*Response*: We do not agree that records in these categories are never
used to affect the interests of individuals. For example, while
protected health information used for peer review and quality assurance
activities typically would not be used to make decisions about
individuals, and, thus, typically would not be part of a designated
record set, we cannot say that this is true in all cases. We design this
provision to be sufficiently flexible to work with the varying practices
of covered entities.

The rule addresses several of these comments by excepting from the
access provisions (\' 164.524) information compiled in reasonable
anticipation of, or for use in, a civil, criminal, or administrative
action or proceeding. Similarly, nothing in this rule requires a covered
entity to divulge information covered by physician-patient or similar
privilege. Under the access provisions, a covered entity may redact
information in a record about other persons or information obtained
under a promise of confidentiality, prior to releasing the information
to the individual. We clarify that nothing in this provision would
prevent access to information needed to prosecute or defend a medical
malpractice action; the rules of the relevant court determine such
access.

We found no persuasive evidence to support excluding information already
supplied to individuals on previous requests. The burdens of tracking
requests and the information provided pursuant to requests outweigh the
burdens of providing the access requested. A covered entity may,
however, discuss the scope of the request for access with the individual
to facilitate the timely provision of access. For example, if the
individual agrees, the covered entity could supply only the information
created or received since the date access was last granted.

***Disclosure*.**

*Comment*: A number of commenters asked that the definition of
Adisclosure@ be modified so that it is clear that it does not include
the release, transfer, provision of access to, or divulging in any other
manner of protected health information to the individual who is the
subject of that information. It was suggested that we revise the
definition in this way to clarify that a health care provider may
release protected health information to the subject of the information
without first requiring that the patient complete an authorization form.

*Response:* We agree with the commenters= concern, but accomplish this
result through a different provision in the regulation. In \' 164.502 of
this final rule, we specify that disclosures of protected health
information to the individual are not subject to the limitations on
disclosure of protected health information otherwise imposed by this
rule.

*Comment:* A number of commenters stated that the regulation should not
apply to disclosures occurring within or among different subsidiaries or
components of the same entity. One commenter interpreted Adisclosure@ to
mean outside the agency or, in the case of a state Department of Health,
outside sister agencies and offices that directly assist the Secretary
in performing Medicaid functions and are listed in the state plan as
entitled to receive Medicaid data.

*Response:* We agree that there are circumstances under which related
organizations may be treated as a single covered entity for purposes of
protecting the privacy of health information, and modify the rule to
accommodate such circumstances. In \' 164.504 of the final rule, we
specify the conditions under which affiliated companies may combine into
a single covered entity and similarly describe which components of a
larger organization must comply with the requirements of this rule. For
example, transfers of information within the designated component or
affiliated entity are uses while transfers of information outside the
designated component or affiliated entity are disclosures. See the
discussion of \' 164.504 for further information and rationale. It is
not clear from these comments whether the particular organizational
arrangements described could constitute a single covered entity.

*Comment:* A commenter noted that the definition of Adisclosure@ should
reflect that health plan correspondence containing protected health
information, such as Explanation of Benefits (EOBs), is frequently sent
to the policyholder. Therefore, it was suggested that the words
Aprovision of access to@ be deleted from the definition and that a
Adisclosure@ be clarified to include the conveyance of protected health
information to a third party.

*Response:* The definition is, on its face, broad enough to cover the
transfers of information described and so is not changed. We agree that
health plans must be able to send EOBs to policyholders. Sending EOB
correspondence to a policyholder by a covered entity is a disclosure for
purposes of this rule, but it is a disclosure for purposes of payment.
Therefore, subject to the provisions of \' 164.522(b) regarding
Confidential Communications, it is permitted even if it discloses to the
policyholder protected health information about another individual (see
below).

***Health care operations*.**

*Comment:* Several commenters stated that the list of activities within
the definition of health care operations was too broad and should be
narrowed. They asserted that the definition should be limited to exclude
activities that have little or no connection to the care of a particular
patient or to only include emergency treatment situations or situations
constituting a clear and present danger to oneself or others.

*Response:* We disagree. We believe that narrowing the definition in the
manner requested will place serious burdens on covered entities and
impair their ability to conduct legitimate business and management
functions.

*Comment*: Many commenters, including physician groups, consumer groups,
and privacy advocates, argued that we should limit the information that
can be used for health care operations to de-identified data. They
argued that if an activity could be done with de-identified data, it
should not be incorporated in the definition of health care operations.

*Response:* We disagree. We believe that many activities necessary for
the business and administrative operations of health plans and health
care providers are not possible with de-identified information or are
possible only under unduly burdensome circumstances. For example,
identified information may be used or disclosed during an audit of
claims, for a plan to contact a provider about alternative treatments
for specific patients, and in reviewing the competence of health care
professionals. Further, not all covered entities have the same ability
to de-identify protected health information. Covered entities with
highly automated information systems will be able to use de-identified
data for many purposes. Other covered entities maintain most of their
records on paper, so a requirement to de-identify information would
place too great a burden on the legitimate and routine business
functions included in the definition of health care operations. Small
business, which are most likely to have largely paper records, would
find such a blanket requirement particularly burdensome.

Protected health information that is de-identified pursuant to \'
164.514(a) is not subject to this rule. We hope this provides covered
entities capable of de-identifying information with the incentive to do
so.

*Comment:* Some commenters requested that we permit the use of
demographic data (geographic, location, age, gender, and race) separate
from all other data for health care operations. They argued that
demographic data was needed to establish provider networks and monitor
providers to ensure that the needs of ethnic and minority populations
were being addressed.

*Response*: The use of demographic data for the stated purposes is
within the definition of health care operations; a special rule is not
necessary.

*Comment*: Some commenters pointed out that the definition of health
care operations is similar to, and at times overlaps with, the
definition of research. In addition, a number of commenters questioned
whether or not research conducted by the covered entity or its business
partner must only be applicable to and used within the covered entity to
be considered health care operations. Others questioned whether such
studies or research performed internal to a covered entity are Ahealth
care operations@ even if generalizable results may be produced.

*Response*: We agree that some health care operations have many of the
characteristics of research studies and in the NPRM asked for comments
on how to make this distinction. While a clear answer was not suggested
in any of the comments, the comments generally together with our fact
finding lead to the provisions in the final rule. The distinction
between health care operations and research rests on whether the primary
purpose of the study is to produce Ageneralizable knowledge.@ We have
modified the definition of health care operations to include Aquality
assessment and improvement activities, including outcomes evaluation and
development of clinical guidelines, *provided that the obtaining of
generalizable knowledge is not the primary purpose of any studies
resulting from such activities*.@ If the primary purpose of the activity
is to produce generalizable knowledge, the activity fits within this
rule=s definition of Aresearch@ and the covered entity must comply with
\'\' 164.508 or 164.512, including obtaining an authorization or the
approval of an institutional review board or privacy board. If not and
the activity otherwise meets the definition of health care operations,
the activity is not research and may be conducted under the health care
operations provisions of this rule.

In some instances, the primary purpose of the activity may change as
preliminary results are analyzed. An activity that was initiated as an
internal outcomes evaluation may produce information that the covered
entity wants to generalize. If the purpose of a study changes and the
covered entity does intend to generalize the results, the covered entity
should document the change in status of the activity to establish that
they did not violate the requirements of this rule. (See definition of
Aresearch,@ below, for further information on the distinction between
Aresearch@ and Ahealth care operations.@)

We note that the difficulty in determining when an activity is for the
internal operations of an entity and when it is a research activity is a
long-standing issue in the industry. The variation among commenters=
views is one of many indications that, today, there is not consensus on
how to draw this line. We do not resolve the larger issue here, but
instead provide requirements specific to the information covered by this
rule.

*Comment*: Several commenters asked that disease management and
disability management activities be explicitly included in the
definition of health care operations. Many health plans asserted that
they would not be able to provide disease management, wellness, and
health promotion activities if the activity were solely captured in the
rule=s definition of Atreatment.@ They also expressed concern that
Atreatment@ usually applies to an individual, not to a population, as is
the practice for disease management.

*Response*: We were unable to find generally accepted definitions of the
terms \>disease management= and \>disability management.= Rather than
rely on this label, we include many of the functions often included in
discussions of disease management in this definition or in the
definition of treatment, and modify both definitions to address the
commenters= concerns. For example, we have revised the definition of
health care operations to include population-based activities related to
improving health or reducing health care costs. This topic is discussed
further in the comment responses regarding the definition of
\>treatment,= below.

*Comment:* Several commenters urged that the definition of health care
operations be illustrative and flexible, rather than structured in the
form of a list as in the proposed rule. They believed it would be
impossible to identify all the activities that constitute health care
operations. Commenters representing health plans were concerned that the
Astatic@ nature of the definition would stifle innovation and could not
reflect the new functions that health plans may develop in the future
that benefit consumers, improve quality, and reduce costs. Other
commenters, expressed support for the approach taken in the proposed
rule, but felt the list was too broad.

*Response:* In the final rule, we revise the proposed definition of
health care operations to broaden the list of activities included, but
we do not agree with the comments asking for an illustrative definition
rather than an inclusive list. Instead, we describe the activities that
constitute health care operations in broad terms and categories, such as
Aquality assessment@ and Abusiness planning and development.@ We believe
the use of broadly stated categories will allow industry innovation, but
without the privacy risks entailed in an illustrative approach.

*Comment*: Several commenters noted that utilization review and internal
quality review should be included in the definition. They pointed out
that both of these activities were discussed in the preamble to the
proposed rule but were not incorporated into the regulation text.

*Response*: We agree and have modified the regulation text to
incorporate quality assessment and improvement activities, including the
development of clinical guidelines and protocol development.

*Comment:* Several commenters stated that the proposal did not provide
sufficient guidance regarding compiling and analyzing information in
anticipation of or for use in legal proceedings. In particular, they
raised concerns about the lack of specificity as to when Aanticipation@
would be triggered.

*Response:* We agree that this provision was confusing and have replaced
it with a broader reference to conducting or arranging for legal
services generally.

*Comment*: Hospital representatives pointed out the pressure on health
care facilities to improve cost efficiencies, make cost-effectiveness
studies, and benchmark essential health care operations. They emphasized
that such activities often use identifiable patient information,
although the products of the analyses usually do not contain
identifiable health information. Commenters representing state hospital
associations pointed out that they routinely receive protected health
information from hospitals for analyses that are used by member
hospitals for such things as quality of care benchmark comparisons,
market share analysis, determining physician utilization of hospital
resources, and charge comparisons.

*Response:* We have expanded the definition of health care operations to
include use and disclosure of protected health information for the
important functions noted by these commenters. We also allow a covered
entity to engage a business associate to provide data aggregation
services. See \' 164.504(e).

*Comment*: Several commenters argued that many activities that are
integral to the day-to-day operations of a health plan have not been
included in the definition. Examples provided by the commenters include:
issuing plan identification cards, customer service, computer
maintenance, storage and back-up of radiologic images, and the
installation and servicing of medical equipment or computer systems.

*Response*: We agree with the commenters that there are activities not
directly part of treatment or payment that are more closely associated
with the administrative or clerical functions of the plan or provider
that need to be included in the definition. To include such activities
in the definition of health care operations, we eliminate the
requirement that health care operations be directly related to treatment
and payment, and we add to this definition the new categories of
business management (including general administrative activities) and
business planning activities.

*Comment*: One commenter asked for clarification on whether cost-related
analyses could also be done by providers as well as health plans.

*Response*: Health care operations, including business management
functions, are not limited to health plans. Any covered entity can
perform health care operations.

*Comment:* One commenter stated that the proposed rule did not address
what happens to records when a covered entity is sold or merged with
another entity.

*Response:* We agree and add to the definition of health care operations
disclosures of protected health information for due diligence to a
covered entity that is a potential successor in interest. This provision
includes disclosures pursuant to the sale of a covered entity\'s
business as a going concern, mergers, acquisitions, consolidations, and
other similar types of corporate restructuring between covered entities,
including a division of a covered entity, and to an entity that is not a
covered entity but will become a covered entity if the reorganization or
sale is completed. Other types of sales of assets, or disclosures to
organizations that are not and would not become covered entities, are
not included in the definition of health care operations and could only
occur if the covered entity obtained valid authorization for such
disclosure in accordance with \' 164.508 or if the disclosure is
otherwise permitted under this rule.

Once a covered entity is sold or merged with another covered entity, the
successor in interest becomes responsible for complying with this
regulation with respect to the transferred information.

*Comment*: Several commenters expressed concern that the definition of
health care operations failed to include the use of protected health
information for the underwriting of new health care policies and took
issue with the exclusion of uses and disclosures of protected health
information of prospective enrollees. They expressed the concern that
limiting health care operations to the underwriting and rating of
existing members places a health plan in the position of not being able
to evaluate prudently and underwrite a consumer=s health care risk.

*Response*: We agree that covered entities should be able to use the
protected health information of prospective enrollees to underwrite and
rate new business and change the definition of health care operations
accordingly. The definition of health care operations below includes
underwriting, premium rating, and other activities related to the
creation of a contract of health insurance.

*Comment*: Several commenters stated that group health plans needed to
be able to use and disclose protected health information for purposes of
soliciting a contract with a new carrier and rate setting.

*Response*: We agree and add Aactivities relating to the \...
replacement of a contract of insurance@ to cover such disclosures. See
\' 164.504 for the rules for plan sponsors of group health plans to
obtain such information.

*Comment*: Commenters from the business community supported our
recognition of the importance of financial risk transfer mechanisms in
the health care marketplace by including Areinsurance@ in the definition
of health care operations. However, they stated that the term
Areinsurance@ alone was not adequate to capture Astop-loss insurance@
(also referred to as excess of loss insurance), another type of risk
transfer insurance.

*Response*: We agree with the commenters that stop-loss and excess of
loss insurance are functionally equivalent to reinsurance and add these
to the definition of health care operations.

*Comment*: Commenters from the employer community explained that there
is a trend among employers to contract with a single insurer for all
their insurance needs (health, disability, workers= compensation). They
stated that in these integrated systems, employee health information is
shared among the various programs in the system. The commenters believed
the existing definition poses obstacles for those employers utilizing an
integrated health system because of the need to obtain authorizations
before being permitted to use protected health information from the
health plan to administer or audit their disability or workers=
compensation plan.

Other commenters representing employers stated that some employers
wanted to combine health information from different insurers and health
plans providing employee benefits to their workforces, including its
group health plan, workers= compensation insurers, and disability
insurers, so that they could have more information in order to better
manage the occurrences of disability and illness among their workforces.
They expressed concern that the proposed rule would not permit such
sharing of information.

*Response:* While we agree that integrating health information from
different benefit programs may produce efficiencies as well as benefits
for individuals, the integration also raises significant privacy
concerns, particularly if there are no safeguards on uses and
disclosures from the integrated data. Under HIPAA, we do not have
jurisdiction over many types of insurers that use health information,
such as workers= compensation insurers or insurers providing disability
income benefits, and we cannot address the extent to which they provide
individually identifiable health information to a health plan, nor do we
prohibit a health plan from receiving such information. Once a health
plan receives identifiable health information, however, the information
becomes protected and may only be used and disclosed as otherwise
permitted by this rule.

We clarify, however, that a covered entity may provide data and
statistical analyses for its customers as a health care operation,
provided that it does not disclose protected health information in a way
that would otherwise violate this rule. A group health plan or health
insurance issuer or HMO, or their business associate on their behalf,
may perform such analyses for an employer customer and provide the
results in de-identified form to the customer, using integrated data
received from other insurers, as long as protected health information is
not disclosed in violation of this rule. See the definition of Ahealth
care operations,@ \' 164.501. If the employer sponsors more than one
group health plan, or if its group health plan provides coverage through
more than one health insurance issuer or HMO, the different covered
entities may be an organized health care arrangement and be able to
jointly participate in such an analysis as part of the health care
operations of such organized health care arrangement. See the
definitions of Ahealth care operations@ and Aorganized health care
arrangement,@ \' 164.501. We further clarify that a plan sponsor
providing plan administration to a group health plan may participate in
such an analysis, provided that the requirements of \' 164.504(f) and
other parts of this rule are met.

The results described above are the same whether the health information
that is being combined is from separate insurers or from one entity that
has a health component and also provides excepted benefits. See the
discussion relating to health care components, \' 164.504.

We note that under the arrangements described above, the final rule
provides substantial flexibility to covered entities to provide general
data and statistical analyses, resulting in the disclosure of
de-identified information, to employers and other customers. An employer
also may receive protected health information from a covered entity for
any purpose, including those described in comment above, with the
authorization of the individual. See \' 164.508.

*Comment*: A number of commenters asserted that the proposed definition
appeared to limit training and educational activities to that of health
care professionals, students, and trainees. They asked that we expand
the definition to include other education-related activities, such as
continuing education for providers and training of non-health care
professionals as needed for supporting treatment or payment.

*Response*: We agree with the commenters that the definition of health
care operations was unnecessarily limiting with respect to educational
activities and expand the definition of health care operations to
include Aconducting training programs in which students, trainees, or
practitioners in areas of health care learn under supervision to
practice or improve their skills as health care providers.@ We clarify
that medical rounds are considered treatment, not health care
operations.

*Comment*: A few commenters outlined the need to include the training of
non-health care professionals, such as health data analysts,
administrators, and computer programmers within the definition of health
care operations. It was argued that, in many cases, these professionals
perform functions which support treatment and payment and will need
access to protected health information in order to carry out their
responsibilities.

*Response*: We agree and expand the definition of health care operations
to include training of non-health care professionals.

*Comment*: One commenter stated that the definition did not explicitly
include physician credentialing and peer review.

*Response*: We have revised the definition to specifically include
Alicensing or credentialing activities.@ In addition, peer review
activities are captured in the definition as reviewing the competence or
qualifications of health care professionals and evaluating practitioner
and provider performance.

***Health oversight agency*.**

*Comment:* Some commenters sought to have specific organizations defined
as health oversight agencies. For example, some commenters asked that
the regulation text, rather than the preamble, explicitly list state
insurance departments as an example of health oversight agencies.
Medical device manufacturers recommended expanding the definition to
include government contractors such as coding committees, which provide
data to HCFA to help the agency make reimbursement decisions.

One federal agency sought clarification that several of its sub-agencies
were oversight agencies; it was concerned about its status in part
because the agency fits into more than one of the categories of health
oversight agency listed in the proposed rule.

Other commenters recommended expanding the definition of oversight
agency to include private-sector accreditation organizations. One
commenter recommended stating in the final rule that private companies
providing information to insurers and employers are not included in the
definition of health oversight agency.

*Response:* Because the range of health oversight agencies is so broad,
we do not include specific examples in the definition. We include many
examples in the preamble above and provide further clarity here.

As under the NPRM, state insurance departments are an example of a
health oversight agency. A commenter concerned about state trauma
registries did not describe the registries= activities or legal
charters, so we cannot clarify whether such registries may be health
oversight agencies. Government contractors such as coding committees,
which provide data to HCFA to support payment processes, are not thereby
health oversight agencies under this rule. We clarify that public
agencies may fit into more than one category of health oversight agency.

The definition of health oversight agency does not include
private-sector accreditation organizations. While their work can promote
quality in the health care delivery system, private accreditation
organizations are not authorized by law to oversee the health care
system or government programs in which health information is necessary
to determine eligibility or compliance, or to enforce civil rights laws
for which health information is relevant. Under the final rule, we
consider private accrediting groups to be performing a health care
operations function for covered entities. Thus, disclosures to private
accrediting organizations are disclosures for health care operations,
not for oversight purposes.

When they are performing accreditation activities for a covered entity,
private accrediting organizations will meet the definition of business
associate, and the covered entity must enter into a business associate
contract with the accrediting organization in order to disclose
protected health information. This is consistent with current practice;
today, accrediting organizations perform their work pursuant to
contracts with the accredited entity. This approach is also consistent
with the recommendation by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of
Healthcare Organizations and the National Committee for Quality
Assurance, which stated in their report titled [Protecting Personal
Health Information: A Framework for Meeting the Challenges in a Managed
Care Environment]{.underline} (1998) that AOversight organizations,
including accrediting bodies, states, and federal agencies, should
include in their contracts terms that describe their responsibility to
maintain the confidentiality of any personally identifiable health
information that they review.@

We agree with the commenter who believed that private companies
providing information to insurers and employers are not performing an
oversight function; the definition of health oversight agency does not
include such companies.

In developing and clarifying the definition of health oversight in the
final rule, we seek to achieve a balance in accounting for the full
range of activities that public agencies may undertake to perform their
health oversight functions while establishing clear and appropriate
boundaries on the definition so that it does not become a catch-all
category that public and private agencies could use to justify any
request for information.

***Individual*.**

*Comment:* A few commenters stated that foreign military and diplomatic
personnel, and their dependents, and overseas foreign national
beneficiaries, should not be excluded from the definition of
Aindividual.@

*Response:* We agree with concerns stated by commenters and eliminate
these exclusions from the definition of Aindividual@ in the final rule.
Special rules for use and disclosure of protected health information
about foreign military personnel are stated in \' 164.512(k). Under the
final rule, protected health information about diplomatic personnel is
not accorded special treatment. While the exclusion of overseas foreign
national beneficiaries has been deleted from the definition of
Aindividual,@ we have revised \' 164.500 to indicate that the rule does
not apply to the Department of Defense or other federal agencies or
non-governmental organizations acting on its behalf when providing
health care to overseas foreign national beneficiaries. This means that
the rule will not cover any health information created incident to the
provision of health care to foreign nationals overseas by U.S. sponsored
missions or operations. (See \' 164.500 and its corresponding preamble
for details and the rationale for this policy.)

*Comment:* Several commenters expressed concern about the
interrelationship of the definition of Aindividual@ and the two year
privacy protection for deceased persons.

*Response:* In the final rule, we eliminate the two year limit on
privacy protection for protected health information about deceased
individuals and require covered entities to comply with the requirements
of the rule with respect to the protected health information of deceased
individuals as long as they hold such information. See discussion under
\' 164.502.

***Individually identifiable health information*.**

*Comment:* A number of commenters suggested that HHS revise the
definitions of health information and individually identifiable health
information to include consistent language in paragraph (1) of each
respective definition. They observed that paragraph (1) of the
definition of health information reads: A(1) Is created or received *by*
a health care provider, health plan, *public health authority,*
employer*, life insurer, school or university,* or health care
clearinghouse\...;@ in contrast to paragraph (1) of the definition of
individually identifiable health information, which reads: A(1) Is
created by or received *from* a health care provider, health plan,
employer, or health care clearinghouse\...@ \[Emphasis added.\]

Another commenter asked that we delete from the definition of health
information, the words Ahealth or@ to make the definition more
consistent with the definition of Ahealth care,@ as well as the words
Awhether oral or.@

*Response:* We define these terms in the final rule as they are defined
by Congress in sections 1171(4) and 1171(6) of the Act, respectively. We
have, however, changed the word Afrom@ in the definition of
Aindividually identifiable health information@ to conform to the
statute.

*Comment:* Several commenters urged that the definition of individually
identifiable health information include information created or received
by a researcher. They reasoned that it is important to ensure that
researchers using personally identifiable health information are subject
to federal privacy standards. They also stated that if information
created by a school regarding the health status of its students could be
labeled Ahealth information,@ then information compiled by a clinical
researcher regarding an individual also should be considered health
information.

*Response:* We are restricted to the statutory limits of the terms. The
Congress did not include information created or received by a researcher
in either definition, and, consequently, we do not include such language
in the rule=s definitions.

*Comment:* Several commenters suggested modifying the definition of
individually identifiable health information to state as a condition
that the information provide a direct means of identifying the
individual. They commented that the rule should support the need of
those (e.g., researchers) who need Aready access to health
information\... that remains linkable to specific individuals.@

*Response:* The Congress included in the statutory definition of
individually identifiable health information the modifier Areasonable
basis@ when describing the condition for determining whether information
can be used to identify the individual. Congress thus intended to go
beyond Adirect@ identification and to encompass circumstances in which a
reasonable likelihood of identification exists. Even after removing
Adirect@ or Aobvious@ identifiers of information, a risk or probability
of identification of the subject of the information may remain; in some
instances, the risk will not be inconsequential. Thus, we agree with the
Congress that Areasonable basis@ is the appropriate standard to
adequately protect the privacy of individuals= health information.

*Comment:* A number of commenters suggested that the Secretary eliminate
the distinction between protected health information and individually
identifiable health information. One commenter asserted that all
individually identifiable health information should be protected. One
commenter observed that the terms individually identifiable health
information and protected health information are defined differently in
the rule and requested clarification as to the precise scope of coverage
of the standards. Another commenter stated that the definition of
individually identifiable health information includes Aemployer,@
whereas protected health information pertains only to covered entities
for which employers are not included. The commenter argued that this was
an Aincongruity@ between the definitions of individually identifiable
health information and protected health information and recommended that
we remove Aemployer@ from the definition of individually identifiable
health information.

*Response:* We define individually identifiable health information in
the final rule generally as it is defined by Congress in section 1171(6)
of the Act. Because Aemployer@ is included in the statutory definition,
we cannot accept the comment to remove the word Aemployer@ from the
regulatory definition.

We use the phrase \>protected health information= to distinguish between
the individually identifiable health information that is used or
disclosed by the entities that are subject to this rule and the entire
universe of individually identifiable health information. \>Individually
identifiable health information= as defined in the statute is not
limited to health information used or disclosed by covered entities, so
the qualifying phrase \>protected health information= is necessary to
define that individually identifiable health information to which this
rule applies.

*Comment:* One commenter noted that the definition of individually
identifiable health information in the NPRM appeared to be the same
definition used in the other HIPAA proposed rule, Security and
Electronic Signature Standards (63 FR 43242). However, the commenter
stated that the additional condition in the privacy NPRM, that protected
health information is or has been electronically transmitted or
electronically maintained by a covered entity and includes such
information in any other form, appears to create potential disparity
between the requirements of the two rules. The commenter questioned
whether the provisions in proposed \' 164.518(c) were an attempt to
install similar security safeguards for such situations.

*Response:* The statutory definition of individually identifiable health
information applies to the entire Administrative Simplification subtitle
of HIPAA and, thus, was included in the proposed Security Standards. At
this time, however, the final Security Standards have not been
published, so the definition of protected health information is relevant
only to HIPAA=s privacy standards and is, therefore, included in Subpart
E of Part 164 only. We clarify that the requirements in the proposed
Security Standards are distinct and separate from the privacy safeguards
promulgated in this final rule.

*Comment:* Several commenters expressed confusion and requested
clarification as to what is considered health information or
individually identifiable health information for purposes of the rule.
For example, one commenter was concerned that information exists in
collection agencies, credit bureaus, etc., which could be included under
the proposed regulation but may or may not have been originally obtained
by a covered entity. The commenter noted that generally this information
is not clinical, but it could be inferred from the data that a health
care provider provided a person or member of person=s family with health
care services. The commenter urged the Secretary to define more clearly
what and when information is covered.

One commenter queried how a non-medical record keeper could tell when
personal information is health information within the meaning of rule,
e.g., when a worker asks for a low salt meal in a company cafeteria,
when a travel voucher of an employee indicates that the traveler
returned from an area that had an outbreak of fever, or when an airline
passenger requests a wheel chair. It was suggested that the rule cover
health information in the hands of schools, employers, and life insurers
only when they receive individually identifiable health information from
a covered entity or when they create it while providing treatment or
making payment.

*Response:* This rule applies only to individually identifiable health
information that is held by a covered entity. Credit bureaus, airlines,
schools, and life insurers are not covered entities, so the information
described in the above comments is not protected health information.
Similarly, employers are not covered entities under the rule. Covered
entities must comply with this regulation in their health care capacity,
not in their capacity as employers. For example, information in hospital
personnel files about a nurses= sick leave is not protected health
information under this rule.

*Comment:* One commenter recommended that the privacy of health
information should relate to actual medical records. The commenter
expressed concern about the definition=s broadness and contended that
applying prescriptive rules to information that health plans hold will
not only delay processing of claims and coverage decisions, but
ultimately affect the quality and cost of care for health care
consumers.

*Response:* We disagree. Health information about individuals exists in
many types of records, not just the formal medical record about the
individual. Limiting the rule=s protections to individually identifiable
health information contained in medical records, rather than
individually identifiable health information in any form, would omit a
significant amount of individually identifiable health information,
including much information in covered transactions.

*Comment:* One commenter voiced a need for a single standard for
individually identifiable health information and disability and workers=
compensation information; each category of information is located in
their one electronic data base, but would be subjected to a different
set of use and transmission rules.

*Response:* We agree that a uniform, comprehensive privacy standard is
desirable. However, our authority under the HIPAA is limited to
individually identifiable health information as it is defined in the
statute. The legislative history of HIPAA makes clear that workers=
compensation and disability benefits programs were not intended to be
covered by the rule. Entities are of course free to apply the
protections required by this rule to all health information they hold,
including the excepted benefits information, if they wish to do so (for
example, in order to reduce administrative burden).

*Comment:* Commenters recommended that the definition of individually
identifiable health information not include demographic information that
does not have any additional health, treatment, or payment information
with it. Another commenter recommended that protected health information
should not include demographic information at all.

*Response*: Congress explicitly included demographic information in the
statutory definition of this term, so we include such language in our
regulatory definition of it.

*Comments:* A number of commenters expressed concern about whether
references to personal information about individuals, such as AJohn Doe
is fit to work as a pipe fitter \...@ or AJane Roe can stand no more
than 2 hours \...@, would be considered individually identifiable health
information. They argued that such Afitness-to-work@ and Afitness for
duty@ statements are not health care because they do not reveal the type
of information (such as the diagnosis) that is detrimental to an
individual=s privacy interest in the work environment.

*Response:* References to personal information such as those suggested
by the commenters could be individually identifiable health information
if the references were created or received by a health care provider,
health plan, employer, or health care clearinghouse and they related to
the past, present, or future physical or mental health or condition, the
provision of health care to an individual, or the past, present, or
future payment for the provision of health care to an individual.
Although these fitness for duty statements may not reveal a diagnosis,
they do relate to a present physical or mental condition of an
individual because they describe the individual=s capacity to perform
the physical and mental requirements of a particular job at the time the
statement is made (even though there may be other non-health-based
qualifications for the job). If these statements were created or
received by one of more of the entities described above, they would be
individually identifiable health information.

***Law enforcement official*.**

*Comment:* Some commenters, particularly those representing health care
providers, expressed concern that the proposed definition of Alaw
enforcement official@ could have allowed many government officials
without health care oversight duties to obtain access to protected
health information without patient consent.

*Response:* We do not intend for the definition of Alaw enforcement
official@ to be limited to officials with responsibilities directly
related to health care. Law enforcement officials may need protected
health information for investigations or prosecutions unrelated to
health care, such as investigations of violent crime, criminal fraud, or
crimes committed on the premises of health care providers. For these
reasons, we believe it is not appropriate to limit the definition of
Alaw enforcement official@ to persons with responsibilities oversight of
the health care system.

*Comment:* A few commenters expressed concern that the proposed
definition could include any county or municipal official, even those
without traditional law enforcement training. *Response:* We do not
believe that determining training requirements for law enforcement
officials is appropriately within the purview of this regulation;
therefore, we do not make the changes that these commenters requested.

*Comment:* Some commenters, particularly those from the district
attorney community, expressed general concern that the proposed
definition of Alaw enforcement official@ was too narrow to account for
the variation in state interpretations of law enforcement officials=
power. One group noted specifically that the proposed definition could
have prevented prosecutors from gaining access to needed protected
health information.

*Response:* We agree that protected health information may be needed by
law enforcement officials for both investigations and prosecutions. We
did not intend to exclude the prosecutorial function from the definition
of Alaw enforcement official ,@ and accordingly we modify the definition
of law enforcement official to reflect their involvement in prosecuting
cases. Specifically, in the final rule, we define law enforcement
official as an official of any agency or authority of the United States,
a state, a territory, a political subdivision of a state or territory,
or an Indian tribe, who is empowered by law to: (1) investigate or
conduct an inquiry into a potential violation of law; or (2) prosecute
or otherwise conduct a criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding
arising from an alleged violation of law.

*Comment:* One commenter recommended making the definition of law
enforcement official broad enough to encompass Medicaid program
auditors, because some matters requiring civil or criminal law
enforcement action are first identified through the audit process.

*Response:* We disagree. Program auditors may obtain protected health
information necessary for their audit functions under the oversight
provision of this regulation (\' 164.512(d)).

*Comment:* One commenter suggested that the proposed definition of Alaw
enforcement official@ could be construed as limited to circumstances in
which an official Aknows@ that law has been violated. This commenter was
concerned that, because individuals are presumed innocent and because
many investigations, such as random audits, are opened without an agency
knowing that there is a violation, the definition would not have allowed
disclosure of protected health information for these purposes. The
commenter recommended modifying the definition to include investigations
into Awhether@ the law has been violated.

*Response:* We do not intend for lawful disclosures of protected health
information for law enforcement purposes to be limited to those in which
a law enforcement official knows that law has been violated.
Accordingly, we revise the definition of Alaw enforcement official @ to
include investigations of \"potential\" violations of law.

***Marketing*.**

Comments related to Amarketing@ are addressed in the responses to
comments regarding \' 164.514(e).

***Payment*.**

*Comment:* One commenter urged that the Department not permit protected
health information to be disclosed to a collection agency for collecting
payment on a balance due on patient accounts. The commenter noted that,
at best, such a disclosure would only require the patient=s and/or
insured=s address and phone number.

*Response:* We disagree. A collection agency may require additional
protected health information to investigate and assess payment disputes
for the covered entity. For example, the collection agency may need to
know what services the covered entity rendered in order to resolve
disputes about amounts due. The information necessary may vary,
depending on the nature of the dispute. Therefore we do not specify the
information that may be used or disclosed for collection activities. The
commenter=s concern may be addressed by the minimum necessary
requirements in \' 164.514. Under those provisions, when a covered
entity determines that a collection agency only requires limited
information for its activities, it must make reasonable efforts to limit
disclosure to that information.

*Comment:* A number of commenters supported retaining the expansive
definition in the proposed rule so that current methods of administering
the claims payment process would not be hindered by blocking access to
protected health information.

*Response:* We agree and retain the proposed overall approach to the
definition.

*Comment:* Some commenters argued that the definition of Apayment=
should be narrowly interpreted as applying only to the individual who is
the subject of the information.

*Response:* We agree with the commenter and modify the definition to
clarify that payment activities relate to the individual to whom health
care is provided.

*Comment:* Another group of commenters asserted that the doctor-patient
relationship was already being interfered with by the current practices
of managed care. For example, it was argued that the definition expanded
the power of government and other third party Apayors,@ turning them
into controllers along with managed care companies. Others stated that
activities provided for under the definition occur primarily to fulfill
the administrative function of managed health plans and that an
individual=s privacy is lost when his or her individually identifiable
health information is shared for administrative purposes.

*Response:* Activities we include in the definition of payment reflect
core functions through which health care and health insurance services
are funded. It would not be appropriate for a rule about health
information privacy to hinder mechanisms by which health care is
delivered and financed. We do not through this rule require any health
care provider to disclose protected health information to governmental
or other third party payors for the activities listed in the payment
definition. Rather, we allow these activities to occur, subject to and
consistent with the requirements of this rule.

*Comment*: Several commenters requested that we expand the definition to
include Acoordination of benefits@ as a permissible activity.

*Response:* We agree and modify the definition accordingly.

*Comment:* A few commenters raised concerns that the use of Amedical
data processing@ was too restrictive. It was suggested that a broader
reference such as Ahealth related@ data processing would be more
appropriate.

*Response:* We agree and modify the definition accordingly.

*Comment:* Some commenters suggested that the final rule needed to
clarify that drug formulary administration activities are payment
related activities.

*Response:* While we agree that uses and disclosures of protected health
information for drug formulary administration and development are common
and important activities, we believe these activities are better
described as health care operations and that these activities come
within that definition.

*Comment:* Commenters asked that the definition include calculation of
prescription drug costs, drug discounts, and maximum allowable costs and
copayments.

*Response:* Calculations of drug costs, discounts, or copayments are
payment activities if performed with respect to a specific individual
and are health care operations if performed in the aggregate for a group
of individuals.

*Comment*: We were urged to specifically exclude Atherapeutic
substitution@ from the definition.

*Response:* We reject this suggestion. While we understand that there
are policy concerns regarding therapeutic substitution, those policy
concerns are not primarily about privacy and thus are not appropriately
addressed in this regulation.

*Comment:* A few commenters asked that patient assistance programs
(PAPS) should be excluded from the definition of payment. Such programs
are run by or on behalf of manufacturers and provide free or discounted
medications to individuals who could not afford to purchase them.
Commenters were concerned that including such activities in the
definition of payment could harm these programs.

For example, a university school of pharmacy may operate an outreach
program and serve as a clearinghouse for information on various
pharmaceutical manufacturer PAPS. Under the program state residents can
submit a simple application to the program (including medication regimen
and financial information), which is reviewed by program pharmacists who
study the eligibility criteria and/or directly call the manufacturer=s
program personnel to help evaluate eligibility for particular PAPS. The
program provides written guidance to the prescribing physicians that
includes a suggested approach for helping their indigent patients obtain
the medications that they need and enrollment information for particular
PAPS.

*Response:* We note that the concerns presented are not affected by
definition of Apayment.@ The application of this rule to patient
assistance programs activities will depend on how the individual
programs operate and are affected primarily by the definition of
treatment. Each of these programs function differently, so it is not
possible to state a blanket rule for whether and how the rule affects
such programs.

Under the example provided, the physician who contacts the program on
behalf of a patient is managing the patient=s care. If the provider is
also a covered entity, he or she would be permitted to make such a
Atreatment@ disclosure of protected health information if a general
consent had been obtained from the patient. Depending on the particular
facts, the manufacturer, by providing the prescription drugs for an
individual, could also be providing health care under this rule. Even
so, however, the manufacturer may or may not be a covered entity,
depending on whether or not it engages in any of the standard electronic
transactions (See the definition of a covered entity). It also may be an
indirect treatment provider, since it may be providing the product
through another provider, not directly to the patient. In this example,
the relevant disclosures of protected health information by any covered
health care provider with a direct treatment relationship with the
patient would be permitted subject to the general consent requirements
of \' 164.506.

Whether and how this rule affects the school of pharmacy is equally
dependent on the specific facts. For example, if the school merely
provides a patient or a physician with the name of a manufacturer and a
contact phone number, it would not be functioning as a health care
provider and would not be subject to the rule. However, if the school is
more involved in the care of the individual, its activities could come
in within the definition of Ahealth care provider@ under this rule.

*Comment*: Commenters pointed out that drugs may or may not be Acovered@
under a plan. Individuals, on the other hand, may or may not be
Aeligible@ for benefits under a plan. The definition should incorporate
both terms to clarify that determinations of both coverage and
eligibility are payment activities.

*Response*: We agree and modify the rule to include Aeligibility@.

*Comment*: Several commenters urged that Aconcurrent and retrospective
review@ were significant utilization review activities and should be
incorporated.

*Response*: We agree and modify the definition accordingly.

*Comment*: Commenters noted that the proposed rule was not clear as to
whether protected health information could be used to resolve disputes
over coverage, including appeals or complaints regarding quality of
care.

*Response*: We modify the definition of payment to include resolution of
payment and coverage disputes; the final definition of payment includes
Athe adjudication \... of health benefit claims.@ The other examples
provided by commenters, such as arranging, conducting, or assistance
with primary and appellate level review of enrollee coverage appeals,
also fall within the scope of adjudication of health benefits claims.
Uses and disclosures of protected health information to resolve disputes
over quality of care may be made under the definition of Ahealth care
operations@ (see above).

*Comment*: Some commenters suggested that if an activity falls within
the scope of payment it should not be considered marketing. Commenters
supported an approach that would bar such an activity from being
construed as Amarketing@ even if performing that activity would result
in financial gain to the covered entity.

*Response:* We agree that the proposed rule did not clearly define
\>marketing,= leaving commenters to be concerned about whether payment
activities that result in financial gain might be considered marketing.
In the final rule we add a definition of marketing and clarify when
certain activities that would otherwise fall within that definition can
be accomplished without authorization. We believe that these changes
will clarify the distinction between marketing and payment and address
the concerns raised by commenters.

*Comment*: Commenters asserted that HHS should not include long-term
care insurance within the definition of Ahealth plan@. If they are
included, the commenters argued that the definition of payment must be
modified to reflect the activities necessary to support the payment of
long-term care insurance claims. As proposed, commenters argued that the
definition of payment would not permit long term care insurers to use
and disclose protected health information without authorization to
perform functions that are Acompatible with and directly relate
to\...payment@ of claims submitted under long term care policies.

*Response*: Long‑term care policies, except for nursing home
fixed‑indemnity policies, are defined as health plans by the statute
(see definition of Ahealth plan,@ above). We disagree with the assertion
that the definition of payment does not permit long term care insurers
to undertake these necessary activities. Processing of premium payments,
claims administration, and other activities suggested for inclusion by
the commenters are covered by the definition. The rule permits protected
health information to be used or disclosed by a health plan to determine
or fulfill its responsibility for provision of benefits under the health
plan.

*Comment*: Some commenters argued that the definition needs to be
expanded to include the functions of obtaining stop-loss and ceding
reinsurance.

*Response*: We agree that use and disclosure of protected health
information for these activities should be permitted without
authorization, but have included them under health care operation rather
than payment.

*Comment*: Commenters asked that the definition be modified to include
collection of accounts receivable or outstanding accounts. Commenters
raised concern that the proposed rule, without changes, might
unintentionally prevent the flow of information between medical
providers and debt collectors.

*Response*: We agree that the proposed definition of payment did not
explicitly provide for Acollection activities@ and that this oversight
might have impeded a covered entity=s debt collection efforts. We modify
the regulatory text to add Acollection activities.@

*Comment*: The preamble should clarify that self-insured group health
and workers= compensation plans are not covered entities or business
partners.

*Response*: The statutory definition of health plan does not include
workers= compensation products. See the discussion of Ahealth plan@
under \' 160.103 above.

*Comment:* Certain commenters explained that third party administrators
usually communicate with employees through Explanation of Benefit (EOB)
reports on behalf of their dependents (including those who might not be
minor children). Thus, the employee might be apprized of the medical
encounters of his or her dependents but not of medical diagnoses unless
there is an over-riding reason, such as a child suspected of drug abuse
due to multiple prescriptions. The commenters urged that the current
claim processing procedures be allowed to continue.

*Response:* We agree. We interpret the definition of payment and, in
particular the term \>claims management,= to include such disclosures of
protected health information.

*Comment:* One private company noted that pursuant to the proposed
Transactions Rule standard for payment and remittance advice, the ASC
X12N 835 can be used to make a payment, send a remittance advice, or
make a payment and send remittance advice by a health care payor and a
health care provider, either directly or through a designated financial
institution. Because a remittance advice includes diagnostic or
treatment information, several private companies and a few public
agencies believed that the proposed Transactions Rule conflicted with
the proposed privacy rule. Two health plans requested guidance as to
whether, pursuant to the ASC X12N 835 implementation guide, remittance
advice information is considered Arequired@ or Asituational.@ They
sought guidance on whether covered entities could include benefits
information in payment of claims and transfer of remittance information.

One commenter asserted that if the transmission of certain protected
health information were prohibited, health plans may be required to
strip remittance advice information from the ASC X12N 835 when making
health care payments. It recommended modifying the proposed rule to
allow covered entities to provide banks or financial institutions with
the data specified in any transaction set mandated under the
Transactions Rule for health care claims payment.

Similarly, a private company and a state health data organization
recommended broadening the scope of permissible disclosures pursuant to
the banking section to include integrated claims processing information,
as contained in the ASC X12N 835 and proposed for adoption in the
proposed Transactions Rule; this transaction standard includes
diagnostic and treatment information. The company argued that inclusion
of diagnostic and treatment information in the data transmitted in
claims processing was necessary for comprehensive and efficient
integration in the provider=s patient accounting system of data
corresponding with payment that financial institutions credit to the
provider=s account.

A state health data organization recommended applying these rules to
financial institutions that process electronic remittance advice
pursuant to the Transactions Rule.

*Response:* The Transactions Rule was published August 17, 2000, after
the issuance of the privacy proposed rule. As noted by the commenters,
the ASC X12N 835 we adopted as the AHealth Care Payment and Remittance
Advice@ standard in the Transactions Rule has two parts. They are the
electronic funds transfer (EFT) and the electronic remittance advice
(ERA). The EFT part is optional and is the mechanism that payors use to
electronically instruct one financial institution to move money from one
account to another at the same or at another financial institution. The
EFT includes information about the payor, the payee, the amount, the
payment method, and a reassociation trace number. Since the EFT is used
to initiate the transfer of funds between the accounts of two
organizations, typically a payor to a provider, it includes no
individually identifiable health information, not even the names of the
patients whose claims are being paid. The funds transfer information may
also be transmitted manually (by check) or by a variety of other
electronic means, including various formats of electronic transactions
sent through a payment network, such as the Automated Clearing House
(ACH) Network.

The ERA, on the other hand, contains specific information about the
patients and the medical procedures for which the money is being paid
and is used to update the accounts receivable system of the provider.
This information is always needed to complete a standard Health Care
Payment and Remittance Advice transaction, but is never needed for the
funds transfer activity of the financial institution. The only
information the two parts of this transaction have in common is the
reassociation trace number.

Under the ASC X12N 835 standard, the ERA may be transmitted alone,
directly from the health plan to the health care provider and the
reassociation trace number is used by the provider to match the ERA
information with a specific payment conducted in some other way (e.g.,
EFT or paper check). The standard also allows the EFT to be transmitted
alone, directly to the financial institution that will initiate the
payment. It also allows both parts to be transmitted together, even
though the intended recipients of the two parts are different (the
financial institution and the provider). For example, this would be done
when the parties agree to use the ACH system to carry the ERA through
the provider\'s bank to the provider when it is more efficient than
sending the ERA separately through a different electronic medium.

Similarly, the ASC X12N 820 standard for premium payments has two parts,
an EFT part (identical to that of the 835) and a premium data part
containing identity and health information about the individuals for
whom health insurance premiums are being paid.

The transmission of both parts of the standards are payment activities
under this rule, and permitted subject to certain restrictions. Because
a financial institution does not require the remittance advice or
premium data parts to conduct funds transfers, disclosure of those parts
by a covered entity to it (absent a business associate arrangement to
use the information to conduct other activities) would be a violation of
this rule.

We note that additional requirements may be imposed by the final
Security Rule. Under the proposed Security Rule, the ACH system and
similar systems would have been considered \"open networks\" because
transmissions flow unpredictably through and become available to member
institutions who are not party to any business associate agreements (in
a way similar to the internet). The proposed Security Rule would require
any protected health information transferred through the ACH or similar
system to be encrypted.

*Comment:* A few commenters noted the Gramm-Leach-Bliley (GLB) Act
(Pub.L. 106-102) allows financial holding companies to engage in a
variety of business activities, such as insurance and securities, beyond
traditional banking activities. Because the term Abanking@ may take on
broader meaning in light of these changes, the commenter recommended
modifying the proposed rule to state that disclosure of diagnostic and
treatment information to banks along with payment information would
constitute a violation of the rule. Specifically, the organization
recommended clarifying in the final rule that the provisions included in
the proposed section on banking and payment processes (proposed \'
164.510(i)) govern payment processes only and that all activities of
financial institutions that did not relate directly to payment processes
must be conducted through business partner contracts. Furthermore, this
group recommended clarifying that if financial institutions act as
payors, they will be covered entities under the rule.

*Response:* We recognize that implementation of the GLB Act will expand
significantly the scope of activities in which financial holding
companies engage. However, unless a financial institution also meets the
definition of a Acovered entity,@ it cannot be a covered entity under
this rule.

We agree with the commenters that disclosure of diagnostic and specific
treatment information to financial institutions for many banking and
funds processing purposes may not be consistent with the minimum
necessary requirements of this final rule. We also agree with the
commenters that financial institutions are business associates if they
receive protected health information when they engage in activities
other than funds processing for covered entities. For example, if a
health care provider contracts with a financial institution to conduct
Aback office@ billing and accounts receivable activities, we require the
provider to enter into a business associate contract with the
institution.

*Comment:* Two commenters expressed support for the proposed rule=s
approach to disclosure for banking and payment processes. On the other
hand, many other commenters were opposed to disclosure of protected
health information without authorization to banks. One commenter said
that no financial institution should have individually identifiable
health information for any reason, and it said there were technological
means for separating identity from information necessary for financial
transactions. Some commenters believed that implementation of the
proposed rule=s banking provisions could lead banks to deny loans on the
basis of individuals= health information.

*Response:* We seek to achieve a balance between protecting patient
privacy and facilitating the efficient operation of the health care
system. While we agree that financial institutions should not have
access to extensive information about individuals= health, we recognize
that even the minimal information required for processing of payments
may effectively reveal a patient=s health condition; for example, the
fact that a person has written a check to a provider suggests that
services were rendered to the person or a family member. Requiring
authorization for disclosure of protected health information to a
financial institution in order to process every payment transaction in
the health care system would make it difficult, if not impossible, for
the health care system to operate effectively. See also discussion of
section 1179 of the Act above.

*Comment:* Under the proposed rule, covered entities could have
disclosed the following information without consent to financial
institutions for the purpose of processing payments: (1) the account
holder=s name and address; (2) the payor or provider=s name and address;
(3) the amount of the charge for health services; (4) the date on which
services were rendered; (5) the expiration date for the payment
mechanism, if applicable (e.g., credit card expiration date); and (6)
the individual=s signature. The proposed rule solicited comments on
whether additional data elements would be necessary to process payment
transactions from patients to covered entities.

One commenter believed that it was unnecessary to include this list in
the final rule, because information that could have been disclosed under
the proposed minimum necessary rule would have been sufficient to
process banking and payment information. Another private company said
that its extensive payment systems experience indicated that we should
avoid attempts to enumerate a list of information allowed to be
disclosed for banking and payment processing. Furthermore, the commenter
said, the proposed rule=s list of information allowed to be disclosed
was not sufficient to perform the range of activities necessary for the
operation of modern electronic payment systems. Finally, the commenter
said, inclusion of specific data elements allowed to be disclosed for
banking and payment processes rule would stifle innovation in
continually evolving payment systems. Thus, the commenter recommended
that in the final rule, we eliminate the minimum necessary requirement
for banking and payment processing and that we do not include a list of
specific types of information allowed to be disclosed for banking and
payment processes.

On the other hand, several other commenters supported applying the
minimum necessary standard to covered entities= disclosures to financial
institutions for payment processing. In addition, these groups said that
because financial institutions are not covered entities under the
proposed rule, they urged Congress to enact comprehensive privacy
legislation to limit financial institutions= use and re-disclosure of
the minimally necessary protected health information they could receive
under the proposed rule. Several of these commenters said that, in light
of the increased ability to manipulate data electronically, they were
concerned that financial institutions could use the minimal protected
health information they received for making financial decisions. For
example, one of these commenters said that a financial institution could
identify an individual who had paid for treatment of domestic violence
injuries and subsequently could deny the individual a mortgage based on
that information.

*Response:* We agree with the commenters who were concerned that a
finite list of information could hamper systems innovation, and we
eliminate the proposed list of data items.

However, we disagree with the commenters who argued that the requirement
for minimum necessary disclosures not apply to disclosures to financial
institution or for payment activities. They presented no persuasive
reasons why these disclosures differ from others to which the standard
applies, nor did they suggest alternative means of protecting
individuals= privacy. Further, with elimination of the proposed list of
items that may be disclosed, it will be necessary to rely on the minimum
necessary disclosure requirement to ensure that disclosures for payment
purposes do not include information unnecessary for that purposes. In
practice, the following is the information that generally will be
needed: the name and address of the individual; the name and address of
the payor or provider; the amount of the charge for health services; the
date on which health services were rendered; the expiration date for the
payment mechanism, if applicable (i.e., credit card expiration date);
the individual=s signature; and relevant identification and account
numbers.

*Comment:* One commenter said that the minimum necessary standard would
be impossible to implement with respect to information provided on its
standard payment claim, which, it said, was used by pharmacies for
concurrent drug utilization review and that was expected to be adopted
by HHS as the national pharmacy payment claim.

Two other commenters also recommended clarifying in the final rule that
pharmacy benefit cards are not considered a type of Aother payment card@
pursuant to the rule=s provisions governing payment processes. These
commenters were concerned that if pharmacy benefit cards were covered by
the rule=s payment processing provisions, their payment claim, which
they said was expected to be adopted by HHS as the national pharmacy
payment claim, may have to be modified to comply with the minimum
necessary standard that would have been required pursuant to proposed \'
164.510(i) on banking and payment processes. One of these commenters
noted that its payment claim facilitates concurrent drug utilization
review, which was mandated by Congress pursuant to the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990 and which creates the real-time ability for
pharmacies to gain access to information that may be necessary to meet
requirements of this and similar state laws. The commenter said that
information on its standard payment claim may include information that
could be used to provide professional pharmacy services, such as
compliance, disease management, and outcomes programs. The commenter
opposed restricting such information by applying the minimum necessary
standard.

*Response:* We make an exception to the minium necessary disclosure
provision of this rule for the required and situational data elements of
the standard transactions adopted in the Transactions Rule, because
those elements were agreed to through the ANSI-accredited consensus
development process. The minimum necessary requirements do apply to
optional elements in such standard transactions, because industry
consensus has not resulted in precise and unambiguous situation specific
language to describe their usage. This is particularly relevant to the
NCPDP standards for retail pharmacy transactions referenced by these
commenters, in which the current standard leaves most fields optional.
For this reason, we do not accept this suggestion.

The term \'payment card\' was intended to apply to a debit or credit
card used to initiate payment transactions with a financial institution.
We clarify that pharmacy benefit cards, as well as other health benefit
cards, are used for identification of individual, plan, and benefits and
do not qualify as \"other payment cards.\"

*Comment:* Two commenters asked the following questions regarding the
banking provisions of the proposed rule: (1) Does the proposed
regulation stipulate that disclosures to banks and financial
institutions can occur only once a patient has presented a check or
credit card to the provider, or pursuant to a standing authorization?;
and (2) Does the proposed rule ban disclosure of diagnostic or other
related detailed payment information to financial institutions?

*Response:* We do not ban disclosure of diagnostic information to
financial institutions, because some such information may be evident
simply from the name of the payee (e.g., when payment is made to a
substance abuse clinic). This type of disclosure, however, is permitted
only when reasonably necessary for the transaction (see requirements for
minimum necessary disclosure of protected health information, in \'
164.502 and \' 164.514).

Similarly, we do not stipulate that such disclosure may be made only
once a patient has presented a check or credit card, because some
covered entities hire financial institutions to perform services such as
management of accounts receivables and other back office functions. In
providing such services to covered entities, the financial institution
will need access to protected health information. (In this situation,
the disclosure will typically be made under a business associate
arrangement that includes provisions for protection of the information.)

*Comment:* One commenter was concerned that the proposed rule=s section
on financial institutions, when considered in conjunction with the
proposed definition of Aprotected health information,@ could have been
construed as making covered entities= disclosures of consumer payment
history information to consumer reporting agencies subject to the rule.
It noted that covered entities= reporting of payment history information
to consumer reporting agencies was not explicitly covered by the
proposed rule=s provisions regarding disclosure of protected health
information without authorization. It was also concerned that the
proposed rule=s minimum necessary standard could have been interpreted
to prevent covered entities and their business partners from disclosing
appropriate and complete information to consumer reporting agencies. As
a result, it said, consumer reporting agencies might not be able to
compile complete consumer reports, thus potentially creating an
inaccurate picture of a consumer=s credit history that could be used to
make future credit decisions about the individual.

Furthermore, this commenter said, the proposed rule could have been
interpreted to apply to any information disclosed to consumer reporting
agencies, thus creating the possibility for conflicts between the rule=s
requirements and those of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. They indicated
that areas of potential overlap included: limits on subsequent
disclosures; individual access rights; safeguards; and notice
requirements.

*Response:* We have added to the definition of Apayment@ disclosure of
certain information to consumer reporting agencies. With respect to the
remaining concerns, this rule does not apply to consumer reporting
agencies if they are not covered entities.

*Comment:* Several commenters recommended prohibiting disclosure of
psychotherapy notes under this provision and under all of the sections
governing disclosure without consent for national priority purposes.

*Response:* We agree that psychotherapy notes should not be disclosed
without authorization for payment purposes, and the final rule does not
allow such disclosure. See the discussion under \' 164.508.

***Protected health information*.**

*Comment*: An overwhelmingly large number of commenters urged the
Secretary to expand privacy protection to all individually identifiable
health information, regardless of form, held or transmitted by a covered
entity. Commenters provided many arguments in support of their position.
They asserted that expanding the scope of covered information under the
rule would increase patient confidence in their health care providers
and the health care system in general. Commenters stated that patients
may not seek care or honestly discuss their health conditions with
providers if they do not believe that all of their health information is
confidential. In particular, many suggested that this fear would be
particularly strong with certain classes of patients, such as persons
with disabilities, who may be concerned about potential discrimination,
embarrassment or stigmatization, or domestic violence victims, who may
hide the real cause of their injuries.

In addition, commenters felt that a more uniform standard that covered
all records would reduce the complexity, burden, cost, and enforcement
problems that would result from the NPRM=s proposal to treat electronic
and non-electronic records differently. Specifically, they suggested
that such a standard would eliminate any confusion regarding how to
treat mixed records (paper records that include information that has
been stored or transmitted electronically) and would eliminate the need
for health care providers to keep track of which portions of a paper
record have been (or will be) stored or transmitted electronically, and
which are not. Many of these commenters argued that limiting the
definition to information that is or has at one time been electronic
would result in different protections for electronic and paper records,
which they believe would be unwarranted and give consumers a false sense
of security. Other comments argued that the proposed definition would
cause confusion for providers and patients and would likely cause
difficulties in claims processing. Many others complained about the
difficulty of determining whether information has been maintained or
transmitted electronically. Some asked us to explicitly list the
electronic functions that are intended to be excluded, such as voice
mail, fax, etc. It was also recommended that the definitions of
\>electronic transmission= and \>electronic maintenance= be deleted. It
was stated that the rule may apply to many medical devices that are
regulated by the FDA. A commenter also asserted that the proposal=s
definition was technically flawed in that computers are also involved in
analog electronic transmissions such as faxes, telephone, etc., which is
not the intent of the language. Many commenters argued that limiting the
definition to information that has been electronic would create a
significant administrative burden, because covered entities would have
to figure out how to apply the rule to some but not all information.

Others argued that covering all individually identifiable health
information would eliminate any disincentives for covered entities to
convert from paper to computerized record systems. These commenters
asserted that under the proposed limited coverage, contrary to the
intent of HIPAA=s administrative simplification standards, providers
would avoid converting paper records into computerized systems in order
to bypass the provisions of the regulation. They argued that treating
all records the same is consistent with the goal of increasing the
efficiency of the administration of health care services.

Lastly, in the NPRM, we explained that while we chose not to extend our
regulatory coverage to all records, we did have the authority to do so.
Several commenters agreed with our interpretation of the statute and our
authority and reiterated such statements in arguing that we should
expand the scope of the rule in this regard.

*Response:* We find these commenters= arguments persuasive and extend
protections to individually identifiable health information transmitted
or maintained by a covered entity in any form (subject to the exception
for Aeducation records@ governed by FERPA and records described at 20
U.S.C. 1232g(a)(4)(B)(iv)). We do so for the reasons described by the
commenters and in our NPRM, as well as because we believe that the
approach in the final rule creates a logical, consistent system of
protections that recognizes the dynamic nature of health information use
and disclosure in a continually shifting health care environment. Rules
that are specific to certain formats or media, such as Aelectronic@ or
Apaper,@ cannot address the privacy threats resulting from evolving
forms of data capture and transmission or from the transfer of the
information from one form to another. This approach avoids the somewhat
artificial boundary issues that stem from defining what is and is not
electronic.

In addition, we have reevaluated our reasons for not extending privacy
protections to all paper records in the NPRM and after review of
comments believe such justifications to be less compelling than we
originally thought. For example, in the NPRM, we explained that we chose
not to cover all paper records in order to focus on the public concerns
about health information confidentiality in electronic communications,
and out of concern that the potential additional burden of covering all
records may not be justified because of the lower privacy risks
presented by records that are in paper form only. As discussed above
however, a great many commenters asserted that dealing with a mixture of
protected and non-protected records is more burdensome, and that public
concerns over health information confidentiality are not at all limited
to electronic communications.

We note that medical devices in and of themselves, for example,
pacemakers, are not protected health information for purposes of this
regulation. However, information in or from the device may be protected
health information to the extent that it otherwise meets the definition.

*Comment:* Numerous commenters argued that the proposed coverage of any
information other than that which is transmitted electronically and/or
in a HIPAA transaction exceeds the Secretary=s authority under section
264(c)(1) of HIPAA. The principal argument was that the initial language
in section 264(c)(1) (AIf language governing standards with respect to
the privacy of individually identifiable health information transmitted
in connection with the transactions described in section 1173(a) of the
Social Security Act \... is not enacted by \[August 21, 1999\], the
Secretary \... shall promulgate final regulations containing such
standards\...@) limits the privacy standards to Ainformation transmitted
in connection with the \[HIPAA\] transactions.@ The precise argument
made by some commenters was that the grant of authority is contained in
the words Asuch standards,@ and that the referent of that phrase was
Astandards with respect to the privacy of individually identifiable
health information transmitted in connection with the transactions
described in section 1173(a)\...@.

Commenters also argued that this limitation on the Secretary=s authority
is discernible from the statutory purpose statement at section 261 of
HIPAA, from the title to section 1173(a) (AStandards to Enable
Electronic Exchange@), and from various statements in the legislative
history, such as the statement in the Conference Report that the
ASecretary would be required to establish standards and modifications to
such standards regarding the privacy of individually identifiable health
information that is in the health information network.@ H. Rep. No.
104-736,104^th^ Cong., 2d Sess., at 265. It was also argued that
extension of coverage beyond the HIPAA transactions would be
inconsistent with the underlying statutory trade-off between
facilitating accessibility of information in the electronic transactions
for which standards are adopted under section 1173(a) and protecting
that information through the privacy standards.

Other commenters argued more generally that the Secretary=s authority
was limited to information in electronic form only, not information in
any other form. These comments tended to focus on the statutory concern
with regulating transactions in electronic form and argued that there
was no need to have the privacy standards apply to information in paper
form, because there is significantly less risk of breach of privacy with
respect to such information.

The primary justifications provided by commenters for restricting the
scope of covered individually identifiable health information under the
regulation were that such an approach would reduce the complexity,
burden, cost, and enforcement problems that would result from a rule
that treats electronic and non-electronic records differently; would
appropriately limit the rule=s focus to the security risks that are
inherent in electronic transmission or maintenance of individually
identifiable health information; and would conform these provisions of
the rule more closely with their interpretation of the HIPAA statutory
language.

*Response*: We disagree with these commenters. We believe that
restricting the scope of covered information under the rule consistent
with any of the comments described above would generate a number of
policy concerns. Any restriction in the application of privacy
protections based on the media used to maintain or transmit the
information is by definition arbitrary, unrelated to the potential use
or disclosure of the information itself and therefore not responsive to
actual privacy risks. For example, information contained in a paper
record may be scanned and transmitted worldwide almost as easily as the
same information contained in an electronic claims transaction, but
would potentially not be protected.

In addition, application of the rule to only the standard transactions
would leave large gaps in the amount of health information covered. This
limitation would be particularly harmful for information used and
disclosed by health care providers, who are likely to maintain a great
deal of information never contained in a transaction.

We disagree with the arguments that the Secretary lacks legal authority
to cover all individually identifiable health information transmitted or
maintained by covered entities. The arguments raised by these comments
have two component parts: (1) that the Secretary=s authority is limited
by form, to individually identifiable health information in electronic
form only; and (2) that the Secretary=s authority is limited by content,
to individually identifiable health information that is contained in
what commenters generally termed the AHIPAA transactions,@ i.e.,
information contained in a transaction for which a standard has been
adopted under section 1173(a) of the Act.

With respect to the issue of form, the statutory definition of Ahealth
information@ at section 1171(4) of the Act defines such information as
Aany information, [whether oral or recorded in any form or
medium]{.underline}@ (emphasis added) which is created or received by
certain entities and relates to the health condition of an individual or
the provision of health care to an individual (emphasis added).
AIndividually identifiable health information@, as defined at section
1171(6) of the Act, is information that is created or received by a
subset of the entities listed in the definition of Ahealth information@,
relates to the same subjects as Ahealth information,@ and is, in
addition, individually identifiable. Thus, Aindividually identifiable
health information@ is, as the term itself implies, a subset of Ahealth
information.@ As Ahealth information,@ Aindividually identifiable health
information@ means, among other things, information that is Aoral or
recorded in any form or medium.@ Therefore, the statute does not limit
Aindividually identifiable health information@ to information that is in
electronic form only.

With respect to the issue of content, the limitation of the Secretary=s
authority to information in HIPAA transactions under section 264(c)(1)
is more apparent than real. While the first sentence of section
264(c)(1) may be read as limiting the regulations to standards with
respect to the privacy of individually identifiable health information
Atransmitted in connection with the \[HIPAA\] transactions,@ what that
sentence in fact states is that the privacy regulations must Acontain@
such standards, not be limited to such standards. The first sentence
thus sets a statutory minimum, first for Congress, then for the
Secretary. The second sentence of section 264(c)(1) directs that the
regulations Aaddress at least the subjects in subsection (b) \[of
section 264\].@ Section 264(b), in turn, refers only to Aindividually
identifiable health information@, with no qualifying language, and
refers back to subsection (a) of section 264, which is not limited to
HIPAA transactions. Thus, the first and second sentences of section
264(c)(1) can be read as consistent with each other, in which case they
direct the issuance of privacy standards with respect to individually
identifiable health information. Alternatively, they can be read as
ambiguous, in which case one must turn to the legislative history.

The legislative history of section 264 does not reflect the content
limitation of the first sentence of section 264(c)(1). Rather, the
Conference Report summarizes this section as follows: AIf Congress fails
to enact privacy legislation, the Secretary is required to develop
standards with respect to privacy of individually identifiable health
information not later than 42 months from the date of enactment.@
[Id.]{.underline}, at 270. This language indicates that the overriding
purpose of section 264(c)(1) was to postpone the Secretary=s duty to
issue privacy standards (which otherwise would have been controlled by
the time limits at section 1174(a)), in order to give Congress more time
to pass privacy legislation. A corollary inference, which is also
supported by other textual evidence in section 264 and Part C of title
XI, is that if Congress failed to act within the time provided, the
original statutory scheme was to kick in. Under that scheme, which is
set out in section 1173(e) of the House bill, the standards to be
adopted were Astandards with respect to the privacy of individually
identifiable health information.@ Thus, the legislative history of
section 264 supports the statutory interpretation underlying the rules
below.

*Comment*: Many commenters were opposed to the rule covering specific
forms of communication or records that could potentially be considered
covered information, i.e., faxes, voice mail messages, etc. A subset of
these commenters took issue particularly with the inclusion of oral
communications within the scope of covered information. The commenters
argued that covering information when it takes oral form (e.g., verbal
discussions of a submitted claim) makes the regulation extremely costly
and burdensome, and even impossible to administer. Another commenter
also offered that it would make it nearly impossible to discuss health
information over the phone, as the covered entity cannot verify that the
person on the other end is in fact who he or she claims to be.

*Response*: We disagree. Covering oral communications is an important
part of keeping individually identifiable health information private. If
the final rule were not to cover oral communication, a conversation
about a person=s protected health information could be shared with
anyone. Therefore, the same protections afforded to paper and
electronically based information must apply to verbal communication as
well. Moreover, the Congress explicitly included Aoral@ information in
the statutory definition of health information.

*Comment*: A few commenters supported, without any change, the approach
proposed in the NPRM to limit the scope of covered information to
individually identifiable health information in any form once the
information is transmitted or maintained electronically. These
commenters asserted that our statutory authority limited us accordingly.
Therefore, they believed we had proposed protections to the extent
possible within the bounds of our statutory authority and could not
expand the scope of such protections without new legislative authority.

*Response*: We disagree with these commenters regarding the limitations
under our statutory authority. As explained above, we have the authority
to extend the scope of the regulation as we have done in the final rule.
We also note here that most of these commenters who supported the NPRM=s
proposed approach, voiced strong support for extending the scope of
coverage to all individually identifiable health information in any
form, but concluded that we had done what we could within the authority
provided.

*Comment*: One commenter argued that the term Atransaction@ is generally
understood to denote a business matter, and that the NPRM applied the
term too broadly by including hospital directory information,
communication with a patient=s family, researchers= use of data and many
other non-business activities.

*Response*: This comment reflects a misunderstanding of our use of the
term Atransaction.@ The uses and disclosures described in the comment
are not Atransactions@ as defined in \' 160.103. The authority to
regulate the types of uses and disclosures described is provided under
section 264 of Pub. L. 104-191. The conduct of the activities noted by
the commenters are not related to the determination of whether a health
care provider is a covered entity. We explain in the preamble that a
health care provider is a covered entity if it transmits health
information in electronic form in connection with transactions referred
to in section 1173(a)(1) of the Act.

*Comment*: A few commenters asserted that the Secretary has no authority
to regulate Ause@ of protected health information. They stated that
although section 264(b) mentions that the Secretary should address Auses
and disclosures,@ no other section of HIPAA employs the term Ause.@

*Response*: We disagree with these commenters. As they themselves note,
the authority to regulate use is given in section 264(b) and is
sufficient.

*Comment*: Some commenters requested clarification as to how certain
types of health information, such as photographs, faxes, X-Rays,
CT-scans, and others would be classified as protected or not under the
rule.

*Response*: All types of individually identifiable health information in
any form, including those described, when maintained or transmitted by a
covered entity are covered in the final rule.

*Comment*: A few commenters requested clarification with regard to the
differences between the definitions of individually identifiable health
information and protected health information.

*Response*: In expanding the scope of covered information in the final
rule, we have simplified the distinction between the two definitions. In
the final rule, protected health information is the subset of
individually identifiable health information that is maintained or
transmitted by covered entity, and thereby protected by this rule. For
additional discussion of protected health information and individually
identifiable health information, see the descriptive summary of \'
164.501.

*Comment*: A few commenters remarked that the federal government has no
right to access or control any medical records and that HHS must get
consent in order to store or use any individually identifiable health
information.

*Response*: We understand the commenters= concern. It is not our intent,
nor do we through this rule create any government right of access to
medical records, except as needed to investigate possible violations of
the rule. Some government programs, such as Medicare, are authorized
under other law to gain access to certain beneficiary records for
administrative purposes. However, these programs are covered by the rule
and its privacy protections apply.

*Comment*: Some commenters asked us to clarify how schools would be
treated by the rule. Some of these commenters worried that privacy would
be compromised if schools were exempted from the provisions of the final
rule. Other commenters thought that school medical records were included
in the provisions of the NPRM.

*Response*: We agree with the request for clarification and provide
guidance regarding the treatment of medical records in schools in the
\"Relationship to Other Federal Laws\" preamble discussion of FERPA,
which governs the privacy of education records.

*Comment*: One commenter was concerned that only some information from a
medical chart would be included as covered information. The commenter
was especially concerned that transcribed material might not be
considered covered information.

*Response*: As stated above, all individually identifiable health
information in any form, including transcribed or oral information,
maintained or transmitted by a covered entity is covered under the
provisions of the final rule.

*Comment:* In response to our solicitation of comments on the scope of
the definition of protected health information, many commenters asked us
to narrow the scope of the proposed definition to include only
information in electronic form. Others asked us to include only
information from the HIPAA standard transactions.

*Response:* For the reasons stated by the commenters who asked us to
expand the proposed definition, we reject these comments. We reject
these approaches for additional reasons, as well. Limiting the
protections to electronic information would, in essence, protect
information only as long as it remained in a computer or other
electronic media; the protections in the rule could be avoided simply by
printing out the information. This approach would thus result in the
illusion, but not the reality, of privacy protections. Limiting
protection to information in HIPAA transactions has many of the problems
in the proposed approach: it would fail to protect significant amounts
of health information, would force covered entities to figure out which
information had and had not been in such a transaction, and could cause
the administrative burdens the commenters feared would result from
protecting some but not all information.

*Comment:* A few commenters asserted that the definition of protected
health information should explicitly include Agenetic@ information. It
was argued that improper disclosure and use of such information could
have a profound impact on individuals and families.

*Response:* We agree that the definition of protected health information
includes genetic information that otherwise meets the statutory
definition. But we believe that singling out specific types of protected
health information for special mention in the regulation text could
wrongly imply that other types are not included.

*Comment:* One commenter recommended that the definition of protected
health information be modified to clarify that an entity does not become
a \>covered entity= by providing a device to an individual on which
protected health information may be stored, provided that the company
itself does not store the individual=s health information.@

*Response:* We agree with the commenter=s analysis, but believe the
definition is sufficiently clear without a specific amendment to this
effect.

*Comment:* One commenter recommended that the definition be amended to
explicitly exclude individually identifiable health information
maintained, used, or disclosed pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting
Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1681. It was stated that a disclosure of
payment history to a consumer reporting agency by a covered entity
should not be considered protected health information. Another commenter
recommended that health information, billing information, and a
consumer=s credit history be exempted from the definition because this
flow of information is regulated by both the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

*Response:* We disagree. To the extent that such information meets the
definition of protected health information, it is covered by this rule.
These statutes are designed to protect financial, not health,
information. Further, these statutes primarily regulate entities that
are not covered by this rule, minimizing the potential for overlap or
conflict. The protections in this rule are more appropriate for
protecting health information. However, we add provisions to the
definition of payment which should address these concerns. See the
definition of \>payment= in \' 164.501.

*Comment:* An insurance company recommended that the rule require that
medical records containing protected health information include a
notation on a cover sheet on such records.

*Response:* Since we have expanded the scope of protected health
information, there is no need for covered entities to distinguish among
their records, and such a notation is not needed. This uniform coverage
eliminates the mixed record problem and resultant potential for
confusion.

*Comment:* A government agency requested clarification of the definition
to address the status of information that flows through dictation
services.

*Response:* A covered entity may disclose protected health information
for transcription of dictation under the definition of health care
operations, which allows disclosure for Ageneral administrative@
functions. We view transcription and clerical services generally as part
of a covered entity=s general administrative functions. An entity
transcribing dictation on behalf of a covered entity meets this rule=s
definition of business associate and may receive protected health
information under a business associate contract with the covered entity
and subject to the other requirements of the rule.

*Comment:* A commenter recommended that information transmitted for
employee drug testing be exempted from the definition.

*Response:* We disagree that is necessary to specifically exclude such
information from the definition of protected health information. If a
covered entity is involved, triggering this rule, the employer may
obtain authorization from the individuals to be tested. Nothing in this
rule prohibits an employer from requiring an employee to provide such an
authorization as a condition of employment.

*Comment:* A few commenters addressed our proposal to exclude
individually identifiable health information in education records
covered by FERPA. Some expressed support for the exclusion. One
commenter recommended adding another exclusion to the definition for the
treatment records of students who attend institutions of post secondary
education or who are 18 years old or older to avoid confusion with rules
under FERPA. Another commenter suggested that the definition exclude
health information of participants in AJob Corps programs@ as it has for
educational records and inmates of correctional facilities.

*Response:* We agree with the commenter on the potential for confusion
regarding records of students who attend post-secondary schools or who
are over 18, and therefore in the final rule we exclude records defined
at 20 U.S.C. 1232g(a)(4)(B)(iv) from the definition of protected health
information. For a detailed discussion of this change, refer to the
ARelationship to Other Federal Laws@ section of the preamble. We find no
similar reason to exclude AJob Corps programs@ from the requirements of
this regulation.

*Comment*: Some commenters voiced support for the exclusion of the
records of inmates from the definition of protected health information,
maintaining that correctional agencies have a legitimate need to share
some health information internally without authorization between health
service units in various facilities and for purposes of custody and
security. Other commenters suggested that the proposed exclusion be
extended to individually identifiable health information: created by
covered entities providing services to inmates or detainees under
contract to such facilities; of Aformer@ inmates; and of persons who are
in the custody of law enforcement officials, such as the United States
Marshals Service and local police agencies. They stated that corrections
and detention facilities must be able to share information with law
enforcement agencies such as the United States Marshals Service, the
Immigration and Naturalization Services, county jails, and U.S.
Probation Offices.

Another commenter said that there is a need to have access to records of
individuals in community custody and explained that these individuals
are still under the control of the state or local government and the
need for immediate access to records for inspections and/or drug testing
is necessary.

A number of commenters were opposed to the proposed exclusion to the
definition of protected health information, arguing that the proposal
was too sweeping. Commenters stated that while access without consent is
acceptable for some purposes, it is not acceptable in all circumstances.
Some of these commenters concurred with the sharing of health care
information with other medical facilities when the inmate is transferred
for treatment. These commenters recommended that we delete the exception
for jails and prisons and substitute specific language about what
information could be disclosed and the limited circumstances or purposes
for which such disclosures could occur.

Others recommended omission of the proposed exclusion entirely, arguing
that excluding this information from protection sends the message that,
with respect to this population, abuses do not matter. Commenters argued
that inmates and detainees have a right to privacy of medical records
and that individually identifiable health information obtained in these
settings can be misused, e.g., when communicated indiscriminately,
health information can trigger assaults on individuals with stigmatized
conditions by fellow inmates or detainees. It can also lead to the
denial of privileges, or inappropriately influence the deliberations of
bodies such as parole boards.

A number of commenters explicitly took issue with the exclusion relative
to individuals, and in particular youths, with serious mental illness,
seizure disorders, and emotional or substance abuse disorders. They
argued that these individuals come in contact with criminal justice
authorities as a result of behaviors stemming directly from their
illness and assert that these provisions will cause serious problems.
They argue that disclosing the fact that an individual was treated for
mental illness while incarcerated could seriously impair the
individual=s reintegration into the community. Commenters stated that
such disclosures could put the individual or family members at risk of
discrimination by employers and in the community at large.

Some commenters asserted that the rule should be amended to prohibit
jails and prisons from disclosing private medical information of
individuals who have been discharged from these facilities. They argued
that such disclosures may seriously impair individuals= rehabilitation
into society and subject them to discrimination as they attempt to
re-establish acceptance in the community.

*Response:* We find commenters= arguments against a blanket exemption
from privacy protection for inmates persuasive. We agree health
information in these settings may be misused, which consequently poses
many risks to the inmate or detainee and in some cases, their families
as described above by the commenters. Accordingly, we delete this
exception from the definition of Aprotected health information@ in the
final rule. The final rule considers individually identifiable health
information of individuals who are prisoners and detainees to be
protected health information to the extent that it meets the definition
and is maintained or transmitted by a covered entity.

At the same time, we agree with those commenters who explained that
correctional facilities have legitimate needs for use and sharing of
individually identifiable health information inmates without
authorization. Therefore, we add a new provision (\' 164.512(k)(5)) that
permits a covered entity to disclose protected health information about
inmates without individual consent, authorization, or agreement to
correctional institutions for specified health care and other custodial
purposes. For example, covered entities are permitted to disclose for
the purposes of providing health care to the individual who is the
inmate, or for the health and safety of other inmates or officials and
employees of the facility. In addition, a covered entity may disclose
protected health information as necessary for the administration and
maintenance of the safety, security, and good order of the institution.
See the preamble discussion of the specific requirements at \'
164.512(k)(5), as well as discussion of certain limitations on the
rights of individuals who are inmates with regard to their protected
health information at \'\' 164.506, 164.520, 164.524, and 164.528.

We also provide the following clarifications. Covered entities that
provide services to inmates under contract to correctional institutions
must treat protected health information about inmates in accordance with
this rule and are permitted to use and disclose such information to
correctional institutions as allowed under \' 164.512(k)(5).

As to former inmates, the final rule considers such persons who are
released on parole, probation, supervised release, or are otherwise no
longer in custody, to be individuals who are not inmates. Therefore, the
permissible disclosure provision at \' 164.512(k)(5) does not apply in
such cases. Instead, a covered entity must apply privacy protections to
the protected health information about former inmates in the same manner
and to the same extent that it protects the protected health information
of other individuals. In addition, individuals who are former inmates
hold the same rights as all other individuals under the rule.

As to individuals in community custody, the final rule considers inmates
to be those individuals who are incarcerated in or otherwise confined to
a correctional institution. Thus, to the extent that community custody
confines an individual to a particular facility, \' 164.512(k)(5) is
applicable.

***Psychotherapy notes*.**

*Comment:* Some commenters thought the definition of psychotherapy notes
was contrary to standard practice. They claimed that reports of
psychotherapy are typically part of the medical record and that
psychologists are advised, for ethical reasons and liability risk
management purposes, not to keep two separate sets of notes. Others
acknowledged that therapists may maintain separate notations of therapy
sessions for their own purpose. These commenters asked that we make
clear that psychotherapy notes, at least in summary form, should be
included in the medical record. Many plans and providers expressed
concern that the proposed definition would encourage the creation of
Ashadow@ records which may be dangerous to the patient and may increase
liability for the health care providers. Some commenters claimed that
psychotherapy notes contain information that is often essential to
treatment.

*Response:* We conducted fact‑finding with providers and other
knowledgeable parties to determine the standard practice of
psychotherapists and determined that only some psychotherapists keep
separate files with notes pertaining to psychotherapy sessions. These
notes are often referred to as Aprocess notes,@ distinguishable from
Aprogress notes,@ \"the medical record,\" or Aofficial records.@ These
process notes capture the therapist=s impressions about the patient,
contain details of the psychotherapy conversation considered to be
inappropriate for the medical record, and are used by the provider for
future sessions. We were told that process notes are often kept separate
to limit access, even in an electronic record system, because they
contain sensitive information relevant to no one other than the treating
provider. These separate \"process notes\" are what we are calling
\"psychotherapy notes.\" Summary information, such as the current state
of the patient, symptoms, summary of the theme of the psychotherapy
session, diagnoses, medications prescribed, side effects, and any other
information necessary for treatment or payment, is always placed in the
patient\'s medical record. Information from the medical record is
routinely sent to insurers for payment.

*Comment:* Various associations and their constituents asked that the
exceptions for psychotherapy notes be extended to health care
information from other health care providers. These commenters argued
that psychotherapists are not the only providers or even the most likely
providers to discuss sensitive and potentially embarrassing issues, as
treatment and counseling for mental health conditions, drug abuse,
HIV/AIDS, and sexual problems are often provided outside of the
traditional psychiatric settings. One writer stated, AA prudent health
care provider will always assess the past and present psychiatric
medical history and symptoms of a patient.@

Many commenters believed that the psychotherapy notes should include
frequencies of treatment, results of clinical tests, and summary of
diagnosis, functional status, the treatment plan, symptoms, prognosis
and progress to date. They claimed that this information is highly
sensitive and should not be released without the individual=s written
consent, except in cases of emergency. One commenter suggested listing
the types of mental health information that can be requested by third
party payors to make payment determinations and defining the meaning of
each term.

*Response:* As discussed above and in the NPRM, the rationale for
providing special protection for psychotherapy notes is not only that
they contain particularly sensitive information, but also that they are
the personal notes of the therapist, intended to help him or her recall
the therapy discussion and are of little or no use to others not
involved in the therapy. Information in these notes is not intended to
communicate to, or even be seen by, persons other than the therapist.
Although all psychotherapy information may be considered sensitive, we
have limited the definition of psychotherapy notes to only that
information that is kept separate by the provider for his or her own
purposes. It does not refer to the medical record and other sources of
information that would normally be disclosed for treatment, payment, and
health care operations.

*Comment:* One commenter was particularly concerned that the use of the
term Acounseling@ in the definition of psychotherapy notes would lead to
confusion because counseling and psychotherapy are different
disciplines.

*Response:* In the final rule, we continue to use the term
\"counseling\" in the definition of Apsychotherapy.@ During our
fact‑finding, we learned that Acounseling@ had no commonly agreed upon
definition, but seemed to be widely understood in practice. We do not
intend to limit the practice of psychotherapy to any specific
professional disciplines.

*Comment:* One commenter noted that the public mental health system is
increasingly being called upon to integrate and coordinate services
among other providers of mental health services and they have developed
an integrated electronic medical record system for state-operated
hospitals, part of which includes psychotherapy notes, and which cannot
be easily modified to provide different levels of confidentiality.
Another commenter recommended allowing use or disclosure of
psychotherapy notes by members of an integrated health care facility as
well as the originator.

*Response:* The final rule makes it clear that any notes that are
routinely shared with others, whether as part of the medical record or
otherwise, are, by definition, not psychotherapy notes, as we have
defined them. To qualify for the definition and the increased
protection, the notes must be created and maintained for the use of the
provider who created them i.e., the originator, and must not be the only
source of any information that would be critical for the treatment of
the patient or for getting payment for the treatment. The types of notes
described in the comment would not meet our definition for psychotherapy
notes.

*Comment:* Many providers expressed concern that if psychotherapy notes
were maintained separately from other protected health information,
other health providers involved in the individual=s care would be unable
to treat the patient properly. Some recommended that if the patient does
not consent to sharing of psychotherapy notes for treatment purposes,
the treating provider should be allowed to decline to treat the patient,
providing a referral to another provider.

*Response:* The final rule retains the policy that psychotherapy notes
be separated from the remainder of the medical record in order to
receive additional protection. We based this decision on conversations
with mental health providers who have told us that information that is
critical to the treatment of individuals is normally maintained in the
medical record and that psychotherapy notes are used by the provider who
created them and rarely for other purposes. A strong part of the
rationale for the special treatment of psychotherapy notes is that they
are the personal notes of the treating provider and are of little or no
use to others who were not present at the session to which the notes
refer.

*Comment*: Several commenters requested that we clarify that the
information contained in psychotherapy notes is being protected under
the rule and not the notes themselves. They were concerned that the
protection for psychotherapy notes would not be meaningful if health
plans could demand the same information in a different format.

*Response:* This rule provides special protection for the information in
psychotherapy notes, but it does not extend that protection to the same
information that may be found in other locations. We do not require the
notes to be in a particular format, such as hand-written. They may be
typed into a word processor, for example. Copying the notes into a
different format, per se, would not allow the information to be accessed
by a health plan. However, the requirement that psychotherapy notes be
kept separate from the medical record and solely for the use of the
provider who created them means that the special protection does not
apply to the same information in another location.

***Public health authority*.**

*Comment:* A number of the comments called for the elimination of all
permissible disclosures without authorization, and some specifically
cited the public health section and its liberal definition of public
health authority as an inappropriately broad loophole that would allow
unfettered access to private medical information by various government
authorities.

Other commenters generally supported the provision allowing disclosure
to public health authorities and to non-governmental entities authorized
by law to carry out public health activities. They further supported the
broad definition of public health authority and the reliance on broad
legal or regulatory authority by public health entities although
explicit authorities were preferable and better informed the public.
*Response:* In response to comments arguing that the provision is too
broad, we note that section 1178(b) of the Act, as explained in the
NPRM, explicitly carves out protection for state public health laws.
This provision states that: A\[N\]othing in this part shall be construed
to invalidate or limit the authority, power, or procedures established
under any law providing for the reporting of disease or injury, child
abuse, birth or death, public health surveillance, or public health
investigation or intervention.@ In light of this broad Congressional
mandate not to interfere with current public health practices, we
believe the broad definition of Apublic health authority is appropriate
to achieve that end.

*Comment:* Some commenters said that they performed public health
activities in analyzing data and information. These comments suggested
that activities conducted by provider and health plan organizations that
compile and compare data for benchmarking performance, monitoring,
utilization, and determining the health needs of a given market should
be included as part of the public health exemption. One commenter
recommended amending the regulation to permit covered entities to
disclose protected health information to private organizations for
public health reasons.

*Response:* We disagree that such a change should be made. In the
absence of some nexus to a government public health authority or other
underlying legal authority, covered entities would have no basis for
determining which data collections are Alegitimate@ and how the
confidentiality of the information will be protected. In addition, the
public health functions carved out for special protection by Congress
are explicitly limited to those established by law.

*Comment:* Two commenters asked for additional clarification as to
whether the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the
Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) would be considered public
health authorities as indicated in the preamble. They suggested specific
language for the final rule. Commenters also suggested that we specify
that states operating OSHA-approved programs also are considered public
health authorities. One comment applauded the Secretary=s recognition of
OSHA as both a health oversight agency and public health authority. It
suggested adding OSHA-approved programs that operate in states to the
list of entities included in these categories. In addition, the comment
requested the final regulation specifically mention these entities in
the text of the regulation as well.

*Response:* We agree that OSHA, MSHA and their state equivalents are
public health authorities when carrying out their activities related to
the health and safety of workers. We do not specifically reference any
agencies in the regulatory definition, because the definition of public
health authority and this preamble sufficiently address this issue. As
defined in the final rule, the definition of Apublic health authority@
at \' 164.501 continues to include OSHA as a public health authority.
State agencies or authorities responsible for public health matters as
part of their official mandate, such as OSHA-approved programs, also
come within this definition. *See* discussion of \' 164.512(b) below. We
have refrained, however, from listing specific agencies and have
retained a general descriptive definition.

*Comments:* Several commenters recommended expanding the definition of
public health authority to encompass other governmental entities that
may collect and hold health data as part of their official duties. One
recommended changing the definition of public health authority to read
as follows: *public health authority means an agency or authority\...
that is responsible for public health matters or the collection of
health data as part of its official mandate*.

*Response*: We do not adopt this recommendation. The public health
provision is not intended to cover agencies that are not responsible for
public health matters but that may in the course of their
responsibilities collect health-related information. Disclosures to such
authorities may be permissible under other provision of this rule.

*Comment:* Many commenters asked us to include a formal definition of
Arequired by law@ incorporating the material noted in this preamble and
additional suggested disclosures.

*Response:* We agree generally and modify the definition accordingly.
See discussion above.

***Research.***

*Comment:* We received many comments from supporting the proposed
definition of Aresearch.@ These commenters agreed that the definition of
Aresearch@ should be the same as the definition in the Common Rule.
These commenters argued that it was important that the definition of
Aresearch@ be consistent with the Common Rule=s definition to ensure the
coherent oversight of medical research. In addition, some of these
commenters also supported this definition because they believed it was
already well-understood by researchers and provided reasonably clear
guidance needed to distinguish between research and health care
operations.

Some commenters, believed that the NPRM=s definition was too narrow.
Several of these commenters agreed that the Common Rule=s definition
should be adopted in the final rule, but argued that the proposed
definition of Ageneralizable knowledge@ within the definition of
Aresearch,@ which limited generalizable knowledge to knowledge that is
Arelated to health,@ was too narrow. For example, one commenter stated
that gun shot wound, spousal abuse, and other kinds of information from
emergency room statistics are often used to conduct research with
ramifications for social policy, but may not be Arelated to health.@
Several of these commenters recommended that the definition of research
be revised to delete the words Arelated to health.@ Additional
commenters who argued that the definition was too narrow raised the
following concerns: the difference between Aresearch@ and Ahealth care
operations@ is irrelevant from the patients= perspective, and therefore,
the proposed rule should have required documentation of approval by an
IRB or privacy board before protected health information could be used
or disclosed for either of these purposes, and the proposed definition
was too limited because it did not capture research conducted by
non-profit entities to ensure public health goals, such as
disease-specific registries.

Commenters who argued that the definition was too broad recommended that
certain activities should be explicitly excluded from the definition. In
general, these commenters were concerned that if certain activities were
considered to be Aresearch@ the rule=s research requirements would
represent a problematic level of regulation on industry initiatives.
Some activities that these commenters recommended be explicitly excluded
from the definition of Aresearch@ included: marketing research, health
and productivity management, quality assessment and improvement
activities, and internal research conducted to improve health.

*Response:* We agree that the final rule=s definition of Aresearch@
should be consistent with the Common Rule=s definition of this term. We
also agree that our proposal to limit Ageneralizable knowledge@ to
knowledge that is Arelated to health,@ and Aknowledge that could be
applied to populations outside of the population served by the covered
entity,@ was too narrow. Therefore, in the final rule, we retain the
Common Rule=s definition of Aresearch@and eliminate the further
elaboration of Ageneralizable knowledge.@ We understand knowledge to be
generalizable when it can be applied to either a population inside or
outside of the population served by the covered entity. Therefore,
knowledge may be Ageneralizable@ even if a research study uses only the
protected health information held within a covered entity, and the
results are generalizable only to the population served by the covered
entity. For example, generalizable knowledge could be generated from a
study conducted by the HCFA, using only Medicare data held by HCFA, even
if the knowledge gained from the research study is applicable only to
Medicare beneficiaries.

We rejected the other arguments claiming that the definition of
Aresearch@was either too narrow or too broad. While we agree that it is
sometimes difficult to distinguish between Aresearch@ and Ahealth care
operations,@ we disagree that the difference between these activities is
irrelevant from the patients= perspective. We believe, based on many of
the comments, that individuals expect that individually identifiable
health information about themselves will be used for health care
operations such as reviewing the competence or qualifications of health
care professionals, evaluating provider and plan performance, and
improving the quality of care. A large number of commenters, however,
indicated that they did not expect that individually identifiable health
information about themselves would be used for research purposes without
their authorization. Therefore, we retain more stringent protections for
research disclosures without patient authorization.

We also disagree with the commenters who were concerned that the
proposed definition was too limited because it did not capture research
conducted by non-profit entities to ensure public health goals, such as
disease-specific registries. Such activities conducted by either
non-profit or for-profit entities could meet the rule=s definition of
research, and therefore are not necessarily excluded from this
definition.

We also disagree with many of the commenters who argued that certain
activities should be explicitly excluded from the definition of
research. We found no persuasive evidence that, when particular
activities are also systematic investigations designed to contribute to
generalizable knowledge, they should be treated any different from other
such activities.

We are aware that the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) is
currently assessing the Common Rule=s definition of Aresearch@ as part
of a report they are developing on the implementation and adequacy of
the Common Rule. Since we agree that a consistent definition is
important to the conduct and oversight of research, if the Common Rule=s
definition of Aresearch@ is modified in the future, the Department of
Health and Human Services will consider whether the definition should
also be modified for this subpart.

*Comment:* Some commenters urged the Department to establish precise
definitions for Ahealth care operations@ and Aresearch@ to provide clear
guidance to covered entities and adequate privacy protections for the
subjects of the information whose information is disclosed for these
purposes. One commenter supported the definition of Aresearch@ proposed
in the NPRM, but was concerned about the Acrossover@ from data analyses
that begin as health care operations but later become Aresearch@ because
the analytical results are of such importance that they should be shared
through publication, thereby contributing to generalizable knowledge. To
distinguish between the definitions of Ahealth care operations@ and
Aresearch,@ a few commenters recommended that the rule make this
distinction based upon whether the activity is a Ause@ or a
Adisclosure.@ These commenters recommend that the Ause@ of protected
health information for research without patient authorization should be
exempt from the proposed research provisions provided that protected
health information was not disclosed in the final analysis, report, or
publication.

*Response:* We agree with commenters that at times it may be difficult
to distinguish projects that are health operations and projects that are
research. We note that this ambiguity exists today, and disagree that we
can address this issue with more precise definitions of research and
health care operations. Today, the issue is largely one of intent. Under
the Common Rule, the ethical and regulatory obligations of the
researcher stem from the intent of the activity. We follow that approach
here. If such a project is a systematic investigation that designed to
develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge, it is considered to be
Aresearch,@ not Ahealth care operations.@

In some instances, the primary purpose of the activity may change as
preliminary results are analyzed. An activity that was initiated as an
internal outcomes evaluation may produce information that could be
generalized. If the purpose of a study changes and the covered entity
does intend to generalize the results, the covered entity should
document the fact as evidence that the activity was not subject to \'
164.512(i) of this rule.

We understand that for research that is subject to the Common Rule, this
is not the case. The Office for Human Research Protection interprets 45
CFR 46 to require IRB review as soon as an activity meets the definition
of research, regardless of whether the activity began as Ahealth care
operations@ or Apublic health,@ for example. The final rule does not
affect the Office of Human Research Protection=s interpretation of the
Common Rule.

We were not persuaded that an individual=s privacy interest is of less
concern when covered entities use protected health information for
research purposes than when covered entities disclose protected health
information for research purposes. We do not agree generally that
internal activities of covered entities do not potentially compromise
the privacy interests of individuals. Many persons within a covered
entity may have access to protected health information. When the
activity is a systematic investigation, the number of persons who may be
involved in the records review and analysis may be substantial. We
believe that IRB or privacy board approval of the waiver of
authorization will provide important privacy protections to individuals
about whom protected health information is used or disclosed for
research. If a covered entity wishes to use protected health information
about its enrollees for research purposes, documentation of an IRBs= or
privacy board=s assessment of the privacy impact of such a use is as
important as if the same research study required the disclosure of
protected health information. This conclusion is consistent with the
Common Rule=s requirement for IRB review of all human subjects research.

***Treatment.***

*Comment:* Some commenters advocated for a narrow interpretation of
treatment that applies only to the individual who is the subject of the
information. Other commenters asserted that treatment should be broadly
defined when activities are conducted by health care providers to
improve or maintain the health of the patient. A broad interpretation
may raise concerns about potential misuse of information, but too
limited an interpretation will limit beneficial activities and further
contribute to problems in patient compliance and medical errors.

*Response:* We find the commenters= arguments for a broad definition of
treatment persuasive. Today, health care providers consult with one
another, share information about their experience with particular
therapies, seek advise about how to handle unique or challenging cases,
and engage in a variety of other discussions that help them maintain and
improve the quality of care they provide. Quality of care improves when
providers exchange information about treatment successes and failures.
These activities require sharing of protected health information. We do
not intend this rule to interfere with these important activities. We
therefore define treatment broadly and allow use and disclosure of
protected health information about one individual for the treatment of
another individual.

Under this definition, only health care providers or a health care
provider working with a third party can perform treatment activities. In
this way, we temper the breadth of the definition by limiting the scope
of information sharing. The various codes of professional ethics also
help assure that information sharing among providers for treatment
purposes will be appropriate.

We note that poison control centers are health care providers for
purposes of this rule. We consider the counseling and follow-up
consultations provided by poison control centers with individual
providers regarding patient outcomes to be treatment. Therefore, poison
control centers and other health care providers can share protected
health information about the treatment of an individual without a
business associate contract.

*Comment:* Many commenters suggested that Atreatment@ activities should
include services provided to both a specific individual and larger
patient populations and therefore urged that the definition of treatment
specifically allow for such activities, sometimes referred to as
Adisease management@ activities. Some argued that an analysis of an
overall population is integral to determining which individuals would
benefit from disease management services. Thus, an analysis of health
care claims for enrolled populations enables proactive contact with
those identified individuals to notify them of the availability of
services. Certain commenters noted that Adisease management@ services
provided to their patient populations, such as reminders about
recommended tests based on nationally accepted clinical guidelines, are
integral components of quality health care.

*Response:* We do not agree that population based services should be
considered treatment activities. The definition of Atreatment@ is
closely linked to the \' 160.103 definition of Ahealth care,@ which
describes care, services and procedures related to the health of an
individual. The activities described by Atreatment,@ therefore, all
involve health care providers supplying health care to a particular
patient. While many activities beneficial to patients are offered to
entire populations or involve examining health information about entire
populations, treatment involves health services provided by a health
care provider and tailored to the specific needs of an individual
patient. Although a population-wide analysis or intervention may prompt
a health care provider to offer specific treatment to an individual, we
consider the population-based analyses to improve health care or reduce
health care costs to be health care operations (see definition of
Ahealth care operations,@ above).

*Comment:* A number of commenters requested clarification about whether
prescription drug compliance management programs would be considered
Atreatment.@ One commenter urged HHS to clarify that provision by a
pharmacy to a patient of customized prescription drug information about
the risks, benefits, and conditions of use of a prescription drug being
dispensed is considered a treatment activity. Others asked that the
final rule expressly recognize that prescription drug advice provided by
a dispensing pharmacist, such as a customized pharmacy letter, is within
the scope of treatment.

*Response:* The activities that are part of prescription drug compliance
management programs were not fully described by these commenters, so we
cannot state a general rule regarding whether such activities constitute
treatment. We agree that pharmacists= provision of

customized prescription drug information and advice about the
prescription drug being dispensed is a treatment activity. Pharmacists=
provisions of information and counseling about pharmaceuticals to their
customers constitute treatment, and we exclude certain communications
made in the treatment context from the definition of marketing. (See
discussion above.)

*Comment:* Some commenters noted the issues and recommendations raised
in the Institutes of Medicine report \>To Err Is Human= and the critical
need to share information about adverse drug and other medical events,
evaluation of the information, and its use to prevent future medical
errors. They noted that privacy rules should not be so stringent as to
prohibit the sharing of patient data needed to reduce errors and
optimize health care outcomes. To bolster the notion that other programs
associated with the practice of pharmacy must be considered as integral
to the definition of health care and treatment, they reference OBRA \>90
(42 U.S.C. 1396r-8) and the minimum required activities for dispensing
drugs; they also note that virtually every state Board of Pharmacy
adopted regulations imposing OBRA=90 requirements on pharmacies for all
patients and not just Medicaid recipients.

*Response:* We agree that reducing medical errors is critical, and do
not believe that this regulation impairs efforts to reduce medical
errors. We define treatment broadly and include quality assessment and
improvement activities in the definition of health care operations.
Covered pharmacies may conduct such activities, as well as treatment
activities appropriate to improve quality and reduce errors. We believe
that respect for the privacy rights of individuals and appropriate
protection of the confidentiality of their health information are
compatible with the goal of reducing medical errors.

*Comment:* Some commenters urged us to clarify that health plans do not
perform Atreatment@ activities; some of these were concerned that a
different approach in this regulation could cause conflict with state
corporate practice of medicine restrictions. Some commenters believed
that the proposed definition of treatment crossed into the area of cost
containment, which would seem to pertain more directly to payment. They
supported a narrower definition that would eliminate any references to
third party payors. One commenter argued that the permissible disclosure
of protected health information to carry out treatment is too broad for
health plans and that health plans that have no responsibility for
treatment or care coordination should have no authority to release
health information without authorization for treatment purposes.

*Response:* We do not consider the activities of third party payors,
including health plans, to be Atreatment.@ Only health care providers,
not health plans, conduct Atreatment@ for purposes of this rule. A
health plan may, however, disclose protected health information without
consent or authorization for treatment purposes if that disclosure is
made to a provider. Health plans may have information the provider
needs, for example information from other providers or information about
the patient=s treatment history, to develop an appropriate plan of care.

*Comment:* We received many comments relating to Adisease management@
programs and whether activities described as disease management should
be included in the definition of treatment. One group of commenters
supported the proposed definition of treatment that includes disease
management. One commenter offered the position that disease management
services are more closely aligned with treatment because they involve
the coordination of treatment whereas health care operations are more
akin to financial and ministerial functions of plans.

Some recommended that the definition of treatment be limited to direct
treatment of individual patients and not allow for sharing of
information for administrative or other programmatic reasons. They
believed that allowing disclosures for disease management opens a
loophole for certain uses and disclosures, such as marketing, that
should only be permitted with authorization. Others recommended that the
definition of disease management be restricted to prevent unauthorized
use of individual health records to target individuals in a health plan
or occupational health program. Many asked that the definition of
disease management be clarified to identify those functions that,
although some might consider them to be subsumed by the term, are not
permitted under this regulation without authorization, such as marketing
and disclosures of protected health information to employers. They
suggested that disease management may describe desirable activities, but
is subject to abuse and therefore should be restricted and controlled.
One commenter recommends that we adopt a portion of the definition
adopted by the Disease Management Association of America in October
1999.

On the other hand, many comments urged that disease management be part
of the Atreatment@ definition or the Ahealth care operations@ definition
and asked that specific activities be included in a description of the
term. They viewed disease management as important element of
comprehensive health care services and cost management efforts. They
recommended that the definition of disease management include services
directed at an entire population and not just individual care, in order
to identify individuals who would benefit from services based on
accepted clinical guidelines. They recommended that disease management
be included under health care operations and include population level
services. A commenter asserted that limiting disease management programs
to the definition of treatment ignores that these programs extend beyond
providers, especially since NCQA accreditation standards strongly
encourage plans and insurers to provide these services.

*Response:* Disease management appeared to represent different
activities to different commenters. Our review of the literature,
industry materials, state and federal statutes,[^6]and discussions with
physician groups, health plan groups and disease management associations
confirm that a consensus definition from the field has not yet evolved,
although efforts are underway. Therefore, rather than rely on this
label, we delete Adisease management@ from the treatment definition and
instead include the functions often discussed as disease management
activities in this definition or in the definition of health care
operations and modify both definitions to address the commenters=
concerns.

We add population-based activities to improve health care or reduce
health care costs to the definition of health care operations. Outreach
programs as described by the commenter may be considered either health
care operations or treatment, depending on whether population-wide or
patient-specific activities occur, and if patient-specific, whether the
individualized communication with a patient occurs on behalf of health
care provider or a health plan. For example, a call placed by a nurse in
a doctor=s office to a patient to discuss follow-up care is a treatment
activity. The same activity performed by a nurse working for a health
plan would be a health care operation. In both cases, the database
analysis that created a list of patients that would benefit from the
intervention would be a health care operation. Use or disclosure of
protected health information to provide education materials to patients
may similarly be either treatment or operations, depending on the
circumstances and on who is sending the materials. We cannot say in the
abstract whether any such activities constitute marketing under this
rule. See \'\' 164.501 and 164.514 for details on what communications
are marketing and when the authorization of the individual may be
required.

*Comment:* Many commenters were concerned that the definition of
treatment would not permit Third Party Administrators (TPAs) to be
involved with disease management programs without obtaining
authorization. They asserted that while the proposed definition of
treatment included disease management conducted by health care providers
it did not recognize the role of employers and TPAs in the current
disease management process.

*Response:*. Covered entities disclose protected health information to
other persons, including TPAs, that they hire to perform services for
them or on their behalf. If a covered entity hires a TPA to perform the
disease management activities included in the rule=s definitions of
treatment and health care operations that disclosure will not require
authorization. The relationship between the covered entity and the TPA
may be subject to the business associate requirements of \'\' 164.502
and 164.504. Disclosures by covered entities to plan sponsors, including
employers, for the purpose of plan administration are addressed in \'
164.504.

*Comment:* Commenters suggested that as disease management is defined
only as an element of treatment, it could only be carried out by health
care providers, and not health plans. They opposed this approach because
health plans also conduct such programs, and are indeed required to do
it by accreditation standards and HCFA Managed Care Organization
standards.

*Response:* We agree that the placement of disease management in the
proposed definition of treatment suggested that health plans could not
conduct such programs. We revise the final rule to clarify that health
plans may conduct population based care management programs as a health
care operation activity.

*Comment:* Some commenters stated that the rule should require that
disease management only be done with the approval of the treating
physician or at least with the knowledge of the physician.

*Response:* We disagree with this comment because we do not believe that
this privacy rule is an appropriate venue for setting policies regarding
the management of health care costs or treatment.

*Comment:* Some industry groups stated that if an activity involves
selling products, it is not disease management. They asked for a
definition that differentiates use of information for the best interests
of patient from uses undertaken for \"ulterior purposes\" such as
advertising, marketing, or promoting separate products.

*Response:* We eliminate the definition of \>disease management= from
the rule. Often however, treatment decisions involve discussing the
relevant advantages and disadvantages if products and services. Health
plans, as part of payment and operations, sometimes communicate with
individuals about particular products and services. We address these
distinctions in the definitions of marketing and Ahealth care
operations@ in \' 164.501, and in the requirements for use and
disclosure of protected health information for marketing in \' 164.514.

*Comment:* Some health care providers noted that there is a danger that
employers will \"force\" individual employees with targeted conditions
into self-care or compliance programs in ways that violate both the
employee\'s privacy interest and his or her right to control own medical
care.

*Response:* Employers are not covered entities under HIPAA, so we cannot
prohibit them under this rule from undertaking these or other activities
with respect to health information. In \' 164.504 we limit disclosure of
health information from group health plans to the employers sponsoring
the plans. However, other federal and/or state laws, such as disability
nondiscrimination laws, may govern the rights of employees under such
circumstances.

*Comment:* Many commenters urged that disease management only be allowed
with the written consent of the individual. Others also desired consent
but suggested that an opt-out would be sufficient. Other commenters
complained that the absence of a definition for disease management
created uncertainty in view of the proposed rule=s requirement to get
authorization for marketing. They were concerned that the effect would
be to require patient consent for many activities that are desirable,
not practicably done if authorization is required, and otherwise
classifiable as treatment, payment, or health care operations. Examples
provided include reminders for appointments, reminders to get preventive
services like mammograms, and information about home management of
chronic illnesses.

*Response:* We agree with the commenters who stated that the requirement
for specific authorization for certain activities considered part of
disease management could impede the ability of health plans and covered
providers to implement effective health care management and cost
containment programs. In addition, this approach would require us to
distinguish activities undertaken as part of a formal disease management
program from the same activities undertaken outside the context of
disease management program. For example, we see no clear benefit to
privacy in requiring written authorization before a physician may call a
patient to discuss treatment options in all cases, nor do we see a sound
basis for requiring it only when the physician was following a formal
protocol as part of a population based intervention. We also are not
persuaded that the risk to privacy for these activities warrants a
higher degree of protection than do other payment, health care
operations or treatment activities for which specific authorization was
not suggested by commenters.

*Comment:* A few commenters asked that we clarify that disclosure of
protected health information about a prospective patient to a health
care provider (e.g., a possible admission to an assisted living facility
from a nursing facility) is a treatment activity that does not require
authorization.

*Response:* We agree that the described activity is Atreatment,@ because
it constitutes referral and coordination of health care.

*Comment:* Comments called for the removal of Aother services@ from the
definition.

*Response:* We disagree with the concept that only health care services
are appropriately included in the treatment definition. We have modified
this definition to instead include Athe provision, coordination, or
management of health care and related services.@ This definition allows
health care providers to offer or coordinate social, rehabilitative, or
other services that are associated with the provision of health care.
Our use of the term Arelated@ prevents Atreatment@ from applying to the
provision of services unrelated to health care.

*Comment:* Several commenters stated that the definition of treatment
should include organ and tissue recovery activities. They asserted that
the information exchanged and collected to request consent, evaluate
medical information about a potential donor and perform organ recoveries
relates to treatment and are not administrative activities. When
hospitals place a patient on the UNOS list it is transferring
individually identifiable health information. Also, when an organ
procurement organization registers a donor with UNOS it could be
disclosing protected health information. Commenters questioned whether
these activities would be administrative or constitute treatment.

*Response:* In the proposed rule we included in the definition of
Ahealth care@ activities related to the procurement or organs, blood,
eyes and other tissues. This final rule deletes those activities from
the definition of Ahealth care.@ We do so because, while organ and
tissue procurement organizations are integral components of the health
care system, we do not believe that the testing, procurement, and other
procedures they undertake describe Ahealth care@ offered to the donors
of the tissues or organs themselves. See the discussion under the
definition of Ahealth care@ in \' 160.103.

*Comment:* Some commenters recommended including health promotion
activities in the definition of health care.

*Response:* We consider health promotion activities to be preventive
care, and thus within the definition of health care. In addition, such
activities that are population based are included in the definition of
health care operations.

*Comment:* We received a range of comments regarding the proper
placement of case and disease management in the definitions and the
perceived overlap between health care operations and treatment. Some
consider that these activities are a function of improving quality and
controlling costs. Thus, they recommend that the Secretary move risk
assessment, case and disease management to the definition of health care
operations.

*Response:* In response to these comments, we remove these terms from
the definition of treatment and add case management to the definition of
health care operations. We explain our treatment of disease management
in responses to comments above. Whether an activity described as disease
or case management falls under treatment or health care operations would
depend in part on whether the activity is focused on a particular
individual or a population. A single program described as a Acase
management@ effort may include both health care operations activities
(e.g., records analysis, protocol development, general risk assessment)
and treatment activities (e.g., particular services provided to or
coordinated for an individual, even if applying a standardized treatment
protocol).

*Comment:* We received comments that argued for the inclusion of
Adisability management@ in the treatment definition. They explained that
through disability management, health care providers refer and
coordinate medical management and they require contemporaneous exchange
of an employee=s specific medical data for the provider to properly
manage.

*Response:* To the extent that a covered provider is coordinating health
care services, the provider is providing treatment. We do not include
the term Adisability management@ because the scope of the activities
covered by that term is not clear. In addition, the commenters did not
provide enough information for us to make a fact-based determination of
how this rule applies to the uses and disclosures of protected health
information that are made in a particular Adisability management@
program.

***Use*.**

*Comment*: One commenter asserted that the scope of the proposal had
gone beyond the intent of Congress in addressing uses of information
within the covered entity, as opposed to transactions and disclosures
outside the covered entity. This commenter argued that, although HIPAA
mentions use, it is unclear that the word Ause@ in the proposed rule is
what Congress intended. The commenter pointed to the legislative history
to argue that Ause@ is related to an information exchange outside of the
entity.

*Response*: We disagree with the commenter regarding the Congress=
intent. Section 264 of HIPAA requires that the Secretary develop and
send to Congress recommendations on standards with respect to the
privacy of individually identifiable health information (which she did
on September 11, 1997) and prescribes that the recommendations address
among other items Athe uses and disclosures of such information that
should be authorized or required.@ Section 264 explicitly requires the
Secretary to promulgate standards that address at least the subjects
described in these recommendations. It is therefore our interpretation
that Congress intended to cover Auses@ as well as disclosures of
individually identifiable health information. We find nothing in the
legislative history to indicate that Congress intended to deviate from
the common meaning of the term Ause.@

*Comment*: One commenter observed that the definition could encompass
the processing of data by computers to execute queries. It was argued
that this would be highly problematic because computers are routinely
used to identify subsets of data sets. It was explained that in
performing this function, computers examine each record in the data set
and return only those records in the data set that meet specific
criteria. Consequently, a human being will see only the subset of data
that the computer returns. Thus, the commenter stated that it is only
this subset that could be used or disclosed.

*Response*: We interpret Ause@ to mean only the uses of the product of
the computer processing, not the internal computer processing that
generates the product.

*Comments:* Some commenters asked that the Department clarify that
individualized medical information obtained through a fitness for duty
examination is not subject to the privacy protections under the
regulation.

*Response:* As discussed above, we have clarified that the definition of
Atreatment@ to include assessments of an individual. If the assessment
is performed by a covered health care provider, the health information
resulting from the assessment is protected health information. We note
that a covered entity is permitted to condition the provision of health
care when the sole purpose is to create protected health information for
the benefit of a third person. See \' 164.508(b). For example, a covered
health care provider may condition the provision of a fitness for duty
examination to an individual on obtaining an authorization from the
individual for disclosure to the employer who has requested the
examination.

**SECTION 164.502 - USES AND DISCLOSURES OF PROTECTED HEALTH
INFORMATION: GENERAL RULES**

**Section 164.502(a) B General Standard**

*Comment:* A few commenters requested an exemption from the rule for the
Social Security and Supplemental Security Income Disability Programs so
that disability claimants can be served in a fair and timely manner. The
commenters were concerned that the proposal would be narrowly
interpreted, thereby impeding the release of medical records for the
purposes of Social Security disability programs.

Another commenter similarly asked that a special provision be added to
the proposal=s general rule for uses and disclosures without
authorization for treatment, payment, and health care operations
purposes to authorize disclosure of all medical information from all
sources to the Social Security Administration, including their
contracted state agencies handling disability determinations.

*Response:* A complete exemption for disclosures for these programs is
not necessary. Under current practice, the Social Security
Administration obtains authorization from applicants for providers to
release an individual=s records to SSA for disability and other
determinations. Thus, there is no reason to believe that an exemption
from the authorization required by this rule is needed to allow these
programs to function effectively. Further, such an exemption would
reduce privacy protections from current levels. When this rule goes into
effect, those authorizations will need to meet the requirements for
authorization under \' 164.508 of this rule.

We do, however, modify other provisions of the proposed rule to
accommodate the special requirements of these programs. In particular,
Social Security Disability and other federal programs, and public
benefits programs run by the states, are authorized by law to share
information for eligibility purposes. Where another public body has
determined that the appropriate balance between need for efficient
administration of public programs and public funds and individuals=
privacy interests is to allow information sharing for these limited
purposes, we do not upset that determination. Where the sharing of
enrollment and eligibility information is required or expressly
authorized by law, this rule permits such sharing of information for
eligibility and enrollment purposes (see \' 164.512(k)(6)(i)), and also
excepts these arrangements from the requirements for business associate
agreements (see \' 164.502(e)(1)).

*Comment:* A few commenters asked that the rule be revised to authorize
disclosures to clergy, for directory purposes, to organ and tissue
procurement organizations, and to the American Red Cross without patient
authorization.

*Response:* We agree and revise the final rule accordingly. The new
policies and the rationale for these policies are found in \'\' 164.510
and 164.512, and the corresponding preamble.

*Comment*: One commenter recommended that the rule apply only to the
Adisclosure@ of protected health information by covered entities, rather
than to both Ause@ and Adisclosure.@ The commenter stated that the
application of the regulation to a covered entity=s use of individually
identifiable health information offers little benefit in terms of
protecting protected health information, yet imposes costs and may
hamper many legitimate activities, that fall outside the definition of
treatment, payment or health care operations.

Another commenter similarly urged that the final regulation draw
substantive distinctions between restrictions on the Ause@ of
individually identifiable health information and on the Adisclosure@ of
such information, with broader latitude for Auses@ of such information.
The commenter believed that internal Auses@ of such information
generally do not raise the same issues and concerns that a disclosure of
that information might raise. It was argued that any concerns about the
potential breadth of use of this information could be addressed through
application of the Aminimum necessary@ standard. The commenter also
argued that Congressional intent was that a Adisclosure@ of individually
identifiable health information is potentially much more significant
than a Ause@ of that information.

*Response*: We do not accept the commenter=s broad recommendation to
apply the regulation only to the Adisclosure@ of protected health
information and not to Ause@ of such information. Section 264 charges
the Secretary with promulgating standards that address, among other
things, Athe uses and disclosures@ of individually identifiable health
information. We also do not agree that applying the regulation to Ause@
offers little benefit to protecting protected health information. The
potential exists for misuse of protected health information within
entities. This potential is even greater when the covered entity also
provides services or products outside its role as a health care
provider, health plan, or health care clearinghouse for which Ause@ of
protected health information offers economic benefit to the entity. For
example, if this rule did not limit Auses@ generally to treatment,
payment and health care operations, a covered entity that also offered
financial services could be able to use protected health information
without authorization to market or make coverage or rate decisions for
its financial services products. Without the minimum necessary standard
for uses, a hospital would not be constrained from allowing their
appointment scheduling clerks free access to medical records.

We agree, however, that it is appropriate to apply somewhat different
requirements to uses and disclosures of protected health information
permitted by this rule. We therefore modify the application of the
minimum necessary standard to accomplish this. See the preamble to \'
164.514 for a discussion of these changes.

*Comment:* A commenter argued that the development, implementation, and
use of integrated computer-based patient medical record systems, which
requires efficient information sharing, will likely be impeded by
regulatory restrictions on the Ause@ of protected health information and
by the minimum necessary standard.

*Response:* We have modified the proposed approach to regulating Auses@
of protected health information within an entity, and believe our policy
is compatible with the development and implementation of computer-based
medical record systems. In fact, we drew part of the revised policy on
Aminimum necessary@ use of protected health information from the
role-based access approach used in several computer-based records
systems today. These policies are described further in \' 164.514.

*Comment:* One commenter asked that the general rules for uses and
disclosures be amended to permit covered entities to disclose protected
health information for purposes relating to property and casualty
benefits. The commenter argued that the proposal could affect its
ability to obtain protected health information from covered entities,
thereby constricting the flow of medical information needed to
administer property and casualty benefits, particularly in the workers=
compensation context. It was stated that this could seriously impede
property and casualty benefit providers= ability to conduct business in
accordance with state law.

*Response:* We disagree that the rule should be expanded to permit all
uses and disclosures that relate to property and casualty benefits. Such
a broad provision is not in keeping with protecting the privacy of
individuals. Although we generally lack the authority under HIPAA to
regulate the practices of this industry, the final rule addresses when
covered entities may disclose protected health information to property
and casualty insures. We believe that the final rule permits property
and casualty insurers to obtain the protected health information that
they need to maintain their promises to their policyholders. For
example, the rule permits a covered entity to use or disclose protected
health information relating to an individual when authorized by the
individual. Property and casualty insurers are free to obtain
authorizations from individuals for release by covered entities of the
health information that the insurers need to administer claims, and this
rule does not affect their ability to condition payment on obtaining
such an authorization from insured individuals. Property and casualty
insurers providing payment on a third-party basis have an opportunity to
obtain authorization from the individual and to condition payment on
obtaining such authorization. The final rule also permits covered
entities to make disclosures to obtain payment, whether from a health
plan or from another person such as a property and casualty insurer. For
example, where an automobile insurer is paying for medical benefits on a
first-party basis, a health care provider may disclose protected health
information to the insurer as part of a request for payment. We also
include in the final rule a new provision that permits covered entities
to use or disclose protected health information as authorized by
workers= compensation or similar programs established by law addressing
work-related injuries or illness. See \' 164.512(l). These statutory
programs establish channels of information sharing that are necessary to
permit compensation of injured workers.

*Comment*: A few commenters suggested that the Department specify
Aprohibited@ uses and disclosures rather than Apermitted@ uses and
disclosures.

*Response:* We reject these commenters= because we believe that the best
privacy protection in most instances is to require the individual=s
authorization for use or disclosure of information, and that the role of
this rule is to specify those uses and disclosures for which the balance
between the individuals= privacy interest and the public=s interests
dictates a different approach. The opposite approach would require us to
anticipate the much larger set of all possible uses of information that
do not implicate the public=s interest, rather than to specify the
public interests that merit regulatory protection.

*Comment:* A commenter recommended that the rule be revised to more
strongly discourage the use of individually identifiable health
information where de-identified information could be used.

*Response:* We agree that the use of de-identified information wherever
possible is good privacy practice. We believe that by requiring covered
entities to implement these privacy restrictions only with respect to
individually identifiable health information, the final rule strongly
encourages covered entities to use de-identified information as much as
practicable.

*Comment:* One commenter recommended that when information from health
records is provided to authorized external users, this information
should be accompanied by a statement prohibiting use of the information
for other than the stated purpose; prohibiting disclosure by the
recipient to any other party without written authorization from the
patient, or the patient\'s legal representative, unless such information
is urgently needed for the patient\'s continuing care or otherwise
required by law; and requiring destruction of the information after the
stated need has been fulfilled.

*Response:* We agree that restricting other uses or re-disclosure of
protected health information by a third party that may receive the
information for treatment, payment, and health care operations purposes
or other purposes permitted by rule would be ideal with regard to
privacy protection. However, as described elsewhere in this preamble,
once protected health information leaves a covered entity the Department
no longer has jurisdiction under the statute to apply protections to the
information. Since we would have no enforcement authority, the costs and
burdens of requiring covered entities to produce and distribute such a
statement to all recipients of protected heath information, including
those with whom the covered entity has no on-going relationship, would
outweigh any benefits to be gained from such a policy. Similarly, where
protected health information is disclosed for routine treatment, payment
and operations purposes, the sheer volume of these disclosures makes the
burden of providing such a statement unacceptable. Appropriate
protection for these disclosures requires law or regulation directly
applicable to the recipient of the information, not further burden on
the disclosing entity. Where, however, the recipient of protected health
information is providing a service to or on behalf of the covered entity
this balance changes. It is consistent with long-standing legal
principles to hold the covered entity to a higher degree of
responsibility for the actions of its agents and contractors. See \'
164.504 for a discussion of the responsibilities of covered entities for
the actions of their business associates with respect to protected
health information.

**Section 164.502(b) B Minimum Necessary**

Comments on the minimum necessary standard are addressed in the preamble
to \' 164.514(d).

**Section 164.502(c) B Uses or Disclosures of Protected Health
Information Subject to an Agreed Upon Restriction**

Comments on the agreed upon restriction standard are addressed in the
preamble to \' 164.522(a).

**Section 164.502(d) B Uses and Disclosures of De-Identified Protected
Health Information**

Comments on the requirements for de-identifying information are
addressed in the preamble to \' 164.514(a)-(c).

**Section 164.502(e) B Business Associates**

Comments on business associates are addressed in the preamble to \'
164.504(e).

**Section 164.502(f) B Deceased Individuals**

*Comment:* Most commenters on this topic generally did not approve of
the Secretary=s proposal with regard to protected health information
about deceased individuals. The majority of these commenters argued that
our proposal was not sufficiently protective of such information.
Commenters agreed with the statements made in the preamble to the
proposed rule that the privacy concerns addressed by this policy are not
limited to the confidential protection of the deceased individual but
instead also affects the decedent=s family, as genetic information and
information pertinent to hereditary diseases and risk factors for
surviving relatives and direct family members may be disclosed through
the disclosure of the deceased individual=s confidential data. It was
argued that the proposal would be inadequate to protect the survivors
who could be negatively affected and in most cases will outlive the
two-year period of protection. A number of medical associations asserted
that individuals may avoid genetic testing, diagnoses, and treatment and
suppress information important to their health care if they fear family
members will suffer discrimination from the release of their medical
information after their death. One commenter pointed out that ethically
little distinction can be made between protecting an individual=s health
information during life and protecting it post-mortem. Further, it was
argued that the privacy of the deceased individual and his or her family
is far more important than allowing genetic information to be abstracted
by an institutional or commercial collector of information. A few
commenters asked that we provide indefinite protection on the protected
health information about a deceased person contained in psychotherapy
notes. One commenter asked that we extend protections on records of
children who have died of cancer for the lifetime of a deceased child=s
siblings and parents.

The majority of commenters who supported increased protections on the
protected health information about the deceased asked that we extend
protections on such information indefinitely or for as long as the
covered entity maintains the information. It was also argued that the
administrative burden of perpetual protection would be no more
burdensome than it is now as current practice is that the
confidentiality of identifiable patient information continues after
death. A number of others pointed out that there was no reason to set a
different privacy standard for deceased individuals than we had for
living individuals and that it has been standard practice to release the
information of deceased individuals with a valid consent of the
executor, next of kin, or specific court order. In addition, commenters
referenced Hawaii=s health care information privacy law (see Haw. Rev.
Stat. section 323C-43) as at least one example of a state law where the
privacy and access provisions of the law continue to apply to the
protected health information of a deceased individual following the
death of that individual.

*Response:* We find the arguments raised by these commenters persuasive.
We have reconsidered our position and believe these arguments for
maintaining privacy on protected health information without temporal
limitations outweigh any administrative burdens associated with
maintaining such protections. As such, in the final rule we revise our
policy to extend protections on the protected health information about a
deceased individual to remain in effect for as long as the covered
entity maintains the information.

For purposes of this regulation, this means that, except for uses and
disclosures for research purposes (see \' 164.512(i)), covered entities
must under this rule protect the protected health information about a
deceased individual in the same manner and to the same extent as
required for the protected health information of living individuals.
This policy alleviates the burden on the covered entity from having to
determine whether or not the person has died and if so, how long ago,
when determining whether or not the information can be released.

*Comment:* One commenter asked us to delete our standard for deceased
individuals, asserting that the deceased have no constitutional right to
privacy and state laws are sufficient to maintain protections for
protected health information about deceased individuals.

*Response:* We understand that traditional privacy law has historically
stripped privacy protection on information at the time the subject of
the information dies. However, as we pointed out in the preamble to the
proposed rule, the dramatic proliferation of electronic-based
interchanges and maintenance of information has enabled easier and more
ready access to information that once may have been *de facto* protected
for most people because of the difficulty of its collection and
aggregation. It is also our understanding that current state laws vary
widely with regard to the privacy protection of a deceased individual=s
individually identifiable health information. Some are less protective
than others and may not take into account the implications of disclosure
of genetic and hereditary information on living individuals. For these
reasons, a regulatory standard is needed here in order to adequately
protect the privacy interests of those who are living.

*Comment:* Another commenter expressed concern over the administrative
problems that the proposed standard would impose, particularly in the
field of retrospective health research.

*Response:* For certain research purposes, we permit a covered entity to
use and disclose the protected health information of a deceased
individual without authorization by a personal representative and absent
review by an IRB or privacy board. The verification standard (\'
164.514(h)) requires that covered entities obtain an oral or written
representation that the protected health information sought will be used
or disclosed solely for research, and \' 164.512(i)(1)(iii) requires the
covered entity to obtain from the researcher documentation of the death
of the individual. We believe the burden on the covered entity will be
small, because it can reasonably rely on the representation of purpose
and documentation of death presented by the researcher.

*Comment:* A few commenters argued that the standard in the proposed
rule would cause significant administrative burdens on their record
retention and storage policies. Commenters explained that they have
internal policy record-retention guidelines which do not envision the
retention of records beyond a few years. Some commenters complained
about the burden of having to track dates of death, as the commenters
are not routinely notified when an individual has died.

*Response:* The final rule does not dictate any record retention
requirements for the records of deceased individuals. Since we have
modified the NPRM to cover protected health information about deceased
individuals for as long as the covered entity maintains the information,
there will be no need for the covered entity to track dates of death.

*Comment:* A few commenters voiced support for the approach proposed in
the proposal to maintain protections for a period of two years.

*Response:* After consideration of public comments, we chose not to
retain this approach because the two-year period would be both
inadequate and arbitrary. As discussed above, we agree with commenter
arguments in support of providing indefinite protection.

*Comment:* A few commenters expressed concern that the regulations may
be interpreted as providing a right of access to a deceased=s records
only for a two-year period after death. They asked the Department to
clarify that the right of access of an individual, including the
representatives of a deceased individual, exists for the entire period
the information is held by a covered entity.

*Response:* We agree with these comments, given the change in policy
discussed above.

*Comment:* A few commenters suggested that privacy protections on
protected health information about deceased individuals remain in effect
for a specified time period longer than 2 years, arguing that two years
was not long enough to protect the privacy rights of living individuals.
These commenters, however, were not in agreement as to what other period
of protection should be imposed, suggesting various durations from 5 to
20 years.

*Response:* We chose not to extend protections in this way because
specifying another time period would raise many of the same concerns
voiced by the commenters regarding our proposed two year period and
would not reduce the administrative burden of having to track or learn
dates of death. We believe that the policy in this final rule extending
protections for as long as the covered entity maintains the information
addresses commenter concerns regarding the need for increased
protections on the protected health information about the deceased.

*Comment:* Some commenters asserted that information on the decedent
from the death certificate is important for assessment and research
purposes and requested that the Department clarify accordingly that
death certificate data be allowed for use in traditional public health
assessment activities.

*Response:* Nothing in the final rule impedes reporting of death by
covered entities as required or authorized by other laws, or access to
death certificate data to the extent that such data is available
publicly from non-covered entities. Death certificate data maintained by
a covered entity is protected health information and must only be used
or disclosed by a covered entity in accordance with the requirements of
this regulation. However, the final rule permits a covered entity to
disclose protected health information about a deceased individual for
research purposes without authorization and absent IRB or privacy board
approval.

*Comment:* A few commenters asked that we include in the regulation a
mechanism to provide for notification of date of death. These commenters
questioned how a covered entity or business partner would be notified of
a death and subsequently be able to determine whether the two-year
period of protection had expired and if they were permitted to use or
disclose the protected health information about the deceased. One
commenter further stated that absent such a mechanism, a covered entity
would continue to protect the information as if the individual were
still living. This commenter recommended that the burden for providing
notification and confirmation of death be placed on any authorized
entity requesting information from the covered entity beyond the
two-year period.

*Response:* In general, such notification is no longer necessary as,
except for uses and disclosures for research purposes, the final rule
protects the protected health information about a deceased individual
for as long as the covered entity holds the record. With regard to uses
and disclosures for research, the researcher must provide covered
entities with appropriate documentation of proof of death, the burden is
not on the covered entity.

*Comment:* A few commenters pointed to the sensitivity of genetic and
hereditary information and its potential impact on the privacy of living
relatives as a reason for extending protections on the information about
deceased individuals for as long as the covered entity maintains the
information. However, a few commenters recommended additional
protections for genetic and hereditary information. For example, one
commenter suggested that researchers should be able to use sensitive
information of the deceased but then be required to publish findings in
de-identified form. Another commenter recommended that protected health
information about a deceased individual be protected as long as it
implicates health problems that could be developed by living relatives.

*Response:* We agree with many of the commenters regarding the
sensitivity of genetic or hereditary information and, in part for this
reason, extended protections on the protected health information of
deceased individuals. Our reasons for retaining the exception for
research are explained above.

We agree with and support the practice of publishing research findings
in de-identified form. However, we cannot regulate researchers who are
not otherwise covered entities in this regulation.

*Comment:* One commenter asked that the final rule allow for disclosure
of protected health information to funeral directors as necessary for
facilitating funeral and disposition arrangements. The commenter
believed that our proposal could seriously disrupt a family=s ability to
make funeral arrangements as hospitals, hospices, and other health care
providers would not be allowed to disclose the time of death and other
similar information critical to funeral directors for funeral
preparation. The commenter also noted that funeral directors are already
precluded by state licensing regulations and ethical standards from
inappropriately disclosing confidential information about the deceased.

Further, the commenter stated that funeral directors have legitimate
needs for protected health information of the deceased or of an
individual when death is anticipated. For example, often funeral
directors are contacted when death is foreseen in order to begin the
process of planning funeral arrangements and prevent unnecessary delays.
In addition, the embalming of the body is affected by the medical
condition of the body.

In addition, it was noted that funeral directors need to be aware of the
presence of a contagious or infectious disease in order to properly
advise family members of funeral and disposition options and how they
may be affected by state law. For example, certain states may prohibit
cremation of remains for a certain period unless the death was caused by
a contagious or infectious disease, or prohibit family members from
assisting in preparing the body for disposition if there is a risk of
transmitting a communicable disease from the corpse.

*Response:* We agree that disclosures to funeral directors for the above
purposes should be allowed. Accordingly, the final rule at \'
164.512(g)(2) permits covered entities to disclose protected health
information to funeral directors, consistent with applicable law, as
necessary to carry out their duties with respect to the decedent. Such
disclosures are also permitted prior to, and in reasonable anticipation
of, the individual=s death.

*Comment:* Several commenters urged that the proposed standard for
deceased individuals be clarified to allow access by a family member who
has demonstrated a legitimate health-related reason for seeking the
information when there is no executor, administrator, or other person
authorized under applicable law to exercise the right of access of the
individual.

Another commenter asked that the rule differentiate between blood
relatives and family members and address their different access
concerns, such as with genetic information versus information about
transmittable diseases. They also recommended that the regulation allow
access to protected health information by blood-related relatives prior
to the end of the two-year period and provide them with the authority to
extend the proposed two-year period of protection if they see fit.
Lastly, the commenter suggested that the regulation address the concept
of when the next-of-kin may not be appropriate to control a deceased
person=s health information.

*Response:* We agree that family members may need access to the
protected health information of a deceased individual, and this
regulation permits such disclosure in two ways. First, a family member
may qualify as a Apersonal representative@ of the individual (see \'
164.502(g)). Personal representatives include anyone who has authority
to act on behalf of a deceased individual or such individual=s estate,
not just legally-appointed executors. We also allow disclosure of
protected health information to health care providers for purposes of
treatment, including treatment of persons other than the individual.
Thus, where protected health information about a deceased person is
relevant to the treatment of a family member, the family member=s
physician may obtain that information. Because we limit these
disclosures to disclosures for treatment purposes, there is no need to
distinguish between disclosure of information about communicable
diseases and disclosure of genetic information.

With regard to fitness to control information, we defer to existing
state and other laws that address this matter.

**Section 164.502(g) B Personal Representative**

*Comment:* It was observed that under the proposed regulation, legal
representatives with Apower of attorney@ for matters unrelated to health
care would have unauthorized access to confidential medical records.
Commenters recommended that access to a person=s protected health
information be limited to those representatives with a Apower of
attorney@ for health care matters only. Related comments asked that the
rule limit the definition of Apower of attorney@ to include only those
instruments granting specific power to deal with health care functions
and health care records.

*Response:* We have deleted the reference to Apower of attorney.@ Under
the final rule, a person is a personal representative of a living
individual if, under applicable law, such person has authority to act on
behalf of an individual in making decisions related to health care.
ADecisions relating to health care@ is broader than consenting to
treatment on behalf of an individual; for example, it would include
decisions relating to payment for health care. We clarify that the
rights and authorities of a personal representative under this rule are
limited to protected health information relevant to the rights of the
person to make decisions about an individual under other law. For
example, if a husband has the authority only to make health care
decisions about his wife in an emergency, he would have the right to
access protected health information related to that emergency, but he
may not have the right to access information about treatment that she
had received ten years ago.

We note that the rule for deceased individuals differs from that of
living individuals. A person may be a personal representative of a
deceased individual if they have the authority to act on behalf of such
individual or such individual=s estate for any decision, not only
decisions related to health care. We create a broader scope for a person
who is a personal representative of a deceased individual because the
deceased individual can not request that information be disclosed
pursuant to an authorization, whereas a living individual can do so.

*Comment:* Some commenters asked that the NPRM provision allowing
informal decision-makers access to the protected health information of
an incapacitated individual should be maintained in the final rule.

*Response:* We agree with the commenters, and retain permission for
covered entities to share protected health information with informal
decision makers, under conditions specified in \' 164.510(b). A person
need not be a personal representative for such disclosure of protected
health information to be made to an informal decision-maker.

*Comment:* Commenters urged that individuals with mental retardation,
who can provide verbal agreement or authorization, should have control
over dissemination of their protected health information, in order to
increase the privacy rights of such individuals.

*Response*: Individuals with mental retardation have control over
dissemination of their protected health information under this rule to
the extent that state law provides such individuals with the capacity to
act on their own behalf. We note that a covered entity need not disclose
information pursuant to a consent or authorization. Therefore, even if
state law determines that an individual with mental retardation is not
competent to act and a personal representative provides authorization
for a disclosure, a covered entity may choose not to disclose such
information if the individual who lacks capacity to act expresses his or
her desire that such information not be disclosed.

*Comment:* A commenter suggested that the final rule should provide
health plans with a set of criteria for formally identifying an
incapacitated individual=s decision-maker. Such criteria would give
guidance to health plans that would help in not releasing information to
the wrong person.

*Response*: The determination about who is a personal representative
under this rule is based on state or other applicable law. We require
that a covered entity verify the authority of a personal representative,
in accordance with \' 164.514(h) in order to disclose information to
such person.

*Comment:* Commenters were troubled by the inclusion of minors in the
definition of Aindividual@ and believed that the presumption should be
that parents have the right to care for their children.

*Response:* We agree that a parent should have access to the protected
health information about their unemancipated minor children, except in
limited circumstances based on state law. The approach in the final rule
helps clarify this policy. The definition of Aindividual@ is simplified
in the final rule to Athe person who is the subject of protected health
information.@ (\' 164.501). We created a new section (\' 164.502(g)) to
address Apersonal representatives,@ which includes parents and guardians
of unemancipated minors. Generally, we provide that if under applicable
law a parent has authority to act on behalf of an unemancipated minor in
making decisions relating to health care about the minor, a covered
entity must treat the parent as the personal representative with respect
to protected health information relevant to such personal
representation. The regulation provides only three limited exceptions to
this rule based upon current state law and physician practice.

*Comment:* Many commenters agreed with our approach in the NPRM to give
minors who may lawfully access health care the rights to control the
protected health information related to such health care.

Several commenters disagreed with this approach and recommended that
where states allow minors too much independence from parents, the rule
should not defer to state law. One commenter suggested that we give an
individual the right to control protected health information only when
the individual reaches the age of majority.

*Response:* In the final rule, the parent, as the personal
representative of a minor child, controls the protected health
information about the minor, except that the parent does not act as a
personal representative of the minor under the rule in three limited
circumstances based on state consent law and physician practice. The
final rule defers to consent laws of each state and does not attempt to
evaluate the amount of control a state gives to a parent or minor. If a
state provides an alternative means for a minor to obtain health care,
other than with the consent of a parent, this rule preserves the system
put in place by the state.

The first two exceptions, whereby a parent is not the personal
representative for the minor and the minor can act for himself or
herself under the rule, occur if the minor consents to a health care
service, and no other consent to such health care service is required by
law, or when the minor may lawfully obtain a health care service without
the consent of a parent, and the minor, a court, or another person
authorized by law consents to such service. The third exception is based
on guidelines of the American Pediatric Association, current practice,
and agreement by parents. If a parent assents to an agreement of
confidentiality between a covered provider and a minor with respect to a
health care service, the parent is not the personal representative of
the minor with respect to the protected health information created or
received subject to that confidentiality agreement. In such
circumstances, the minor would have the authority to act as an
individual, with respect to such protected health information.

*Comment:* Some commenters requested that we permit minors to exercise
the rights of an individual when applicable law requires parental
notification as opposed to parental consent.

*Response:* We adopt this policy in the final rule. If the minor
consents to a health care service, and no other consent to such health
care service is required by law, regardless of whether the consent of
another person has also been obtained or notification to another person
has been given, only the minor may be treated as the individual with
respect to the protected health information relating to such health care
service. The rule does not affect state law that authorizes or requires
notification to a parent of a minor=s decision to obtain a health care
service to the extent authorized or required by such law. In addition,
state parental notification laws do not affect the rights of minors
under this regulation.

*Comment:* Some commenters requested clarification that when a minor may
obtain a health care service without parental consent and voluntarily
chooses to involve a parent, the minor retains the rights, authorities
and confidentiality protections established in this rule.

*Response:* We agree that minors should be encouraged to voluntarily
involve a parent or other responsible adult in their health care
decisions. The rule is not intended to require that minors choose
between involving a parent and maintaining confidentiality protections.
We have added language in \' 164.502(g)(3)(i) to clarify that when a
minor consents to a health care service and no other consent is required
by law, if the minor voluntarily chooses to involve a parent or other
adult, the minor nonetheless maintains the exclusive ability to exercise
their rights under the rule. This is true even if a parent or other
person also has consented to the health care service for which the minor
lawfully consented. Under the rule, a minor may involve a parent and
still preserve the confidentiality of their protected health
information. In addition, a minor may choose to have a parent act as his
or her personal representative even if the minor could act on his or her
own behalf under the rule. If the minor requests that a covered entity
treat a parent as his or her personal representative, the covered entity
must treat such person as the minor=s personal representative even if
the minor consents to a health care service and no other consent to such
health care service is required by law.

*Comment:* Some commenters requested that the rule provide for the
preservation of patient confidences if a health care provider and a
minor patient enter into an agreement of confidentiality and a parent
assents to this arrangement.

*Response:* We have addressed this concern in the final rule by adding a
provision that ensures that a minor maintains the confidentiality
protections provided by the rule for information that is created or
received pursuant to a confidential communication between a provider and
a minor when the minor=s parent assents to an agreement of
confidentiality between the provider and the minor. (\'
164.502(g)(3)(ii))*.* The American Academy of Pediatrics *Guidelines for
Health Supervision III*, which are meant to serve as Aa framework to
help clinicians focus on important issues at developmentally appropriate
time intervals,@ recommends that physicians interview children alone
beginning at the age of twelve (or as early as the age of ten if it is
comfortable for the child). This recommendation is based on the fact
that adolescents tend to underutilize existing health care resources, in
part, because of a concern for confidentiality.[^7] The recommended
interview technique in the *Guidelines* states that the provider discuss
the rules of confidentiality with the adolescent and the parent and that
the adolescent=s confidentiality should be respected. We do not intend
to interfere with these established protocols or current practices.
Covered entities will need to establish procedures to separate protected
health information over which the minor maintains control from protected
health information with respect to which the minor=s parent has rights
as a personal representative of the minor.

A covered provider may disclose protected health information to a
parent, regardless of a confidentiality agreement, if there is an
imminent threat to the minor or another person, in accordance with \'
164.512(j)(1)(i).

*Comment:* Several commenters suggested that we add a provision in the
final rule to provide minors and parents with concurrent rights under
certain circumstances, particularly when the minor reaches 16 years of
age or when a parent authorizes his or her minor child to exercise these
rights concurrently.

*Response:* We do not add such provision in the final rule. We believe
that establishing concurrent rights through this rule could result in
problems that effect the quality of health care if the minor and the
parent were to disagree on the exercise of their rights. The rule would
not prevent a parent from allowing a minor child to make decisions about
his or her protected health information and acting consistently with the
minor=s decision. In all cases, either the parent has the right to act
for the individual with respect to protected health information, or the
minor has the right to act for himself or herself. The rule does not
establish concurrent rights for parents and minors.

*Comment:* Commenters requested clarification about the rights of an
adult or emancipated minor with respect to protected health information
concerning health care services rendered while the person was an
unemancipated minor.

*Response:* Once a minor becomes emancipated or attains the age of
majority, as determined by applicable state law, the parent is no longer
the personal representative under \' 164.502(g)(3) of such individual,
unless the parent has the authority to act on behalf of the individual
for some reason other than their authority as a parent. An adult or
emancipated minor has rights under the rule with respect to all
protected health information about them, including information obtained
while the individual was an unemancipated minor.

*Comment:* One commenter pointed out that language in the definition of
individual in the NPRM that grants a minor the rights of an individual
when he or she Alawfully receives care without the consent of, or
notification to, a parent . . .@ would have the effect of granting
rights to an infant minor who receives emergency care when the parent is
not available.

*Response:* This result was not our intent. We have changed the language
in \' 164.502(g)(3)(i) of the final rule to provide a minor the right to
act as an individual when the minor can obtain care without the consent
of a parent and the minor consents to such care. Because an infant
treated in an emergency situation would not be able to consent to care,
the infant=s parent would be treated as the personal representative of
the infant. Section 164.502(g)(3)(ii) provides that the parent is not
the personal representative of the minor under the rule if the minor may
obtain health care without the consent of a parent and the minor, a
court, or another person authorized by law consents to such service. If
an infant obtains emergency care without the consent of a parent, a
health care provider may provide such care without consent to treatment.
This situation would fall outside the second exception, and the parent
would remain the personal representative of the minor.

*Comment:* Commenters were concerned about the interaction of this rule
with FERPA with respect to parents= right to access the medical records
of their children.

*Response:* We direct the commenters to a discussion of the interaction
between our rule and FERPA in the \"Relationship to Other Federal Laws\"
section of the preamble.

**Section 164.502(h) B Confidential Communications**

Comments on confidential communications are addressed in the preamble to
\' 164.522(b).

**Section 164.502(i) B Uses and Disclosures Consistent with Notice**

Comments on the notice requirements are addressed in the preamble to \'
164.520.

**Section 164.502(j) B Uses and Disclosures by Whistleblowers and
Workforce Crime Victims**

*Comments:* Some commenters wanted to see more limitations put on the
ability to whistleblow in the final rule. These commenters were
concerned about how disclosed protected health information would be used
during and subsequent to the whistleblowing event and felt that adding
additional limitations to the ability to whistleblow would help to
alleviate these concerns. Some of these commenters were concerned that
there was no protection against information later being leaked to the
public or re-released after the initial whistleblowing event, and that
this could put covered entities in violation of the law. Many commenters
wanted to see the whistleblower provision deleted entirely. According to
a number of health care associations who commented on this topic,
current practices already include adequate mechanisms for informing law
enforcement, oversight and legal counsel of possible violations without
the need for patient identifiable information; thus, the provision
allowing whistleblowers to share protected health information is
unnecessary. Additionally, some commenters felt that the covered entity
needs to be allowed to prohibit disclosures outside of legitimate
processes. Some commenters were concerned about not having any recourse
if the whistleblower=s suspicions were unfounded.

*Response:* In this rule, we do not regulate the activities of
whistleblowers. Rather, we regulate the activities of covered entities,
and determine when they may be held responsible under this rule for
whistleblowing activities of their workforce or business associates when
that whistleblowing involves the disclosure of protected health
information. Similarly, we regulate when covered entities must and need
not sanction their workforce who disclose protected health information
in violation of the covered entity=s policies and procedures, when that
disclosure is for whistleblowing purposes. See \' 164.530(e). This rule
does not address a covered entity=s recourse against a whistleblower
under other applicable law.

We do not hold covered entities responsible under this rule for
whistleblowing disclosures of protected health information under the
circumstances described in \' 164.502(j). Our purpose in including this
provision is to make clear that we are not erecting a new barrier to
whistleblowing, and that covered entities may not use this rule as a
mechanism for sanctioning workforce members or business associates for
whistleblowing activity. We do not find convincing commenters= arguments
for narrowing or eliminating the scope of the whistleblowing which
triggers this protection.

Congress, as well as several states, have recognized the importance of
whistleblower activity to help identify fraud and mismanagement and
protect the public=s health and safety. Whistleblowers, by their unique
insider position, have access to critical information not otherwise
easily attainable by oversight and enforcement organizations.

While we recognize that in many instances, de-identified or anonymous
information can be used to accomplish whistleblower objectives, there
are instances, especially involving patient care and billing, where this
may not be feasible. Oversight investigative agencies such as the
Department of Justice rely on identifiable information in order to issue
subpoenas that are enforceable. Relevant court standards require the
government agency issuing the subpoena to explain why the specific
records requested are relevant to the subject of the investigation, and
without such an explanation the subpoena will be quashed. Issuing a
subpoena for large quantities of individual records to find a few
records involving fraud is cost prohibitive as well as likely being
unenforceable.

We note that any subsequent inappropriate disclosure by a recipient of
whistleblower information would not put the covered entity in violation
of this rule, since the subsequent disclosure is not covered by this
regulation.

*Comments:* A few commenters felt that the whistleblower should be held
to a Areasonableness standard@ rather than a Abelief@ that a violation
has taken place before engaging in whistleblower activities. The
commenters felt that a belief standard is too subjective. By holding the
whistleblower to this higher standard, this would serve to protect
protected health information from being arbitrarily released. Some
commenters saw the whistleblower provision as a loophole that gives too
much power to disgruntled employees to inappropriately release
information in order cause problems for the employer.

On the other hand, some commenters felt that all suspicious activities
should be reported. This would ease potential whistleblowers concerns
over whether or not they had a legitimate concern by leaving this
decision up to someone else. A number of commenters felt that employees
should be encouraged to report violations of professional or clinical
standards, or when a patient, employee, or the public would be put at
risk. A small number of commenters felt that the whistleblower should
raise the issue within the covered entity before going to the attorney,
oversight agency, or law enforcement entity.

*Response:* We do not attempt to regulate the conduct of whistleblowers
in this rule. We address uses and disclosures of protected health
information by covered entities, and when a covered entity will violate
this rule due to the actions of a workforce member or business
associate. In the final rule, we provide that a covered entity is not in
violation of the rule when a workforce member or business associate has
a good faith belief that the conduct being reported is unlawful or
otherwise violates professional or clinical standards, or potentially
endangers patients, employees or the public. We concur that the NPRM
language requiring only a Abelief@ was insufficient. Consequently, we
have strengthened the standard to require a good faith belief that an
inappropriate behavior has occurred.

*Comment:* A number of commenters believe that employees should be
encouraged to report violations of professional or clinical standards,
or report situations where patients, employees, or the public would be
put at risk. Their contention is that employees, especially health care
employees, may not know whether the problem they have encountered meets
a legal threshold of wrongdoing, putting them at jeopardy of sanction if
they are incorrect, even if the behavior did reflect violation of
professional and clinical standards or put patients, employees, or the
public at risk.

*Response:* We agree that covered entities should be protected when
their employees and others engage in the conduct described by these
commenters. We therefore modify the proposal to protect covered entities
when the whistleblowing relates to violations of professional or
clinical standards, or situations where the public may be at risk, and
eliminate the reference to Aevidence.@

*Comments:* A significant number of those commenting on the
whistleblower provision felt that this provision was contrary to the
rest of the rule. Whistleblowers could very easily release protected
health information under this provision despite the fact that the rest
of this rule works very hard to ensure privacy of protected health
information in all other contexts. To this end, some commenters felt
that whistleblowers should not be exempt from the minimum necessary
requirement.

*Response:* As stated above, we do not regulate the conduct of
whistleblowers. We discuss above the importance of whistleblowing, and
our intention not to erect a new barrier to such activity. The minimum
necessary standard applies to covered entities, not to whistleblowers.

*Comments:* Some commenters felt that disclosures of suspected
violations should only be made to a law enforcement official or
oversight agency. Other commenters said that whistleblowers should be
able to disclose their concerns to long-term care ombudsmen or health
care accreditation organizations, particularly because certain protected
health information may contain evidence of abuse. Some commenters felt
that whistleblowers should not be allowed to freely disclose information
to attorneys. They felt that this may cause more lawsuits within the
health care industry and be costly to providers. Furthermore, allowing
whistleblowers to go to attorneys increases the number of people who
have protected health information without any jurisdiction for the
Secretary to do anything to protect this information.

*Response:* We agree with the commenters who suggested that we recognize
other appropriate entities to which workforce members and business
associates might reasonably make a whistleblowing disclosure. In the
final rule we expand the provision to protect covered entities for
disclosures of protected health information made to accreditation
organizations by whistleblowers. We agree with the commenters that
whistleblowers may see these organizations as appropriate recipients of
health information, and do not believe that covered entities should be
penalized for such conduct.

We also agree that covered entities should be protected when
whistleblowers disclose protected health information to any health
oversight agency authorized by law to investigate or oversee the
conditions of the covered entity, including state Long-Term Care
Ombudsmen appointed in accordance with the Older Americans Act. Among
their mandated responsibilities is their duty to identify, investigate
and resolve complaints that are made by, or on behalf of, residents
related to their health, safety, welfare, or rights. Nursing home staff
often bring complaints regarding substandard care or abuse to ombudsmen.
Ombudsmen provide a potentially more attractive outlet for
whistleblowers since resolution of problems may be handled short of
legal action or formal investigation by an oversight agency.

We disagree with commenters that the provision permitting disclosures to
attorneys is too broad. Workforce members or business associates may not
understand their legal options or their legal exposure when they come
into possession of information about unlawful or other inappropriate or
dangerous conduct. Permitting potential whistleblowers to consult an
attorney provides them with a better understanding of their legal
options. We rephrase the provision to improve its clarity.

*Comment:* One commenter suggested that a notice of information
practices that omits disclosure for voluntary reporting of fraud will
chill internal whistleblowers who will be led to believe B falsely B
that they would violate federal privacy law, and be lawfully subject to
sanction by their employer, if they reported fraud to health oversight
agencies.

*Response:* The notice of information practices describes a covered
entity=s information practices. A covered entity does not make
whistleblower disclosures of protected health information, nor can it be
expected to anticipate any such disclosures by its workforce.

*Comment:* One commenter suggested that the whistleblower provisions
could allow covered entities to make illegal disclosures to police
through the back door by having an employee who believes there is a
violation of law do the disclosing. Any law could have been violated and
the violator could be anyone (a patient, a member of the patient=s
family, etc.)

*Response:* We have eliminated whistleblower disclosures for law
enforcement purposes from the list of circumstances in which the covered
entity will be protected under this rule. This provision is intended to
protect the covered entity when a member of its workforce or a business
associate discloses protect health information to whistleblow on the
covered entity (or its business associates); it is not intended for
disclosures of conduct by the individual who is the subject of the
information or third parties.

**SECTION 164.504 - USES AND DISCLOSURES - ORGANIZATIONAL REQUIREMENTS -
COMPONENT ENTITIES, AFFILIATED ENTITIES, BUSINESS ASSOCIATES AND GROUP
HEALTH PLANS**

**Section 164.504(a)-(c)CHealth Care Component (Component Entities) and
Section 164.504(d)CAffiliated Entities**

*Comment:* A few commenters asked that the concept of Ause@ be modified
to allow uses within an integrated healthcare delivery system.
Commenters argued that the rule needs to ensure that the full spectrum
of treatment is protected from the need for authorizations at the points
where treatment overlaps entities. It was explained that, for example,
treatment for a patient often includes services provided by various
entities, such as by a clinic and hospital, or that treatment may also
necessitate referrals from one provider entity to another unrelated
entity. Further, the commenter argued that the rule needs to ensure that
the necessary payment and health care operations can be carried out
across entities without authorizations.

*Response*: The Department understands that in today=s health care
industry, the organization of and relationships among health care
entities are highly complex and varied. We modify the proposed rule
significantly to allow affiliated entities to designate themselves as a
single covered entity. A complex organization, depending on how it
self-designates, may have one or several Ahealth care component(s)@ that
are each a covered entity. Aggregation into a single covered entity will
allow the entities to use a single notice of information practices and
will allow providers that must obtain consent for uses and disclosures
for treatment, payment, and operations to obtain a single consent.

We do not allow this type of aggregation for unrelated entities, as
suggested by some commenters, because unrelated entities= information
practices will be too disparate to be accurately reflected on a single
consent or notice form. Our policies on when consent and authorization
are required for sharing information among unrelated entities, and the
rationale for these policies, is described in \'\' 164.506 and 164.508
and corresponding preamble.

As discussed above, in the final rule we have added a definition of
*organized health care arrangement* and permit covered entities
participating in such arrangements to disclose protected health
information to support the health care operations of the arrangement.
See the preamble discussion of the definitions of *organized health care
arrangement* and *health care operations,* \' 164.501.

*Comment:* Some commenters expressed concern that the requirement to
obtain authorization for the disclosure of information to a non-health
related division of the covered entity would impede covered entities\'
ability to engage in otherwise-permissible activities such as health
care operations. Some of these commenters requested clarification that
covered entities are only required to obtain authorization for
disclosures to non-health related divisions if the disclosure is for
marketing purposes.

*Response:* In the final rule, we remove the example of use and
disclosure to non-health related divisions of the covered entity from
the list of examples of uses and disclosures requiring authorization in
\' 164.508. We determined that the example could lead covered entities
to the mistaken conclusion that some uses or disclosures that would
otherwise be permitted under the rule without authorization would
require authorization when made to a non-health related division of the
covered entity. In the final rule, we clarify that disclosure to a
non-health related division does not require authorization if the use or
disclosure is otherwise permitted or required under the rule. For
example, in \' 164.501 we define health care operations to include
conducting or arranging for legal and auditing services. A covered
entity that is the health care component of a larger entity is permitted
under the final rule to include the legal department of the larger
entity as part of the health care component. The covered entity may not,
however, generally permit the disclosure of protected health information
from the health care component to non-health related divisions unless
they support the functions of the health care component and there are
policies and procedures in place to restrict the further use to the
support of the health related functions.

*Comment*: Many commenters, especially those who employed providers,
supported our position in the proposed rule to consider only the health
care component of an entity to be the covered entity. They stated that
this was a balanced approach that would allow them to continue
conducting business. Some commenters felt that there was ambiguity in
the regulation text of the proposed rule and requested that the final
rule explicitly clarify that only the health care component is
considered the covered entity, not the entity itself. Similarly, another
commenter requested that we clarify that having a health care component
alone did not make the larger entity a covered entity under the rule.

*Response*: We appreciate the support of the commenters on the health
care component approach and we agree that there was some ambiguity in
the proposed rule. The final rule creates a new \' 164.504(b) for health
care components. Under \' 164.504(b), for a covered entity that is a
single legal entity which predominantly performs functions other than
the functions performed by a health plan, provider, or clearinghouse,
the privacy rules apply only to the entity=s health care component. A
policy, plan, or program that is an Aexcepted benefit@ under section
2791(c)(1) of HIPAA cannot be part of a health care component because it
is expressly excluded from the definition of Ahealth plan@ for the
reasons discussed above. The health care component is prohibited from
sharing protected health information outside of the component, except as
otherwise permitted or required by the regulation.

At a minimum, the health care component includes the organizational
units of the covered entity that operate as or perform the functions of
the health plan, health care provider, or clearinghouse and does not
include any unit or function of the excepted benefits plan, policy, or
program. While the covered entity remains responsible for compliance
with this rule because it is responsible for the actions of its
workforce, we otherwise limit the responsibility to comply to the health
care component of the covered entity. The requirements of this rule
apply only to the uses and disclosures of the protected health
information by the component entity. See \' 164.504(b).

*Comment*: Some commenters stated that the requirement to erect
firewalls between different components would unnecessarily delay
treatment, payment, and health care operations and thereby increase
costs. Other commenters stressed that it is necessary to create
firewalls between the health care component and the larger entity to
prevent unauthorized disclosures of protected health information.

*Response*: We believe that the requirement to implement firewalls or
safeguards is necessary to provide meaningful privacy protections,
particularly because the health care component is part of a larger legal
organization that performs functions other than those covered under this
rule. Without the safeguard requirement we cannot ensure that the
component will not share protected health information with the larger
entity. While we do not specifically identify the safeguards that are
required, the covered entity must implement policies and procedures to
ensure that: the health care component=s use and disclose of protected
health information complies with the regulation; members of the health
care component who perform duties for the larger entity do not use and
disclose protected health information obtained through the health care
component while performing non-component functions unless otherwise
permitted or required by the regulation; and when a covered entity
conducts multiple functions regulated under this rule, the health care
component adheres to the appropriate requirements (e.g. when acting as a
health plan, adheres to the health plan requirements) and uses or
discloses protected health information of individuals who receive
limited functions from the component only for the appropriate functions.
See \'\' 164.504(c)(2) and 164.504(g). For example, a covered entity
that includes both a hospital and a health plan may not use protected
health information obtained from an individual=s hospitalization for the
health plan, unless the individual is also enrolled in the health plan.
We note that covered entities are permitted to make a disclosure to a
health care provider for treatment of an individual without
restrictions.

*Comment*: One commenter stated that multiple health care components of
a single organization should be able to be treated as a single component
entity for the purposes of this rule. Under this approach, they argued,
one set of policies and procedures would govern the entire component and
protected health information could be shared among components without
authorization. Similarly, other commenters stated that corporate
subsidiaries and affiliated entities should not be treated as separate
covered entities.

*Response*: We agree that some efficiencies may result from designating
multiple component entities as a single covered entity. In the final
rule we allow legally distinct covered entities that share common
ownership or control to designate themselves or their health care
components as a single covered entity. See \' 164.504(d). Common
ownership is defined as an ownership or equity interest of five percent
or more. Common control exists if an entity has the power - directly or
indirectly - to significantly influence or direct the actions or
policies of another entity. If the affiliated entity contains health
care components, it must implement safeguards to prevent the larger
entity from using protected health information maintained by the
component entity. As stated above, organizations that perform multiple
functions may designate a single component entity as long as it does not
include the functions of an excepted benefit plan that is not covered
under the rule. In addition, it must adhere to the appropriate
requirements when performing its functions (e.g. when acting as a health
plan, adhere to the health plan requirements) and uses or discloses
protected health information of individuals who receive limited
functions from the component only for the appropriate functions. At the
same time, a component that is outside of the health care component may
perform activities that otherwise are not permitted by a covered entity,
as long as it does not use or disclose protected health information
created or received by or on behalf of the health care component in ways
that violate this rule.

*Comment*: Some commenters asked whether or not workers= compensation
carriers could be a part of the health care component as described in
the proposed rule. They argued that this would allow for sharing of
information between the group health plan and workers= compensation
insurers.

*Response*: Under HIPAA, workers= compensation is an excepted benefit
program and is excluded from the definition of Ahealth plan.@ As such, a
component of a covered entity that provides such excepted benefits may
not be part of a health care component that performs the functions of a
health plan. If workforce members of the larger entity perform functions
for both the health care component and the non-covered component, they
may not use protected health information created or received by or on
behalf of the health care component for the purposes of the non-covered
component, unless otherwise permitted by the rule. For example,
information may be shared between the components for coordination of
benefits purposes.

*Comment*: Several commenters requested specific guidance on identifying
the health care component entity. They argued that we underestimated the
difficulty in determining the component and that many organizations have
multiple functions with the same people performing duties for both the
component and the larger entity.

*Response*: With the diversity of organizational structures, it is
impossible to provide a single specific guidance for identifying health
care components that will meet the needs of all organizations. Covered
entities must designate their health care components consistent with the
definition at \' 164.504(a). We have tried to frame this definition to
delineate what comes within a health care component and what falls
outside the component.

*Comment*: A commenter representing a government agency recommended that
only the component of the agency that runs the program be considered a
covered entity, not the agency itself. In addition, this commenter
stated that often subsets of other government agencies work in
partnership with the agency that runs the program to provide certain
services. For example, one state agency may provide maternity support
services to the Medicaid program which is run by a separate agency. The
commenter read the rule to mean that the agency providing the maternity
support services would be a business associate of the Medicaid agency,
but was unclear as to whether it would also constitute a health care
component within its own agency.

*Response*: We generally agree. We expect that in most cases, government
agencies that run health plans or provide health care services would
typically meet the definition of a Ahybrid entity@ under \' 164.504(a),
so that such an agency would be required to designate the health care
component or components that run the program or programs in question
under \' 164.504(c)(3), and the rules would not apply to the remainder
of the agency=s operations, under \' 164.504(b). In addition, we have
created an exception to the business associate contract requirement for
government agencies who perform functions on behalf of other government
agencies. Government agencies can enter into a memorandum of
understanding with another government entity or adopt a regulation that
applies to the other government entity in lieu of a business associate
contract, as long as the memorandum or regulation contains certain
terms. See \' 164.504(e).

*Comment*: One commenter representing an insurance company stated that
different product lines should be treated separately under the rule. For
example, the commenter argued, because an insurance company offers both
life insurance and health insurance, it does not mean that the insurance
company itself is a covered entity, rather only the health insurance
component is a covered entity. Another commenter requested clarification
of the use of the term Aproduct line@ in the proposed rule. This
commenter stated that product line should differentiate between
different lines of coverage such as life vs. health insurance, not
different variations of the same coverage, such as HMO vs. PPO. Finally,
one commenter stated that any distinction among product lines is
unworkable because insurance companies need to share information across
product lines for coordinating benefits. This sharing of information,
the commenter urged, should be able to take place whether or not all
product lines are covered under the rule.

*Response*: We agree that many forms of insurance do not and should not
come within the definition of Ahealth plan,@ and we have excepted them
from the definition of this term in \' 160.103 applies. This point is
more fully discussed in connection with that definition. Although we do
not agree that the covered entity is only the specific product line, as
this comment suggests, the hybrid entity rules in \' 164.504 address the
substance of this concern. Under \' 164.504(c)(3), an entity may create
a health plan component which would include all its health insurance
lines of business or separate health care components for each health
plan product line. Finally, the sharing of protected health information
across lines of business is allowed if it meets the permissive or
required disclosures under the rule. The commenter=s example of
coordination of benefits would be allowed under the rule as payment.

*Comment*: Several commenters representing occupational health care
providers supported our use of the component approach to prohibit
unauthorized disclosures of protected health information. They requested
that the regulation specifically authorize them to deny requests for
disclosures outside of the component entity when the disclosure was not
otherwise permitted or required by the regulation.

*Response*: We appreciate the commenters= support of the health care
component approach. As members of a health care component, occupational
health providers are prohibited from sharing protected health
information with the larger entity (i.e., the employer), unless
otherwise permitted or required by the regulation.

*Comment*: One commenter asked how the regulation affects employers who
carry out research. The commenter questioned whether the employees
carrying out the research would be component entities under the rule.

*Response*: If the employer is gathering its own information rather than
obtaining it from an entity regulated by this rule, the information does
not constitute protected health information since the employer is not a
covered entity. If the employer is obtaining protected health
information from a covered entity, the disclosure by the covered entity
must meet the requirements of \' 164.512(i) regarding disclosures for
research.

*Comment*: One commenter stated that the proposed rule did not clearly
articulate whether employees who are health care providers are
considered covered entities when they collect and use individually
identifiable health information acting on behalf of an employer.
Examples provided include, administering mandatory drug testing, making
fitness-for-duty and return-to-work determinations, testing for exposure
to environmental hazards, and making short and long term disability
determinations. This commenter argued that if disclosing information
gained through these activities requires authorization, many of the
activities are meaningless. For example, an employee who fails a drug
test is unlikely to give authorization to the provider to share the
information with the employer.

*Response*: Health care providers are covered entities under this rule
if they conduct standard transactions. A health care provider who is an
employee and is administering drug testing on behalf of the employer,
but does not conduct standard transactions, is not a covered entity. If
the health care provider is a covered entity, then we require
authorization for the provider to disclose protected health information
to an employer. Nothing in this rule, however, prohibits the employer
from conditioning an individual=s employment on agreeing to the drug
testing and requiring the individual to sign an authorization allowing
his or her drug test results to be disclosed to the employer.

*Comment*: One commenter stated its belief that only a health center at
an academic institution would be a covered entity under the component
approach. This commenter believed it was less clear whether or not other
components that may create protected health information Aincidentally@
through conducting research would also become covered entities.

*Response*: While a covered entity must designate as a health care
component the functions that make it a health care provider, the covered
entity remains responsible for the actions of its workforce. Components
that create protected health information through research would be
covered entities to the extent they performed one of the required
transactions described in \' 164.500; however, it is possible that the
research program would not be part of the health care component,
depending on whether the research program performed or supported covered
functions.

*Comment:* Several commenters stated that employers need access to
protected health information in order to provide employee assistance
programs, wellness programs, and on-site medical testing to their
employees.

*Response:* This rule does not affect disclosure of health information
by employees to the employer if the information is not obtained from a
covered entity. The employer=s access to information from an EAP,
wellness program, or on-site medical clinic will depend on whether the
program or clinic is a covered entity.

*Comment:* One commenter stated that access to workplace medical records
by the occupational medical physicians is fundamental to workplace and
community health and safety. Access is necessary whether it is a single
location or multiple sites of the same company, such as production
facilities of a national company located throughout the country.

*Response:* Health information collected by the employer directly from
providers who are not covered entities is outside the scope of this
regulation. We note that the disclosures which this comment concerns
should be covered by \' 164.512(b).

**Section 164.504(e) B Business Associates**

*Comment:* Many commenters generally opposed the business partner
standard and questioned the Secretary=s legal authority under section
1172(a) of HIPAA to require business partner contracts. Others stated
that the proposed rule imposed too great a burden on covered entities
with regard to monitoring their business partners= actions. Commenters
stated that they did not have the expertise to adequately supervise
their business partners= activities B including billing, accounting, and
legal activities B to ensure that protected health information is not
inappropriately disclosed. Commenters argued that business partners are
not Aunder the control@ of health care providers, and that the rule
would significantly increase the cost of medical care. Many commenters
stated that the business partner provisions would be very time consuming
and expensive to implement, noting that it is not unusual for a health
plan or hospital to have hundreds of business partners, especially if
independent physicians and local pharmacies are considered business
partners. Many physician groups pointed out that their business partners
are large providers, hospitals, national drug supplier and medical
equipment companies, and asserted that it would be impossible, or very
expensive, for a small physician group to attempt to monitor the
activity of large national companies. Commenters stated that complex
contract terms and new obligations would necessitate the investment of
significant time and resources by medical and legal personnel, resulting
in substantial expenses. Many commenters proposed that the duty to
monitor be reduced to a duty to terminate the contractual arrangement
upon discovery of a failure to comply with the privacy requirements.

In addition, many commenters argued that covered entities should have
less responsibility for business partners= actions regarding the use and
disclosure of protected health information. The proposed rule would have
held covered entities responsible for the actions of their business
partners when they Aknew or reasonably should have known@ of improper
use of protected health information and failed to take reasonable steps
to cure a breach of the business partner contract or terminate the
contract. Many commenters urged that the term Aknew or should have
known@ be clearly defined, with examples. Some commenters stated that
covered entities should be liable only when they have actual knowledge
of the material breach of the privacy rules by the business partner.
Others recommended creation of a process by which a business partner
could seek advice to determine if a particular disclosure would be
appropriate. Some commenters stated that, in order to create an
environment that would encourage covered entities to report misuses of
protected health information, a covered entity should not be punished if
it discovered an inappropriate disclosure.

*Response:* With regard to our authority to require business associate
contracts, we clarify that Congress gave the Department explicit
authority to regulate what uses and disclosures of protected health
information by covered entities are Aauthorized.@ If covered entities
were able to circumvent the requirements of these rules by the simple
expedient of contracting out the performance of various functions, these
rules would afford no protection to individually identifiable health
information and be rendered meaningless. It is thus reasonable to place
restrictions on disclosures to business associates that are designed to
ensure that the personal medical information disclosed to them continues
to be protected and used and further disclosed only for appropriate
(i.e., permitted or required) purposes.

We do not agree that business associate contracts would necessarily have
complex terms or result in significant time and resource burdens. The
implementation specifications for business associate contracts set forth
in \' 164.504 are straightforward and clear. Nothing prohibits covered
entities from having standard contract forms which could require little
or no modification for many business associates.

In response to comments that the Aknew or should have known@ standard in
the proposed rule was too vague or difficult to apply, and concerns that
we were asking too much of small entities in monitoring the activities
of much larger business associates, we have changed the rule. Under the
final rule, we put responsibility on the covered entity to take action
when it Aknew of a pattern of activity or practice of the business
associate that constituted, respectively, a material breach or violation
of the business associate=s obligation under the contract\...@ This will
preclude confusion about what a covered entity \>should have known.= We
interpret the term Aknew@ to include the situation where the covered
entity has credible evidence of a violation. Covered entities cannot
avoid responsibility by intentionally ignoring problems with their
contractors. In addition, we have eliminated the requirement that a
covered entity actively monitor and ensure protection by its business
associates. However, a covered entity must investigate credible evidence
of a violation by a business associate and act upon any such knowledge.

In response to the concern that the covered entity should not be
punished if it discovers an inappropriate disclosure by its business
associate, \' 164.504(e) provides that the covered entity is not in
compliance with the rule if it fails to take reasonable steps to cure
the breach or end the violation, while \' 164.530(f) requires the
covered entity to mitigate, to the extent practicable, any resultant
harm. The breach itself does not cause a violation of this rule.

*Comment:* Some commenters voiced support for the concept of business
partners. Moreover, some commenters urged that the rule apply directly
to those entities that act as business partners, by restricting
disclosures of protected health information after a covered entity has
disclosed it to a business partner.

*Response:* We are pleased that commenters supported the business
associate standard and we agree that there are advantages to legislation
that directly regulates most entities that use or disclose protected
health information. However, we reiterate that our jurisdiction under
the statute limits us to regulate only those covered entities listed in
\' 160.102.

*Comment:* Many commenters strongly opposed the provision in the
proposed rule requiring business partner contracts to state that
individuals whose protected health information is disclosed under the
contract are intended third party beneficiaries of the contract. Many
noted that HIPAA did not create a private right of action for
individuals to enforce a right to privacy of medical information, and
questioned the Secretary=s authority to create such a right through
regulation. Others questioned whether the creation of such a right was
appropriate in light of the inability of Congress to reach consensus on
the question, and perceived the provision as a Aback door@ attempt to
create a right that Congress did not provide. Some commenters noted that
third party beneficiary law varies from state to state, and that a third
party beneficiary provision may be unenforceable in some states. These
commenters suggested that the complexity and variation of state third
party beneficiary law would increase cost and confusion with limited
privacy benefits.

Commenters predicted that the provision would result in a dramatic
increase in frivolous litigation, increased costs throughout the health
care system, and a chilling effect on the willingness of entities to
make authorized disclosures of protected information. Many commenters
predicted that fear of lawsuits by individuals would impede the flow of
communications necessary for the smooth operation of the health care
system, ultimately affecting quality of care. For example, some
predicted that the provision would inhibit providers from making
authorized disclosures that would improve care and reduce medical
errors. Others predicted that it would limit vendors= willingness to
support information systems requirements. One large employer stated that
the provision would create a substantial disincentive for employers to
sponsor group health plans. Another commenter noted that the provision
creates an anomaly in that individuals may have greater recourse against
business partners and covered entities that contract with them than
against covered entities acting alone.

However, some commenters strongly supported the concept of providing
individuals with a mechanism to enforce the provisions of the rule, and
considered the provision among the most important privacy protections in
the proposed rule.

*Response:* We eliminate the requirement that business associate
contracts contain a provision stating that individuals whose protected
health information is disclosed under the contract are intended
third-party beneficiaries of the contract.

We do not intend this change to affect existing laws regarding when
individuals may be third party beneficiaries of contracts. If existing
law allows individuals to claim third party beneficiary rights, or
prohibits them from doing so, we do not intend to affect those rules.
Rather, we intend to leave this matter to such other law.

*Comment:* Some commenters objected to the proposed rule=s requirement
that the business partner must return or destroy all protected health
information received from the covered entity at the termination of the
business partner contract. Commenters argued that business partners will
need to maintain business records for legal and/or financial auditing
purposes, which would preclude the return or destruction of the
information. Moreover, they argued that computer back-up files may
contain protected health information, but business partners cannot be
expected to destroy entire electronic back-up files just because part of
the information that they contain is from a client for whom they have
completed work.

*Response:* We modify the proposed requirement that the business
associate must return or destroy all protected health information
received from the covered entity when the business associate contract is
terminated. Under the final rule, a business associate must return or
destroy all protected health information when the contract is terminated
if feasible and lawful. The business partner contract must state that
privacy protections continue after the contract ends, if there is a need
for the business associate to retain any of the protected health
information and for as long as the information is retained. In addition,
the permissible uses of information after termination of the contract
must be limited to those activities that make return or destruction of
the information not feasible.

*Comment:* Many commenters recommended that providers and plans be
excluded from the definition of Abusiness partner@ if they are already
governed by the rule as covered entities. Providers expressed particular
concern about the inclusion of physicians with hospital privileges as
business partners of the hospital, as each hospital would be required to
have written contracts with and monitor the privacy practices of each
physician with privileges, and each physician would be required to do
the same for the hospital. Another commenter argued that consultations
between covered entities for treatment or referral purposes should not
be subject to the business partner contracting requirement.

*Response:* The final rule retains the general requirement that, subject
to the exceptions below, a covered entity must enter into a business
associate contract with another covered entity when one is providing
services to or acting on behalf of the other. We retain this requirement
because we believe that a covered entity that is a business associate
should be restricted from using or disclosing the protected health
information it creates or receives through its business associate
function for any purposes other than those that are explicitly detailed
in its contract.

However, the final rule expands the proposed exception for disclosures
of protected health information by a covered health care provider to
another health care provider. The final rule allows such disclosures
without a business associate contract for any activities that fall under
the definition of Atreatment.@ We agree with the commenter that the
administrative burdens of requiring contracts in staff privileges
arrangements would not be outweighed by any potential privacy
enhancements from such a requirement. Although the exception for
disclosure of protected health information for treatment could be
sufficient to relieve physicians and hospitals of the contract
requirement, we also believe that this arrangement does not meet the
true meaning of Abusiness associate,@ because both the hospital and
physician are providing services to the patient, not to each other. We
therefore also add an exception to \' 164.502(e)(1) that explicitly
states that a contract is not required when the association involves a
health care facility and another health care provider with privileges at
that facility, if the purpose is providing health care to the
individual. We have also added other exceptions in \' 164.502(e)(1)(ii)
to the requirement to obtain Asatisfactory assurances@ under \'
164.502(e)(1)(i). We do not require a business associate arrangement
between group health plans and their plan sponsors because other, albeit
analogous, requirements apply under \' 164.504(f) that are more tailored
to the specifics of that legal relationship. We do not require business
associate arrangements between government health plans providing public
benefits and other agencies conducting certain functions for the health
plan, because these arrangements are typically very constrained by other
law.

*Comment:* Many commenters expressed concern that required contracts for
federal agencies would adversely affect oversight activities, including
investigations and audits. Some health plan commenters were concerned
that if HMOs are business partners of an employer then the employer
would have a right to all personal health information collected by the
HMO. A commenter wanted to be sure that authorization would not be
required for accreditation agencies to access information. A large
manufacturing company wanted to make sure that business associate
contracts were not required between affiliates and a parent corporation
that provides administrative services for a sponsored health plan.
Attorney commenters asserted that a business partner contract would
undermine the attorney/client relationship, interfere with
attorney/client privilege, and was not necessary to protect client
confidences. A software vendor wanted to be excluded because the
requirements for contracts were burdensome and government oversight
intrusive. Some argued that because the primary purpose of medical
device manufacturers is supplying devices, not patient care, they should
be excluded.

*Response:* We clarify in the above discussion of the definition of
Abusiness associate@ that a health insurance issuer or an HMO providing
health insurance or health coverage to a group health plan does not
become a business associate simply by providing health insurance or
health coverage. The health insurance issuer or HMO may perform
additional functions or activities or provide additional services,
however, that would give rise to a business associate relationship.
However, even when an health insurance issuer or HMO acts as a business
associate of a group health plan, the group health plan has no right of
access to the other protected health information maintained by the
health insurance issuer or HMO. The business associate contract must
constrain the uses and disclosures of protected health information
obtained by the business associate through the relationship, but does
not give the covered entity any right to request the business associate
to disclose protected health information that it maintains outside of
the business associate relationship to the group health plan. Under
HIPAA, employers are not covered entities, so a health insurance issuer
or HMO cannot act as a business associate of an employer. See \'
164.504(f) with respect to disclosures to plan sponsors from a group
health plan or health insurance issuer or HMO with respect to a group
health plan.

With respect to attorneys generally, the reasons the commenters put
forward to exempt attorneys from this requirement were not persuasive.
The business associate requirements will not prevent attorneys from
disclosing protected health information as necessary to find and prepare
witness, nor from doing their work generally, because the business
associate contract can allow disclosures for these purposes. We do not
require business associate contracts to identify each disclosure to be
made by the business associate; these disclosures can be identified by
type or purpose. We believe covered entities and their attorneys can
craft agreements that will allow for uses and disclosures of protected
health information as necessary for these activities. The requirement
for a business associate contract does not interfere with the
attorney-client relationship, nor does it override professional
judgement of business associates regarding the protected health
information they need to discharge their responsibilities. We do not
require covered entities to second guess their professional business
associates= reasonable requests to use or disclose protected health
information in the course of the relationship.

The attorney-client privilege covers only a small portion of information
provided to attorneys and so is not a substitute for this requirement.
More important, attorney-client privilege belongs to the client, in this
case the covered entity, and not to the individual who is the subject of
the information. The business associate requirements are intended to
protect the subject of the information.

With regard to government attorneys and other government agencies, we
recognize that federal and other law often does not allow standard legal
contracts among governmental entities, but instead requires agreements
to be made through the Economy Act or other mechanisms; these are
generally reflected in a memorandum of understanding (MOU). We therefore
modify the proposed requirements to allow government agencies to meet
the required Asatisfactory assurance@ through such MOUs that contain the
same provisions required of business associate contracts. As discussed
elsewhere, we believe that direct regulation of entities receiving
protected health information can be as or more effective in protecting
health information as contracts. We therefore also allow government
agencies to meet the required Asatisfactory assurances@ if law or
regulations impose requirements on business associates consistent with
the requirements specified for business associate contracts.

We do not believe that the requirement to have a business associate
contract with agencies that are performing the specified services for
the covered entity or undertaking functions or activities on its behalf
undermines the government functions being performed. A business
associate arrangement requires the business associate to maintain the
confidentiality of the protected health information and generally to use
and disclose the information only for the purposes for which it was
provided. This does not undermine government functions. We have exempted
from the business associate requirement certain situations in which the
law has created joint uses or custody over health information, such as
when law requires another government agency to determine the eligibility
for enrollment in a covered health plan. In such cases, information is
generally shared across a number of government programs to determine
eligibility, and often is jointly maintained. We also clarify that
health oversight activities do not give rise to a business associate
relationship, and that protected health information may be disclosed by
a covered entity to a health oversight agency pursuant to \' 164.512(d).

We clarify for purposes of the final rule that accreditation agencies
are business associates of a covered entity and are explicitly included
within the definition. During accreditation, covered entities disclose
substantial amounts of protected health information to other private
persons. A business associate contract basically requires the business
associate to maintain the confidentiality of the protected health
information that it receives and generally to use and disclose such
information for the purposes for which it was provided. As with
attorneys, we believe that requiring a business associate contract in
this instance provides substantial additional privacy protection without
interfering with the functions that are being provided by the business
associate.

With regard to affiliates, \' 164.504(d) permits affiliates to designate
themselves as a single covered entity for purposes of this rule. (See \'
164.504(d) for specific organizational requirements.) Affiliates that
choose to designate themselves as a single covered entity for purposes
of this rule will not need business associate contracts to share
protected health information. Absent such designation, affiliates are
business associates of the covered entity if they perform a function or
service for the covered entity that necessitates the use or disclosure
of protected health information.

Software vendors are business associates if they perform functions or
activities on behalf of, or provide specified services to, a covered
entity. The mere provision of software to a covered entity would not
appear to give rise to a business associate relationship, although if
the vendor needs access to the protected health information of the
covered entity to assist with data management or to perform functions or
activities on the covered entity=s behalf, the vendor would be a
business associate. We note that when an employee of a contractor, like
a software or IT vendor, has his or her primary duty station on-site at
a covered entity, the covered entity may choose to treat the employee of
the vendor as a member of the covered entity=s workforce, rather than as
a business associate. See the preamble discussion to the definition of
*workforce*, \' 160.103.

With regard to medical device manufacturers, we clarify that a device
manufacturer that provides Ahealth care@ consistent with the rule=s
definition, including being a Asupplier@ under the Medicare program, is
a health care provider under the final rule. We do not require a
business associate contract when protected health information is shared
among health care providers for treatment purposes. However, a device
manufacturer that does not provide Ahealth care@ must be a business
associate of a covered entity if that manufacturer receives or creates
protected health information in the performance of functions or
activities on behalf of, or the provision of specified services to, a
covered entity.

As to financial institutions, they are business associates under this
rule when they conduct activities that cause them to meet the definition
of business associate. See the preamble discussion of the definition of
Apayment@ in \' 164.501, for an explanation of activities of a financial
institution that do not require it to have a business associated
contract.

Disease managers may be health care providers or health plans, if they
otherwise meet the respective definitions and perform disease management
activities on their own behalf. However, such persons may also be
business associates if they perform disease management functions or
services for a covered entity.

*Comment:* Other commenters recommended that certain entities be
included within the definition of Abusiness partner,@ such as
transcription services; employee representatives; in vitro diagnostic
manufacturers; private state and comparative health data organizations;
state hospital associations; warehouses; Awhistleblowers,@ credit card
companies that deal with health billing; and patients.

*Response*: We do not list all the types of entities that are business
associates, because whether an entity is a business associate depends on
what the entity does, not what the entity is. That is, this is a
definition based on function; any entity performing the function
described in the definition is a business associate. Using one of the
commenters= examples, a state hospital association may be a business
associate if it performs a service for a covered entity for which
protected health information is required. It is not a business associate
by virtue of the fact that it is a hospital association, but by virtue
of the service it is performing.

*Comment:* A few commenters urged that certain entities, i.e.,
collection agencies and case managers, be business partners rather than
covered entities for purposes of this rule.

*Response:* Collection agencies and case managers are business
associates to the extent that they provide specified services to or
perform functions or activities on behalf of a covered entity. A
collection agency is not a covered entity for purposes of this rule.
However, a case manager may be a covered entity because, depending on
the case manager=s activities, the person may meet the definition of
either a health care provider or a health plan. See definitions of
Ahealth care provider@ and Ahealth plan@ in \' 164.501.

*Comment:* Several commenters complained that the proposed HIPAA
security regulation and privacy regulation were inconsistent with regard
to business partners.

*Response:* We will conform these policies in the final Security Rule.

*Comment:* One commenter expressed concern that the proposal appeared to
give covered entities the power to limit by contract the ability of
their business partners to disclose protected health information
obtained from the covered entity regardless of whether the disclosure
was permitted under proposed \' 164.510, AUses and disclosures for which
individual authorization is not required@ (\' 164.512 in the final
rule). Therefore, the commenter argued that the covered entity could
prevent the business partner from disclosing protected health
information to oversight agencies or law enforcement by omitting them
from the authorized disclosures in the contract.

In addition, the commenter expressed concern that the proposal did not
authorize business partners and their employees to engage in
whistleblowing. The commenter concluded that this omission was
unintended since the proposal=s provision at proposed \' 164.518(c)(4)
relieved the covered entity, covered entity=s employees, business
partner, and the business partner=s employees from liability for
disclosing protected health information to law enforcement and to health
oversight agencies when reporting improper activities, but failed to
specifically authorize business partners and their employees to engage
in whistleblowing in proposed \' 164.510(f), ADisclosures for law
enforcement.@

*Response:* Under our statutory authority, we cannot directly regulate
entities that are not covered entities; thus, we cannot regulate most
business associates, or \>authorize= them to use or disclose protected
health information. We agree with the result sought by the commenter,
and accomplish it by ensuring that such whistle blowing disclosures by
business associates and others do not constitute a violation of this
rule on the part of the covered entity.

*Comment:* Some commenters suggested that the need to terminate
contracts that had been breached would be particularly problematic when
the contracts were with single-source business partners used by health
care providers. For example, one commenter explained that when the
Department awards single-source contracts, such as to a Medicare carrier
acting as a fiscal intermediary that then becomes a business partner of
a health care provider, the physician is left with no viable alternative
if required to terminate the contract.

*Response:* In most cases, we expect that there will be other entities
that could be retained by the covered entity as a business associate to
carry out those functions on its behalf or provide the necessary
services. We agree that under certain circumstances, however, it may not
be possible for a covered entity to terminate a contract with a business
associate. Accordingly, although the rule still generally requires a
covered entity to terminate a contract if steps to cure such a material
breach fail, it also allows an exception to this to accommodate those
infrequent circumstances where there simply are no viable alternatives
to continuing a contract with that particular business associate. It
does not mean, however, that the covered entity can choose to continue
the contract with a non-compliant business associate merely because it
is more convenient or less costly than doing business with other
potential business associates. We also require that if a covered entity
determines that it is not feasible to terminate a non-compliant business
associate, the covered entity must notify the Secretary.

*Comment:* Another commenter argued that having to renegotiate every
existing contract within the 2-year implementation window so a covered
entity can attest to Asatisfactory assurance@ that its business partner
will appropriately safeguard protected health information is not
practical.

*Response:* The 2-year implementation period is statutorily required
under section 1175(b) of the Act. Further, we believe that two years
provides adequate time to come into compliance with the regulation.

*Comment:* A commenter recommended that the business partner contract
specifically address the issue of data mining because of its increasing
prevalence within and outside the health care industry.

*Response:* We agree that protected health information should only be
used by business associates for the purposes identified in the business
associate contract. We address the issue of data mining by requiring
that the business associate contract explicitly identify the uses or
disclosures that the business associate is permitted to make with the
protected health information. Aside from disclosures for data
aggregation and business associate management, the business associate
contract cannot authorize any uses or disclosures that the covered
entity itself cannot make. Therefore, data mining by the business
associate for any purpose not specified in the contract is a violation
of the contract and grounds for termination of the contract by the
covered entity.

*Comment:* One commenter stated that the rule needs to provide the
ability to contract with persons and organizations to complete clinical
studies, provide clinical expertise, and increase access to experts and
quality of care.

*Response:* We agree, and do not prohibit covered entities from sharing
protected health information under a business associate contract for
these purposes.

*Comment:* A commenter requested clarification as to whether sister
agencies are considered business partners when working together.

*Response:* It is unclear from the comment whether the Asister agencies@
are components of a larger entity, are affiliated entities, or are
otherwise linked. Requirements regarding sharing protected health
information among affiliates and components are found in \' 164.504.

*Comment:* One commenter stated that some union contracts specify that
the employer and employees jointly conduct patient quality of care
reviews. The commenter requested clarification as to whether this
arrangement made the employee a business partner.

*Response:* An employee organization that agrees to perform quality
assurance for a group health plan meets the definition of a business
associate. We note that the employee representatives acting on behalf of
the employee organization would be performing the functions of the
organization, and the employee organization would be responsible under
the business associate contract to ensure that the representatives
abided by the restrictions and conditions of the contract. If the
employee organization is a plan sponsor of the group health plan, the
similar provisions of \' 164.504(f) would apply instead of the business
associate requirements. See \' 164.502(e)(1).

*Comment*: Some commenters supported regulating employers as business
partners of the health plan. These commenters believed that this
approach provided flexibility by giving employers access to information
when necessary while still holding employers accountable for improper
use of the information. Many commenters, however, stressed that this
approach would turn the relationship between employers, employees and
other agents Aon its head@ by making the employer subordinate to its
agents. In addition, several commenters objected to the business partner
approach because they alleged it would place employers at risk for
greater liability.

*Response*: We do not require a business associate contract for
disclosure of protected health information from group health plans to
employers. We do, however, put other conditions on the disclosure of
protected health information from group health plans to employers who
sponsor the plan. See further discussion in \' 164.504 on disclosure of
protected health information to employers.

*Comment:* One commenter expressed concern that the regulation would
discourage organizations from participating with Planned Parenthood
since pro bono and volunteer services may have no contract signed.

*Response:* We design the rule=s requirements with respect to volunteers
and pro bono services to allow flexibility to the covered entity so as
not to disturb these arrangements. Specifically, when such volunteers
work on the premises of the covered entity, the covered entity may
choose to treat them as members of the covered entity=s workforce or as
business associates. See the definitions of business associate and
workforce in \' 160.103. If the volunteer performs its work off-site and
needs protected health information, a business associate arrangement
will be required. In this instance, where protected health information
leaves the premises of the covered entity, privacy concerns are
heightened and it is reasonable to require an agreement to protect the
information. We believe that pro bono contractors will easily develop
standard contracts to allow those activities to continue smoothly while
protecting the health information that is shared.

**Section 164.504(f) B Group Health Plans**

*Comment*: Several commenters interpreted the preamble in the proposed
rule to mean that only self-insured group health plans were covered
entities. Another commenter suggested there was an error in the
definition of group health plans because it only included plans with
more than 50 participants [or]{.underline} plans administered by an
entity other than the employer (emphasis added by commenter). This
commenter believed the Aor@ should be an Aand@ because almost all plans
under 50 are administered by another entity and therefore this
definition does not exclude most small plans.

*Response*: We did not intend to imply that only self-insured group
health plans are covered health plans. We clarify that all group health
plans, both self-insured and fully-funded, with 50 or more participants
are covered entities, and that group health plans with fewer than 50
participants are covered health plans if they are administered by
another entity. While we agree with the commenter that few group health
plans with fewer than 50 participants are self-administered, the Aor@ is
dictated by the statute. Therefore, the statute only exempts group
health plans with fewer than 50 participants that are not administered
by an entity other than the employer.

*Comment*: Several commenters stated that the proposed rule
mis-characterized the relationship between the employer and the group
health plan. The commenters stated that under ERISA and the Internal
Revenue Code group health plans are separate legal entities from their
employer sponsors. The group health plan itself, however, generally does
not have any employees. Most operations of the group health plan are
contracted out to other entities or are carried out by employees of the
employer who sponsors the plan. The commenters stressed that while group
health plans are clearly covered entities, the Department does not have
the statutory authority to cover employers or other entities that
sponsor group health plans. In contrast, many commenters stated that
without covering employers, meaningful privacy protection is
unattainable.

*Response*: We agree that group health plans are separate legal entities
from their plan sponsors and that the group health plan itself may be
operated by employees of the plan sponsor. We make significant
modification to the proposed rule to better reflect this reality. We
design the requirements in the final regulation to use the existing
regulatory tools provided by ERISA, such as the plan documents required
by that law and the constellation of plan administration functions
defined by that law that established and maintain the group health plan.

We recognize plan sponsors= legitimate need for health information in
certain situations while, at the same time, protecting health
information from being used for employment-related functions or for
other functions related to other employee benefit plans or other
benefits provided by the plan sponsor. We do not attempt to directly
regulate plan sponsors, but pursuant to our authority to regulate health
plans, we place restrictions on the flow of information from covered
entities to non-covered entities. The final rule permits group health
plans to disclose protected health information to plan sponsors, and
allows them to authorize health insurance issuers or HMOs to disclose
protected health information to plan sponsors, if the plan sponsors
agree to use and disclose the information only as permitted or required
by the regulation. The information may be used only for plan
administration functions performed on behalf of the group health plan
and specified in the plan documents. Hereafter, any reference to
employer in a response to a comment uses the term Aplan sponsor,@ since
employers can only receive protected health information in their role as
plan sponsors, except as otherwise permitted under this rule, such as
with an authorization.

Specifically, in order for a plan sponsor to obtain without
authorization protected health information from a group health plan,
health insurance issuer, or HMO, the documents under which the group
health plan was established and is maintained must be amended to: (1)
describe the permitted uses and disclosures of protected health
information by the plan sponsor (see above for further explanation); (2)
specify that disclosure is permitted only upon receipt of a written
certification that the plan documents have been amended; and (3) provide
adequate firewalls. The firewalls must identify the employees or classes
of employees or other persons under the plan sponsor=s control who will
have access to protected health information; restrict access to only the
employees identified and only for the administrative functions performed
on behalf of the group health plan; and provide a mechanism for
resolving issues of noncompliance by the employees identified. Any
employee of the plan sponsor who receives protected health information
in connection with the group health plan must be included in the
amendment to the plan documents. As required by ERISA, the named
fiduciary is responsible for ensuring the accuracy of amendments to the
plan documents.

Group health plans, and health insurance issuers or HMOs with respect to
the group health plan, that disclose protected health information to
plan sponsors are bound by the minimum necessary standard as described
in \' 164.514.

Group health plans, to the extent they provide health benefits only
through an insurance contract with a health insurance issuer or HMO and
do not create, receive, or maintain protected health information (except
for summary information or enrollment and disenrollment information),
are not required to comply with the requirements of \'\' 164.520 or
164.530, except for the documentation requirements of \' 164.530(j). In
addition, because the group health plan does not have access to
protected health information, the requirements of \'\' 164.524, 164.526,
and 164.528 are not applicable. Individuals enrolled in a group health
plan that provides benefits only through an insurance contract with a
health insurance issuer or HMO would have access to all rights provided
by this regulation through the health insurance issuer or HMO, because
they are covered entities in their own right.

*Comment*: We received several comments from self-insured plans who
stated that the proposed rule did not fully appreciate the dual nature
of an employer as a plan sponsor and as a insurer. These commenters
stated that the regulation should have an exception for employers who
are also insurers.

*Response*: We believe the approach we have taken in the final rule
recognizes the special relationship between plan sponsors and group
health plans, including group health plans that provide benefits through
a self-insured arrangement. The final rule allows plan sponsors and
employees of plan sponsors access to protected health information for
purposes of plan administration. The group health plan is bound by the
permitted uses and disclosures of the regulation, but may disclose
protected health information to plan sponsors under certain
circumstances. To the extent that group health plans do not provide
health benefits through an insurance contract, they are required to
establish a privacy officer and provide training to employees who have
access to protected health information, as well as meet the other
applicable requirements of the regulation.

*Comment*: Some commenters supported our position not to require
individual consent for employers to have access to protected health
information for purposes of treatment, payment, and health care
operations. For employer sponsored insurance to continue to exist as it
does today, the commenters stressed, this policy is essential. Other
commenters encouraged the Department to amend the regulation to require
authorization for disclosure of information to employers. These
commenters stressed that because the employer was not a covered entity,
individual consent is the only way to prohibit potential abuses of
information.

*Response*: In the final regulation, we maintain the position in the
proposed rule that a health plan, including a group health plan, need
not obtain individual consent for use and disclosure of protected health
information for treatment, payment and or health care operations
purposes. However, we impose conditions (described above) for making
such disclosures to the plan sponsor. Because employees of the plan
sponsor often perform health care operations and payment (e.g. plan
administration) functions, such as claims payment, quality review, and
auditing, they may have legitimate need for such information. Requiring
authorization from every participant in the plan could make such
fundamental plan administration activities impossible. We therefore
impose regulatory restrictions, rather than a consent requirement, to
prevent abuses. For example, the plan sponsor must certify that any
protected health information obtained by its employees through such plan
administration activities will not be used for employment-related
decisions.

*Comment*: Several commenters stressed that the regulation must require
the establishment of firewalls between group health plans and employers.
These commenters stated that firewalls were necessary to prevent the
employer from accessing information improperly and using it in making
job placements, promotions, and firing decisions. In addition, one
commenter stated that employees with access to protected health
information must be empowered through this regulation to deny
unauthorized access to protected health information to corporate
managers and executives.

*Response*: We agree with the commenters that firewalls are necessary to
prevent unauthorized use and disclosure of protected health information.
Among the conditions for group health plans to disclose information to
plan sponsors, the plan sponsor must establish firewalls to prevent
unauthorized uses and disclosures of information. The firewalls include:
describing the employees or classes of employees with access to
protected health information; restricting access to and use of the
protected health information to the plan administration functions
performed on behalf of the group health plan and described in plan
documents; and providing an effective mechanism for resolving issues of
noncompliance.

*Comment:* Several commenters supported our proposal to cover the health
care component of an employer in its capacity as an administrator of the
group health plan. These commenters felt the component approach was
necessary to prevent the disclosure of protected health information to
other parts of the employer where it might be used or disclosed
improperly. Other commenters believed the component approach was
unworkable and that distinguishing who was in the covered entity would
not be as easy as assumed in the proposed rule. One commenter stated it
was unreasonable for an employer to go through its workforce division by
division and employee by employee designating who is included in the
component and who is not. In addition, some commenters argued that we
did not have the statutory authority to regulate employers at all,
including their health care components.

One commenter requested more guidance with respect to identifying the
health care component as proposed under the proposed rule. In
particular, the commenter requested that the regulation clearly define
how to identify such persons and what activities and functional areas
may be included. The commenter alleged that identification of persons
needing access to protected health information will be administratively
burdensome. Another commenter requested clarification on distinguishing
the component entity from non-component entities within an organization
and how to administer such relationships. The commenter stated that
individuals included in the covered entity could change on a daily basis
and advocated for a simpler set of rules governing intra-organizational
relationships as opposed to inter-organizational relationships.

*Response*: While we have not adopted the component approach for plan
sponsors in the final rule, plan sponsors who want protected health
information must still identify who in the organization will have access
to the information. Several of the changes we make to the NPRM will make
this designation easier. First, we move from Acomponent@ to a more
familiar functional approach. We limit the employees of the plan sponsor
who may receive protected health information to those employees
performing plan administration functions, as that term is understood
with respect to ERISA compliance, and as limited by this rule=s
definitions of payment and health care operation. We also allow
designation of a class of employees (e.g., all employees assigned to a
particular department) or individual employees.

Although some commenters have asked for guidance, we have intentionally
left the process flexible to accommodate different organizational
structures. Plan sponsors may identify who will have access to protected
health information in whatever way best reflects their business needs as
long as participants can reasonably identify who will have access. For
example, persons may be identified by naming individuals, job titles
(e.g. Director of Human Resources), functions (e.g. employees with
oversight responsibility for the outside third party claims
administrator), divisions of the company (e.g. Employee Benefits) or
other entities related to the plan sponsor. We believe this flexibility
will also ease any administrative burden that may result from the
identification process. Identification in terms such as Aindividuals who
from time to time may need access to protected health information@ or in
other broad or generic ways, however, would not be sufficient.

*Comment*: In addition to the comments on the component approach itself,
several commenters pointed out that many employees wear two hats in the
organization, one for the group health plan and one for the employer.
The commenters stressed that these employees should not be regulated
when they are performing group health plan functions. This arrangement
is necessary, particularly in small employers where the plan fiduciary
may also be in charge of other human resources functions. The commenter
recommended that employees be allowed access to information when
necessary to perform health plan functions while prohibiting them from
using the information for non-health plan functions.

*Response*: We agree with the commenters that many employees perform
multiple functions in an organization and we design these provisions
specifically to accommodate this way of conducting business. Under the
approach taken in the final regulation, employees who perform multiple
functions (i.e. group health plan and employment-related functions) may
receive protected health information from group health plans, but among
other things, the plan documents must certify that these employees will
not use the information for activities not otherwise permitted by this
rule including for employment-related activities.

*Comment*: Several commenters pointed out that the amount of access
needed to protected health information varies greatly from employer to
employer. Some employers may perform many plan administration functions
themselves which are not possible without access to protected health
information. Other employers may simply offer health insurance by paying
a premium to a health insurance issuer rather than provide or administer
health benefits themselves. Some commenters argued that fully insured
plans should not be covered under the rule. Similarly, some commenters
argued that the regulation was overly burdensome on small employers,
most of whom fully insure their group health plans. Other commenters
pointed out that health insurance issuers - even in fully insured
arrangements - are often asked for identifiable health information,
sometimes for legitimate purposes such as auditing or quality assurance,
but sometimes not. One commenter, representing an insurer, gave several
examples of employer requests, including claims reports for employees,
individual and aggregate amounts paid for employees, identity of
employees using certain drugs, and the identity, diagnosis and
anticipated future costs for Ahigh cost@ employees. This same commenter
requested guidance in what types of information can be released to
employers to help them determine the organization=s responsibilities and
liabilities.

*Response*: In the final regulation we recognize the diversity in plan
sponsors= need for protected health information. Many plan sponsors need
access to protected health information to perform plan administration
functions, including eligibility and enrollment functions, quality
assurance, claims processing, auditing, monitoring, trend analysis, and
management of carve-out plans (such as vision and dental plans). In the
final regulation we allow group health plans to disclose protected
health information to plan sponsors if the plan sponsor voluntarily
agrees to use the information only in accordance with the purposes
stated in the plan documents and as permitted by the regulation. We
clarify, however, that plan administration does not include any
employment-related decisions, including fitness for duty determinations,
or duties related to other employee benefits or plans. Plan documents
may only permit health insurance issuers to disclose protected health
information to a plan sponsor as is otherwise permitted under this rule
and consistent with the minimum necessary standard.

Some plan sponsors, including those with a fully insured group health
plan, do not perform plan administration functions on behalf of group
health plans, but still may require health information for other
purposes, such as modifying, amending or terminating the plan or
soliciting bids from prospective issuers or HMOs. In the ERISA context
actions undertaken to modify, amend or terminate a group health plan may
be known as Asettlor@ functions (see [Lockheed Corp. v.
Spink]{.underline}, 517 U.S. 882 (1996)). For example, a plan sponsor
may require access to information to evaluate whether to adopt a
three-tiered drug formulary. Additionally, a prospective health
insurance issuer may need claims information from a plan sponsor in
order to provide rating information. The final rule permits plan
sponsors to receive summary health information with identifiers removed
in order to carry out such functions. Summary health information is
information that summarizes the claims history, expenses, or types of
claims by individuals enrolled in the group health plan. In addition,
the identifiers listed in \' 164.514(b)(2)(i) must be removed prior to
disclosing the information to a plan sponsor for purposes of modifying,
amending, or terminating the plan. See \' 164.504(a). This information
does not constitute de-identified information because there may be a
reasonable basis to believe the information is identifiable to the plan
sponsor, especially if the number of participants in the group health
plan is small. A group health plan, however, may not permit an issuer or
HMO to disclose protected health information to a plan sponsor unless
the requirement in \' 164.520 states that this disclosure may occur.

*Comment*: Several commenters stated that health insurance issuers
cannot be held responsible for employers= use of protected health
information. They stated that the issuer is the agent of the employer
and it should not be required to monitor the employer=s use and
disclosure of information.

*Response*: Under this regulation, health insurance issuers are covered
entities and responsible for their own uses and disclosures of protected
health information. A group health plan must require a health insurance
issuer or HMO providing coverage to the group health plan to disclose
information to the plan sponsor only as provided in the plan documents.

*Comment*: Several commenters urged us to require de-identified
information to be used to the greatest extent possible when information
is being shared with employers.

*Response*: De-identified information is not sufficient for many
functions plan sponsors perform on behalf of their group health plans.
We have created a process to allow plan sponsors and their employees
access to protected health information when necessary to administer the
plan. We note that all uses and disclosures of protected health
information by the group health plan are bound by the minimum necessary
standard.

*Comment*: One commenter representing church plans argued that the
regulation should treat such plans differently from other group health
plans. The commenter was concerned about the level of access to
information the Secretary would have in performing compliance reviews
and suggested that a higher degree of sensitivity is need for
information related to church plans than information related to other
group health plans. This sensitivity is needed, the commenter alleged,
to reduce unnecessary intrusion into church operations. The commenter
also advocated that church plans found to be out of compliance should be
able to self-correct within a stated time frame (270 days) and avoid
paying penalty taxes as allowed in the Internal Revenue Code.

*Response*: We do not believe there is sufficient reason to treat church
plans differently than other covered entities. The intent of the
compliance reviews is to determine whether or not the plan is abiding by
the regulation, not to gather information on the general operations of
the church. As required by \' 160.310(c), the covered entity must
provide access only to information that is pertinent to ascertaining
compliance with part 160 or subpart E of 164.

*Comment*: Several commenters stated that employers often advocate on
behalf of their employees in benefit disputes and appeals, answer
questions with regard to the health plan, and generally help them
navigate their health benefits. These commenters questioned whether this
type of assistance would be allowed under the regulation, whether
individual consent was required, and whether this intervention would
make them a covered entity.

*Response*: The final rule does nothing to hinder or prohibit plan
sponsors from advocating on behalf of group health plan participants or
providing assistance in understanding their health plan. Under the
privacy rule, however, the plan sponsor could not obtain any information
from the group health plan or a covered provider unless authorization
was given. We do not believe obtaining authorization when advocating or
providing assistance will be impractical or burdensome since the
individual is requesting assistance and therefore should be willing to
provide authorization. Advocating on behalf of participants or providing
other assistance does not make the plan sponsor a covered entity.

**SECTION 164.506 - CONSENT FOR TREATMENT, PAYMENT, AND HEALTH CARE
OPERATIONS**

*Comment:* Many commenters supported regulatory authorization for
treatment, payment, and health care operations. In particular, health
plans, employers, and institutional providers supported the use of
regulatory authorization for treatment, payment, and health care
operations.

In contrast, a large number of commenters, particularly health care
professionals, patients, and patient advocates, suggested that consent
for treatment, payment, and health care operations should be required.
Many commenters supported the use of consent for treatment, payment, and
health care operations, considering this a requirement for maintaining
the integrity of the health care system. Some commenters made a
distinction between requiring and permitting providers to obtain
consent.

Commenters nearly uniformly agreed that covered health care providers,
health plans, and clearinghouses should not be prohibited from seeking
authorization for treatment, payment, and health care operations. Some
commenters stated that the prohibition against obtaining an
authorization goes against professional ethics, undermines the
patient-provider relationship, and is contrary to current industry
practice.

Some commenters specifically noted the primacy of the doctor-patient
relationship regarding consent. In general, commenters recommended that
individually identifiable health information not be released by doctors
without patient consent. A few commenters stated that prohibiting health
care providers from obtaining consent could cause the patient to become
suspicious and distrustful of the health care provider. Other commenters
believed that clinicians have the responsibility for making sure that
patients are fully informed about the consequences of releasing
information. A few commented that the process of obtaining consent
provided an opportunity for the patient and provider to negotiate the
use and disclosure of patient information.

Commenters discussed how, when, and by whom consent should be sought.
For example, some commenters viewed a visit between a health care
provider and patient as the appropriate place for consent to be
discussed and obtained. While others did not necessarily dispute the
appropriateness of health care providers obtaining consent for uses and
disclosures of protected health information from individuals, some said
that it was appropriate for health plans to be permitted to obtain
consent.

*Response:* In the NPRM we stated our concern that the blanket consents
that individuals sign today provide these individuals with neither
notice nor control over how their information is to be used. While we
retain those concerns, we also understand that for many who participate
in the health care system, the acts of providing and obtaining consent
represent important values that these parties wish to retain. Many
individuals argued that providing consent enhances their control; many
advocates argued that the act of consent focuses patient attention on
the transaction; and many health care providers argued that obtaining
consent is part of ethical behavior.

The final rule amends our proposed approach and requires most covered
health care providers to obtain a consent from their patients to use or
disclose protected health information for treatment, payment, and health
care operations. Providers who have an indirect treatment relationship
with the patient, as defined in \' 164.501, cannot be expected to have
an opportunity to obtain consent and may continue to rely on regulatory
authorization for their uses and disclosures for these purposes.

As described in the comments, it is the relationship between the health
care provider and the patient that is the basis for many decisions about
uses and disclosures of protected health information. Much of the
individually identifiable health information that is the subject of this
rule is created when a patient interacts with a health care provider. By
requiring covered providers to obtain consent for treatment, payment,
and health care operations, the individual will have appropriate
opportunity to consider the appropriate uses and disclosures of his or
her protected health information. We also require that the consent
contain a reference to the provider=s notice, which contains a more
detailed description of the provider=s practices relating to uses and
disclosures of protected health information. This combination provides
the basis for an individual to have an informed conversation with his or
her provider and to request restrictions.

It is our understanding that it is common practice for providers to
obtain consent for this type of information-sharing today. Many
providers and provider organizations stated that they are ethically
obligated to obtain the patient=s consent and that it is their practice
to do so. A 1998 study by Merz, et al, published in the Journal of Law,
Medicine and Ethics examined hospital consent forms regarding disclosure
of medical information.[^8] They found that 97% of all hospitals seek
consent for the release of information for payment purposes; 45% seek
consent for disclosure for utilization review, peer review, quality
assurance, and/or prospective review; and 50% seek consent for
disclosure to providers, other health care facilities, or others for
continuity of care purposes. All of these activities fall within our
definitions of treatment, payment, or health care operations.

In the final rule we have not required that health plans or health care
clearinghouses obtain consent for their uses and disclosures of
protected health information for treatment, payment, or health care
operations. The rationale underlying the consent requirements for uses
and disclosures by health care providers do not pertain to health plans
and health care clearinghouses. First, current practice is varied, and
there is little history of health plans obtaining consent relating to
their own information practices unless required to do so by some other
law. This is reflected in the public comments, in which most health
plans supported the regulatory authorization approach proposed in the
NPRM. Further, unlike many health care providers, health plans did not
maintain that they were ethically obligated to seek the consent of their
patients for their use and disclosure activities. Finally, it is the
unique relationship between an individual and his or her health care
provider that provides the foundation for a meaningful consent process.
Requiring that consent process between an individual and a health plan
or clearinghouse, when no such unique relationship exists, we believe is
not necessary.

Unlike their relationship with health care providers, individuals in
most instances do not have a direct opportunity to engage in a
discussion with a health plan or clearinghouse at the time that they
enter into a relationship with those entities. Most individuals choose a
health plan through their employer and often sign up through their
employer without any direct contact with the health plan. We concluded
that providing for a signed consent in such a circumstance would add
little to the proposed approach, which would have required health plans
to provide a detailed notice to their enrollees. In the final rule, we
also clarify that an individual can request a restriction from a health
plan or health care clearinghouse. Since individuals rarely if ever have
any direct contact with clearinghouses, we concluded that requiring a
signed consent would have virtually no effect beyond the provision of
the notice and the opportunity to request restrictions.

We agree with the comments we received objecting to the provision
prohibiting covered entities from obtaining consent from individuals. As
discussed above, in the final rule we require covered health care
providers with direct treatment relationships to obtain consent to use
or disclose protected health information for treatment, payment, and
health care operations. In addition, we have eliminated the provision
prohibiting other covered entities from obtaining such consents. We note
that the consents that covered entities are permitted to obtain relate
to their own uses and disclosures of protected health information for
treatment, payment, and health care operations and not to the practices
of others. If a covered entity wants to obtain the individual=s
permission to receive protected health information from another covered
entity, it must do so using an authorization under \' 164.508.

***AConsent@ versus AAuthorization@***

*Comment:* In general, commenters did not distinguish between Aconsent@
and Aauthorization@. Commenters used both terms to refer to the
individual=s giving permission for the use and disclosure of protected
health information by any entity.

*Response:* In the final rule we have made an important distinction
between consent and authorization. Under the final rule, we refer to the
process by which a covered entity seeks agreement from an individual
regarding how it will use and disclose the individual=s protected health
information for treatment, payment, and health care operations as
Aconsent.@ The provisions in the final rule relating to consent are
largely contained in \' 164.506. The process by which a covered entity
seeks agreement from an individual to use or disclose protected health
information for other purposes, or to authorize another covered entity
to disclose protected health information to the requesting covered
entity, are termed Aauthorizations@ and the provisions relating to them
are found in \' 164.508.

***Consent Requirements***

*Comment:* Many commenters believed that consent might be problematic in
that it could allow covered entities to refuse enrollment or services if
the individual does not grant the consent. Some commenters proposed that
covered entities be allowed to condition treatment, payment, or health
care operations on whether or not an individual granted consent. Other
commenters said that consent should be voluntary and not coerced.

*Response:* In the final rule (\' 164.506(b)(1)), we permit covered
health care providers to condition treatment on the individual=s consent
to the covered provider=s use or disclosure of protected health
information to carry out treatment, payment, and health care operations.
We recognize that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for health
care providers to treat their patients and run their businesses without
being able to use or disclose protected health information for these
purposes. For example, a health care provider could not be reimbursed by
a health plan unless the provider could share protected health
information about the individual with the health plan. Under the final
rule, if the individual refuses to grant consent for this disclosure,
the health care provider may refuse to treat the individual. We
encourage health care providers to exhaust other options, such as making
alternative payment arrangements with the individual, before refusing to
treat the individual on these grounds.

We also permit health plans to condition enrollment in the health plan
on the individual=s consent for the health plan to use and disclose
protected health information to carry out treatment, payment, and health
care operations (see \' 164.506(b)(2)). The health plan must seek the
consent in conjunction with the individual=s enrollment in the plan for
this provision to apply. For example, a health plan=s application for
enrollment may include a consent for the health plan to use or disclose
protected health information to carry out treatment, payment, and/or
health care operations. If the individual does not sign this consent,
the health plan, under \' 164.502(a)(1)(iii), is prohibited from using
or disclosing protected health information about the individual for the
purposes stated in the consent form. Because the health plan may not be
able adequately to provide services to the individual without these uses
and disclosures, we permit the health plan to refuse to enroll the
individual if the consent is not signed.

*Comment:* Some commenters were concerned that the NPRM conflicted with
state law regarding when covered entities would be required to obtain
consent for uses and disclosures of protected health information.

*Response:* We have modified the provisions in the final rule to require
certain health care providers to obtain consent for uses and disclosures
for treatment, payment, and health care operations and to permit other
covered entities to do so. A consent under this rule may be combined
with other types of written legal permission from the individual, such
as state-required consents for uses and disclosures of certain types of
health information (e.g., information relating to HIV/AIDS or mental
health). We also permit covered entities to seek authorization from the
individual for another covered entity=s use or disclosure of protected
health information for these purposes, including if the covered entity
is required to do so by other law. Though we do not believe any states
currently require such authorizations, we wanted to avoid future
conflicts. These changes should resolve the concerns raised by
commenters regarding conflicts with state laws that require consent,
authorization, or other types of written legal permission for uses and
disclosures of protected health information.

*Comment:* Some commenters noted that there would be circumstances when
consent is impossible or impractical. A few commenters suggested that in
such situations patient information be de-identified or reviewed by an
objective third party to determine if consent is necessary.

*Response:* Covered health care providers with direct treatment
relationships are required to obtain consent to use or disclose
protected health information to carry out treatment, payment, and health
care operations. In certain treatment situations where the provider is
permitted or required to treat an individual without the individual=s
written consent to receive health care, the provider may use and
disclose protected health information created or obtained in the course
of that treatment without the individual=s consent under this rule (see
\' 164.506(a)(3)). In these situations, the provider must attempt to
obtain the individual=s consent and, if the provider is unable to obtain
consent, the provider must document the attempt and the reason consent
could not be obtained. Together with the uses and disclosures permitted
under \'\' 164.510 and 164.512, the concerns raised regarding situations
in which it is impossible or impractical for covered entities to obtain
the individual=s permission to use or disclose protected health
information about the individual have been addressed.

*Comment:* An agency that provides care to individuals with mental
retardation and developmental disabilities expressed concern that many
of their consumers lack capacity to consent to the release of their
records and may not have a surrogate readily available to provide
consent on their behalf.

*Response:* Under \' 164.506(a)(3), we provide exceptions to the consent
requirement for certain treatment situations in which consent is
difficult to obtain. In these situations, the covered provider must
attempt to obtain consent and must document the reason why consent was
not obtained. If these conditions are met, the provider may use and
disclose the protected health information created or obtained during the
treatment for treatment, payment, or health care operations purposes,
without consent.

*Comment:* Many commenters were concerned that covered entities working
together in an integrated health care system would each separately be
required to obtain consent for use and disclosure of protected health
information for treatment, payment, and health care operations. These
commenters recommend that the rule permit covered entities that are part
of the same integrated health care system to obtain a single consent
allowing each of the covered entities to use and disclose protected
health information in accordance with that consent form. Some commenters
said that it would be confusing to patients and administratively
burdensome to require separate consents for health care systems that
include multiple covered entities.

*Response:* We agree with commenters= concerns. In \' 164.506(f) of the
final rule we permit covered entities that participate in an organized
health care arrangement to obtain a single consent on behalf of the
arrangement. See \' 164.501 and the corresponding preamble discussion
regarding organized health care arrangements. To obtain a joint consent,
the covered entities must have a joint notice and must refer to the
joint notice in the joint consent. See \' 164.520(d) and the
corresponding preamble discussion regarding joint notice. The joint
consent must also identify the covered entities to which it applies so
that individuals will know who is permitted to use and disclose
information about them.

*Comment:* Many commenters stated that individuals own their medical
records and, therefore, should have absolute control over them,
including knowing by whom and for what purpose protected health
information is used, disclosed, and maintained. Some commenters asserted
that, according to existing law, a patient owns the medical records of
which he is the subject.

*Response:* We disagree. In order to assert an ownership interest in a
medical record, a patient must demonstrate some legitimate claim of
entitlement to it under a state law that establishes property rights or
under state contract law. Historically, medical records have been the
property of the health care provider or medical facility that created
them, and some state statutes directly provide that medical records are
the property of a health care provider or a health care facility. The
final rule is consistent with current state law that provides patients
access to protected health information but not ownership of medical
records. Furthermore, state laws that are more stringent than the rule,
that is, state laws that provide a patient with greater access to
protected health information, remain in effect. See discussion of
APreemption@ above.

***Electronically Stored Data***

*Comment*: Some commenters stated that privacy concerns would be
significantly reduced if patient information is not stored
electronically. One commenter suggested that consent should be given for
patient information to be stored electronically. One commenter believed
that information stored in data systems should not be individually
identifiable.

*Response:* We agree that storing and transmitting health information
electronically creates concerns about the privacy of health information.
We do not agree, however, that covered entities should be expected to
maintain health information outside of an electronic system,
particularly as health care providers and health plans extend their
reliance on electronic transactions. We do not believe that it would be
feasible to permit individuals to opt out of electronic transactions by
withholding their consent. We note that individuals can ask providers
and health plans whether or not they store information electronically,
and can choose only providers who do not do so or who agree not to do
so. We also do not believe that it is practical or efficient to require
that electronic data bases contain only de-identified information.
Electronic transactions have achieved tremendous savings in the health
care system and electronic records have enabled significant improvements
in the quality and coordination of health care. These improvements would
not be possible with de-identified information.

**SECTION 164.508 - USES AND DISCLOSURES FOR WHICH AUTHORIZATION IS
REQUIRED**

***Uses and Disclosures Requiring Authorization***

*Comment:* We received many comments in general support of requiring
authorization for the use or disclosure of protected health information.
Some comments suggested, however, that we should define those uses and
disclosures for which authorization is required and permit covered
entities to make all other uses and disclosures without authorization.

*Response:* We retain the requirement for covered entities to obtain
authorization for all uses and disclosures of protected health
information that are not otherwise permitted or required under the rule
without authorization. We define exceptions to the general rule
requiring authorization for the use or disclosure of protected health
information, rather than defining narrow circumstances in which
authorization is required.

We believe this approach is consistent with well-established privacy
principles, with other law, and with industry standards and ethical
guidelines. The July 1977 Report of the Privacy Protection Study
Commission recommended that Aeach medical-care provider be considered to
owe a duty of confidentiality to any individual who is the subject of a
medical record it maintains, and that, therefore, no medical care
provider should disclose, or be required to disclose, in individually
identifiable form, any information about any such individual without the
individual=s explicit authorization, unless the disclosures would be@
for specifically enumerated purposes such as treatment, audit or
evaluation, research, public health, and law enforcement.[^9] The
Commission made similar recommendations with respect to insurance
institutions.[^10] The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) prohibits government
agencies from disclosing records except pursuant to the written request
of or pursuant to a written consent of the individual to whom the record
pertains, unless the disclosure is for certain specified purposes. The
National Association of Insurance Commissioners= Health Information
Privacy Model Act states, AA carrier shall not collect, use or disclose
protected health information without a valid authorization from the
subject of the protected health information, except as permitted by\...
this Act or as permitted or required by law or court order.
Authorization for the disclosure of protected health information may be
obtained for any purpose, provided that the authorization meets the
requirements of this section.@ In its report ABest Principles for Health
Privacy,@ the Health Privacy Working Group stated, APersonally
identifiable health information should not be disclosed without patient
authorization, except in limited circumstances@ such as when required by
law, for oversight, and for research.[^11] The American Medical
Association=s Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs has issued an
opinion stating, AThe physician should not reveal confidential
communications or information without the express consent of the
patient, unless required to do so by law \[and\] subject to certain
exceptions which are ethically and legally justified because of
overriding social considerations.@[^12] We build on these standards in
this final rule.

*Comment:* Some comments suggested that, under the proposed rule, a
covered entity could not use protected health information to solicit
authorizations from individuals. For example, a covered entity could not
use protected health information to generate a mailing list for sending
an authorization for marketing purposes.

*Response:* We agree with this concern and clarify that covered entities
are permitted to use protected health information in this manner without
authorization as part of the management activities relating to
implementation of and compliance with the requirements of this rule. See
\' 164.501 and the corresponding preamble regarding the definition of
health care operations.

*Comment:* We received several comments suggesting that we not require
written authorizations for disclosures to the individual or for
disclosures initiated by the individual or the individual=s legal
representative.

*Response:* We agree with this concern and in the final rule we clarify
that disclosures of protected health information to the individual who
is the subject of the information do not require the individual=s
authorization. See \' 164.502(a)(1). We do not intend to impose barriers
between individuals and disclosures of protected health information to
them.

When an individual requests that the covered entity disclose protected
health information to a third party, however, the covered entity must
obtain the individual=s authorization, unless the third party is a
personal representative of the individual with respect to such protected
health information. See \' 164.502(g). If under applicable law a person
has authority to act on behalf of an individual in making decisions
related to health care, except under limited circumstances, that person
must be treated as the personal representative under this rule with
respect to protected health information related to such representation.
A legal representative is a personal representative under this rule if,
under applicable law, such person is able to act on behalf of an
individual in making decisions related to health care, with respect to
the protected health information related to such decisions. For example,
an attorney of an individual may or may not be a personal representative
under the rule depending on the attorney=s authority to act on behalf of
the individual in decisions related to health care. If the attorney is
the personal representative under the rule, he may obtain a copy of the
protected health information relevant to such personal representation
under the individual=s right to access. If the attorney is not the
personal representative under the rule, or if the attorney wants a copy
of more protected health information than that which is relevant to his
personal representation, the individual would have to authorize such
disclosure.

*Comment:* Commenters expressed concern about whether a covered entity
can rely on authorizations made by parents on behalf of their minor
children once the child has reached the age of majority and recommended
that covered entities be able to rely on the most recent, valid
authorization, whether it was authorized by the parent or the minor.

*Response:* We agree. If an authorization is signed by a parent, who is
the personal representative of the minor child at the time the
authorization is signed, the covered entity may rely on the
authorization for as long as it is a valid authorization, in accordance
with \' 164.508(b). A valid authorization remains valid until it expires
or is revoked. This protects a covered entity=s reasonable reliance on
such authorization. The expiration date of the authorization may be the
date the minor will reach the age of majority. In that case, the covered
entity would be required to have the individual sign a new authorization
form in order to use or disclose information covered in the expired
authorization form.

*Comment:* Some commenters were concerned that covered entities working
together in an integrated system would each be required to obtain
authorization separately. These commenters suggested the rule should
allow covered entities that are part of the same system to obtain a
single authorization allowing each of the covered entities to use and
disclose protected health information in accordance with that
authorization.

*Response:* If the rule does not permit or require a covered entity to
use or disclose protected health information without the individual=s
authorization, the covered entity must obtain the individual=s
authorization to make the use or disclosure. Multiple covered entities
working together as an integrated delivery system or otherwise may
satisfy this requirement in at least three ways. First, each covered
entity may separately obtain an authorization directly from the
individual who is the subject of the protected health information to be
used or disclosed. Second, one covered entity may obtain a compound
authorization in accordance with \' 164.508(b)(3) that authorizes
multiple covered entities to use and disclose protected health
information. In accordance with \' 164.508(c)(1)(ii), each covered
entity, or class of covered entities, that is authorized to make the use
or disclosure must be clearly identified. Third, if the requirements in
\' 164.504(d) are met, the integrated delivery system may elect to
designate itself as a single affiliated covered entity. A valid
authorization obtained by that single affiliated covered entity would
satisfy the authorization requirements for each covered entity within
the affiliated covered entity. Whichever option is used, because these
authorizations are being requested by a covered entity for its own use
or disclosure, the authorization must contain both the core elements in
\' 164.508(c) and the additional elements in \' 164.508(d).

***Sale, Rental, or Barter***

*Comment:* Proposed \' 164.508 listed examples of activities that would
have required authorization, which included disclosure by sale, rental,
or barter. Some commenters requested clarification that this provision
is not intended to affect mergers, sale, or similar transactions dealing
with entire companies or their individual divisions. A few commenters
stated that covered entities should be allowed to sell protected health
information, including claims data, as an asset of the covered entity.

*Response:* We clarify in the definition of health care operations that
a covered entity may sell or transfer its assets, including protected
health information, to a successor in interest that is or will become a
covered entity. See \' 164.501 and the corresponding preamble discussion
regarding this change. We believe this change meets commenters= business
needs without compromising individuals= privacy interests.

*Comment:* Some commenters supported the requirement for covered
entities to obtain authorization for the sale, rental, or barter of
protected health information. Some commenters argued that protected
health information should never be bought or sold by anyone, even with
the individual=s authorization.

*Response:* We removed the reference to sale, rental, or barter in the
final rule because we determined that the term was overly broad. For
example, if a researcher reimbursed a provider for the cost of
configuring health data to be disclosed under the research provisions at
\' 164.512(i), there may have been ambiguity that this was a sale and,
therefore, required authorizations from the individuals who were the
subjects of the information. We clarify in the final rule that if the
use or disclosure is otherwise permitted or required under the rule
without authorization, such authorization is not required simply because
the disclosure is made by sale, rental, or barter.

*Comment:* Many commenters expressed concerns that their health
information will be sold to pharmaceutical companies.

*Response:* Although we have removed the reference to sale, rental or
barter, the final rule generally would not permit the sale of protected
health information to a pharmaceutical company without the authorization
of individuals who are the subjects of the information. In some cases, a
covered entity could disclose protected health information to a
pharmaceutical company for research purposes if the disclosure met the
requirements of \' 164.512(i).

*Psychotherapy Notes*

*Comment:* Public response to the concept of providing additional
protections for psychotherapy notes was divided. Many individuals and
most providers, particularly mental health practitioners, advocated
requiring consent for use or disclosure of all or most protected health
information, but particularly sensitive information such as mental
health information, not necessarily limited to psychotherapy notes.
Others thought there should be special protections for psychotherapy
information based on the federal psychotherapist-patient privilege
created by the U.S. Supreme Court in *Jaffee v. Redmond* and the need
for an atmosphere of trust between therapist and patient that is
required for effective psychotherapy. Several consumer groups
recommended prohibiting disclosure of psychotherapy notes for payment
purposes.

Some commenters, however, saw no need for special protections for
psychotherapy communications and thought that the rules should apply the
same protections for all individually identifiable information. Other
commenters who advocated for no special protections based their
opposition on the difficulty in drawing a distinction between physical
and mental health and that special protections should be left to the
states. Many health plans and employers did not support additional
protections for psychotherapy notes because they stated they need access
to this information to assess the adequacy of treatment, the severity of
a patient=s condition, the extent of a disability, or the ability to
monitor the effectiveness of an individual=s mental health care and
eligibility for benefits. Other commenters, many from insurance
companies, cited the need to have psychotherapy notes to detect fraud.

A few commenters said that it was not necessary to provide additional
protections to psychotherapy notes because the Aminimum necessary@
provisions of the NPRM provide sufficient protections.

*Response*: In the final rule, a covered entity generally must obtain an
authorization for disclosure of psychotherapy notes, or for use by a
person other than the person who created the psychotherapy notes. This
authorization is specific to psychotherapy notes and is in addition to
the consent an individual may have given for the use or disclosure of
other protected health information to carry out treatment, payment, and
health care operations. This additional level of individual control
provides greater protection than a general application of the \"minimum
necessary\" rule. Nothing in this regulation weakens existing rules
applicable to mental health information that provide more stringent
protections. We do not intend to alter the holding in *Jaffee v.
Redmond*.

Generally, we have not treated sensitive information differently from
other protected health information; however, we have provided additional
protections for psychotherapy notes because of *Jaffee v. Redmond* and
the unique role of this type of information. There are few reasons why
other health care entities should need access to psychotherapy notes,
and in those cases, the individual is in the best position to determine
if the notes should be disclosed. As we have defined them, psychotherapy
notes are primarily of use to the mental health professional who wrote
them, maintained separately from the medical record, and not involved in
the documentation necessary to carry out treatment, payment, or health
care operations. Since psychotherapy notes have been defined to exclude
information that health plans would typically need to process a claim
for benefits, special authorization for payment purposes should be rare.
Unlike information shared with other health care providers for the
purposes of treatment, psychotherapy notes are more detailed and
subjective and are today subject to unique privacy and record retention
practices. In fact, it is this separate existence and isolated use that
allows us to grant the extra protection without causing an undue burden
on the health care system.

*Comment:* Many commenters suggested we prohibit disclosure of
psychotherapy notes without authorization for uses and disclosures under
proposed \' 164.510 of the NPRM, or that protections should be extended
to particular uses and disclosures, such as disclosures for public
health, law enforcement, health oversight, and judicial and
administrative proceedings. One of these commenters stated that the only
purpose for which psychotherapy notes should be disclosed without
authorization is for preventing or lessening a serious or imminent
threat to health or safety (proposed \'154.510(k)). Another commenter
stated that the rule should allow disclosure of psychotherapy notes
without authorization for this purpose, or as required by law in cases
of abuse or neglect.

Other commenters did not want these protections to be extended to
certain national priority activities. They claimed that information
relative to psychotherapy is essential to states\' activities to protect
the public from dangerous mentally ill offenders and abusers, to deliver
services to individuals who are unable to authorize release of health
care information, and for public health assessments. One commenter
requested clarification of when psychotherapy notes could be released in
emergency circumstances. Several commenters stated that psychotherapy
notes should not be disclosed for public health purposes.

*Response:* We agree with the commenters who suggested extending
protections of psychotherapy notes and have limited the purposes for
which psychotherapy notes may be disclosed without authorization for
purposes other than treatment, payment, or health care operations. The
final rule requires covered entities to obtain authorization to use or
disclose psychotherapy notes for purposes listed in \' 164.512, with the
following exceptions: An authorization is not required for use or
disclosure of psychotherapy notes when the use or disclosure is required
for enforcement of this rule, in accordance with \' 164.502(a)(2)(ii);
when required by law, in accordance with \' 164.512(a); when needed for
oversight of the covered health care provider who created the
psychotherapy notes, in accordance with \' 164.512(d); when needed by a
coroner or medical examiner, in accordance with \' 164.512(g)(1); or
when needed to avert a serious and imminent threat to health or safety,
in accordance with \' 164.512(j)(1)(i).

*Comment:* A commenter suggested that we follow the federal regulations
governing confidentiality of alcohol and substance abuse records as a
model for limited disclosure of psychotherapy notes for audits or
evaluations. Under these regulations, a third party payor or a party
providing financial assistance may access confidential records for
auditing purposes if the party agrees in writing to keep the records
secure and destroy any identifying information upon completion of the
audit. (42 CFR Part 2)

*Response:* We agree that the federal regulations concerning alcohol and
drug abuse provide a good model for protection of information. However,
according to our fact-finding discussions, audit or evaluation should
not require access to psychotherapy notes. Protected health information
kept in the medical record about an individual should be sufficient for
these purposes. The final rule does not require authorization for use or
disclosure of psychotherapy notes when needed for oversight of the
covered health care provider who created the psychotherapy notes.

*Comment:* A provider organization urged that the disclosure of
psychotherapy notes be strictly prohibited except to the extent needed
in litigation brought by the client against the mental health
professional on the grounds of professional malpractice or disclosure in
violation of this section.

*Response:* We agree that psychotherapy notes should be available for
the defense of the provider who created the notes when the individual
who is the subject of the notes puts the contents of the notes at issue
in a legal case. In the final rule, we allow the provider to disclose
the notes to his or her lawyer for the purpose of preparing a defense.
Any other disclosure related to judicial and administrative proceedings
is governed by \' 164.512(e).

*Comment:* One commenter requested that we prohibit mental health
information that has been disclosed from being re-disclosed without
patient authorization.

*Response:* Psychotherapy notes may only be disclosed pursuant to an
authorization, except under limited circumstances. Covered entities must
adhere to the terms of authorization and not disclose psychotherapy
notes to persons other than those identified as intended recipients or
for other purposes. A covered entity that receives psychotherapy notes
must adhere to the terms of this rule - including obtaining an
authorization for any further use or disclosure. We do not have the
authority, however, to prohibit non-covered entities from re-disclosing
psychotherapy notes or any other protected health information.

*Comment:* A provider organization argued for inclusion of language in
the final rule that specifies that real or perceived Aownership@ of the
mental health record does not negate the requirement that patients must
specifically authorize the disclosure of their psychotherapy notes. They
cited a July 1999 National Mental Health Association survey, which found
that for purposes of utilization review, every managed care plan policy
reviewed Amaintains the right to access the full medical record
(including detailed psychotherapy notes) of any consumer covered under
its benefit plan at its whim.@ At least one of the major managed health
plans surveyed considered the patient record to be the property of the
health plan and governed by the health plan=s policies.

*Response:* Although a covered entity may own a mental health record,
the ability to use or disclose an individual\'s information is limited
by state law and this rule. Under this rule, a mental health plan would
not have access to psychotherapy notes created by a covered provider
unless the individual who is the subject of the notes authorized
disclosure to the health plan.

*Comment:* Some commenters expressed concern regarding the burden
created by having to obtain multiple authorizations and requested
clarification as to whether separate authorization for use and
disclosure of psychotherapy notes is required.

*Response:* For the reasons explained above, we retain in the final rule
a requirement that a separate authorization must be obtained for most
uses or disclosures of psychotherapy notes, including those for
treatment, payment, and health care operations. The burden of such a
requirement is extremely low, however, because under our definition of
psychotherapy notes, the need for such authorization will be very rare.

*Comment:* One commenter stated that Medicare should not be able to
require the disclosure of psychotherapy notes because it would destroy a
practitioner=s ability to treat patients effectively.

*Response:* We agree. As in the proposed rule, covered entities may not
disclose psychotherapy notes for payment purposes without an
authorization. If a specific provision of law requires the disclosure of
these notes, a covered entity may make the disclosure under \'
164.512(a). The final rule, however, does not require the disclosure of
these notes to Medicare.

*Comment:* One commenter expressed concern that by filing a complaint an
individual would be required to reveal sensitive information to the
public. Another commenter suggested that complaints regarding
noncompliance in regard to psychotherapy notes should be made to a panel
of mental health professionals designated by the Secretary. This
commenter also proposed that all patient information would be maintained
as privileged, would not be revealed to the public, and would be kept
under seal after the case is reviewed and closed.

*Response:* We appreciate this concern and the Secretary will ensure
that individually identifiable health information and other personal
information contained in complaints will not be available to the public.
This Department seeks to protect the privacy of individuals to the
fullest extent possible, while permitting the exchange of records
required to fulfill its administrative and program responsibilities. The
Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, and the HHS implementing
regulation, 45 CFR Part 5, protect records about individuals if the
disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of their personal
privacy, as does the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a. See the discussion of
FOIA and the Privacy Act in the ARelationship to Other Federal Laws@
section of the preamble. Information that the Secretary routinely
withholds from the public in its current enforcement activities include
individual names, addresses, and medical information. Additionally, the
Secretary attempts to guard against the release of information that
might involve a violation of personal privacy by someone being able to
Aread between the lines@ and piece together items that would constitute
information that normally would be protected from release to the public.
In implementing the privacy rule, the Secretary will continue this
practice of protecting personal information.

It is not clear whether the commenter with regard to the use of mental
health professionals believes that such professionals should be involved
because they would be best able to keep psychotherapy notes confidential
or because such professionals can best understand the meaning or
relevance of such notes. We anticipate that we would not have to obtain
a copy or review psychotherapy notes in investigating most complaints
regarding noncompliance in regard to such notes. There may be some cases
in which a quick review of the notes may be needed, such as when we need
to identify that the information a covered entity disclosed was in fact
psychotherapy notes. If we need to obtain a copy of psychotherapy notes,
we will keep these notes confidential and secure. Investigative staff
will be trained in privacy to ensure that they fully respect the
confidentiality of personal information. In addition, while the content
of these notes is generally not relevant to violations under this rule,
we will secure the expertise of mental health professionals if needed in
reviewing psychotherapy notes.

*Comment:* A mental health organization recommended prohibiting health
plans and covered health care providers from disclosing psychotherapy
notes to coroners or medical examiners.

*Response:* In general, we have severely limited disclosures of
psychotherapy notes without the individual\'s authorization. One case
where the information may prove invaluable, but authorization by the
individual is impossible and authorization by a surrogate is potentially
contraindicated, is in the investigation of the death of the individual.
The final rule allows for disclosures to coroners or medical examiners
in this limited case.

*Comment:* One commenter recommended prohibiting disclosure without
authorization of psychotherapy notes to government health data systems.

*Response:* The decision to eliminate the general provision permitting
disclosures to government health data systems addresses this comment.

*Comment:* Several commenters were concerned that in practice, a
treatment team in a mental health facility shares information about a
patient in order to care for the patient and that the provision
requiring authorization for use and disclosure of psychotherapy notes
would expose almost all privileged information to disclosure. They
requested that we add a provision that any authorization or disclosure
under that statute shall not constitute a waiver of the
psychotherapist-patient privilege.

*Response:* Because of the restricted definition we have adopted for
psychotherapy notes, we do not expect that members of a team will share
such information. Information shared in order to care for the patient
is, by definition, not protected as psychotherapy notes. With respect to
waiving privilege, however, we believe that the consents and
authorizations described in \'\' 164.506 and 164.508 should not be
construed as waivers of a patient\'s evidentiary privilege. See the
discussions under \' 164.506 and ARelationship to Other Laws,@ above.

***Research Information Unrelated to Treatment***

*Definition of Research Information Unrelated to Treatment*

*Comment:* The majority of commenters, including many researchers and
health care providers, objected to the proposed definition of research
information unrelated to treatment, asserting that the privacy rule
should not distinguish research information unrelated to treatment from
other forms of protected health information. Even those who supported
the proposed distinction between research information related and
unrelated to treatment suggested alternative definitions for research
information unrelated to treatment.

A large number of commenters were concerned that the definition of
research information unrelated to treatment was vague and unclear and,
therefore, would be difficult or impossible to apply. These commenters
asserted that in many instances it would not be feasible to ascertain
whether research information bore some relation to treatment. In
addition, several commenters asserted that the need for distinguishing
research information unrelated to treatment from other forms of
protected health information was not necessary because the proposed
rule=s general restrictions for the use and disclosure of protected
health information and the existing protections for research information
were sufficiently strong.

Of the commenters who supported the proposed distinction between
research information related and unrelated to treatment, very few
supported the proposed definition of research unrelated to treatment. A
few commenters recommended that the definition incorporate a good faith
provision and apply only to health care providers, because they thought
it was unlikely that a health plan or health care clearinghouse would be
conducting research. One commenter recommended defining research
information unrelated to treatment as information which does not
directly affect the treatment of the individual patient. As a means of
clarifying and standardizing the application of this definition, one
commenter also asserted that the definition should be based on whether
the research information was for publication. In addition, one commenter
specifically objected to the provision of the proposed definition that
would have required that research information unrelated to treatment be
information Awith respect to which the covered entity has not requested
payment from a third party payor.@ This commenter asserted that patient
protection should not be dependent on whether a health plan will pay for
certain care.

*Response:* We agree with the commenters who found the proposed
definition of research information unrelated to treatment to be
impractical and infeasible to apply and have eliminated this definition
and its related provisions in the final rule. Although we share concerns
raised by some commenters that research information generated from
research studies that involve the delivery of treatment to individual
subjects may need additional privacy protection, we agree with the
commenters who asserted that there is not always a clear distinction
between research information that is related to treatment and research
information that is not. We found that the alternative definitions
proposed by commenters did not alleviate the serious concerns raised by
the majority of comments received on this definition.

Instead, in the final rule, we require covered entities that create
protected health information for the purpose, in whole or in part, of
research that includes treatment of individuals to include additional
elements in authorizations they request for the use or disclosure of
that protected health information. As discussed in \' 164.508(f), these
research-related authorizations must include a description of the extent
to which some or all of the protected health information created for the
research will also be used or disclosed for purposes of treatment,
payment, and health care operations. For example, if the covered entity
intends to seek reimbursement from the individual=s health plan for the
routine costs of care associated with the research protocol, it must
explain in the authorization the types of information that it will
provide to the health plan for this purpose. This information, and the
circumstances under which disclosures will be made for treatment,
payment, and health care operations, may be more limited than the
information and circumstances described in the covered entity=s general
notice of information practices and are binding on the covered entity.

Under this approach, the covered entity that creates protected health
information for research has discretion to determine whether there is a
subset of research information that will have fewer allowable
disclosures without authorization, and prospective research subjects
will be informed about how research information about them would be used
and disclosed should they agree to participate in the research study. We
believe this provision in the final rule provides covered entities that
participate in research necessary flexibility to enhance privacy
protections for research information and provides prospective research
subjects with needed information to determine whether their privacy
interests would be adequately protected before agreeing to participate
in a research study that involves the delivery of health care.

The intent of this provision is to permit covered entities that
participate in research to bind themselves to a more limited scope of
uses and disclosures for all or identified subsets of

research information generated from research that involves the delivery
of treatment than it may apply to other protected health information. In
designing their authorizations, we expect covered entities to be mindful
of the often highly sensitive nature of research information and the
impact of individuals= privacy concerns on their willingness to
participate in research. For example, a covered entity conducting a
study which involves the evaluation of a new drug, as well as an
assessment of a new un-validated genetic marker of a particular disease,
could choose to stipulate in the research authorization that the genetic
information generated from this study will not be disclosed without
authorization for some of the public policy purposes that would
otherwise be permitted by the rule under \'\' 164.510 and 164.512 and by
the covered entity=s notice. A covered entity may not, however, include
a limitation affecting its right to make a use or disclosure that is
either required by law or is necessary to avert a serious and imminent
threat to health or safety.

The final rule also permits the covered entity to combine the research
authorization under \' 164.508(f) with the consent to participate in
research, such as the informed consent document as stipulated under the
Common Rule or the Food and Drug Administration=s human subjects
regulations.

*Enhance privacy protections for research information*

*Comment:* A number of commenters argued that research information
unrelated to treatment should have fewer allowable disclosures without
authorization than those that would have been permitted by the proposed
rule. The commenters who made this argument included those commenters
who recommended that the privacy rule not cover the information we
proposed to constitute research information unrelated to treatment, as
well as those who asserted that the rule should cover such information.
These commenters agreed with the concern expressed in the proposed rule
that patients would be reluctant to participate in research if they
feared that research information could be disclosed without their
permission or used against them. They argued that fewer allowable
disclosures should be permitted for research information because the
clinical utility of the research information is most often unknown, and
thus, it is unsuitable for use in clinical decision making. Others also
argued that it is critical to the conduct of clinical research that
researchers be able to provide individual research subjects, and the
public at large, the greatest possible assurance that their privacy and
the confidentiality of any individually identifiable research
information will be protected from disclosure.

Several commenters further recommended that only the following uses and
disclosures be permitted for research information unrelated to treatment
without authorization: (1) for the oversight of the researcher or the
research study; (2) for safety and efficacy reporting required by FDA;
(3) for public health; (4) for emergency circumstances; or (5) for
another research study. Other commenters recommended that the final rule
explicitly prohibit law enforcement officials from gaining access to
research records.

In addition, several commenters asserted that the rule should be revised
to ensure that once protected health information was classified as
research information unrelated to treatment, it could not be
re-classified as something else at a later date. These commenters
believed that if this additional protection were not added, this
information would be vulnerable to disclosure in the future, if the
information were later to gain scientific validity. They argued that
individuals may rely on this higher degree of confidentiality when
consenting to the collection of the information in the first instance,
and that confidentiality should not be betrayed in the future just
because the utility of the information has changed.

*Response:* We agree with commenters who argued that special protections
may be appropriate for research information in order to provide research
subjects with assurances that their decision to participate in research
will not result in harm stemming from the misuse of the research
information. We are aware that some researchers currently retain
separate research records and medical records as a means of providing
more stringent privacy protections for the research record. The final
rule permits covered entities that participate in research to continue
to provide more stringent privacy protections for the research record,
and the Secretary strongly encourages this practice to protect research
participants from being harmed by the misuse of their research
information.

As discussed above, in the final rule, we eliminate the special rules
for this proposed definition of research information unrelated to
treatment and its related provisions, so the comments regarding its
application are moot.

*Comment:* Some commenters recommended that the final rule prohibit a
covered entity from conditioning treatment, enrollment in a health plan,
or payment on a requirement that the individual authorize the use or
disclosure of information we proposed to constitute research information
unrelated to treatment.

*Response:* Our decision to eliminate the definition of research
information unrelated to treatment and its related provisions in the
final rule renders this comment moot.

*Comment:* A few commenters opposed distinguishing between research
information related to treatment and research information unrelated to
treatment, arguing that such a distinction could actually weaken the
protection afforded to clinically-related health information that is
collected in clinical trials. These commenters asserted that
Certificates of Confidentiality shield researchers from being compelled
to disclose individually identifiable health information relating to
biomedical or behavioral research information that an investigator
considers sensitive.

*Response:* Our decision to eliminate the definition of research
information unrelated to treatment and its related provisions in the
final rule renders this comment moot. We would note that nothing in the
final rule overrides Certificates of Confidentiality, which protect
against the compelled disclosure of identifying information about
subjects of biomedical, behavioral, clinical, and other research as
provided by the Public Health Service Act section 301(d), 42 U.S.C.
241(d).

*Privacy protections for research information too stringent*

*Comment:* Many of the commenters who opposed the proposed definition of
research information unrelated to treatment and its related provisions
believed that the proposed rule would have required authorization before
research information unrelated to treatment could have been used or
disclosed for any of the public policy purposes outlined in proposed \'
164.510, and that this restriction would have significantly hindered
many important activities. Many of these commenters specifically opposed
this provision, arguing that the distinction would undermine and impede
research by requiring patient authorization before research information
unrelated to treatment could be used or disclosed for research.

Furthermore, some commenters recommended that the disclosure of research
information should be governed by an informed consent agreement already
in place as part of a clinical protocol, or its disclosure should be
considered by an institutional review board or privacy board.

*Response:* Our decision to eliminate the definition of research
information unrelated to treatment and its related provisions in the
final rule renders the first two comments moot.

We disagree with the comment that suggests that existing provisions
under the Common Rule are sufficient to protect the privacy interests of
individuals who are subjects in research that involves the delivery of
treatment. As discussed in the NPRM, not all research is subject to the
Common Rule. In addition, we are not convinced that existing procedures
adequately inform individuals about how their information will be used
as part of the informed consent process. In the final rule, we provide
for additional disclosure to subjects of research that involves the
delivery of treatment as part of the research authorization under \'
164.508(f). We also clarify that the research authorization could be
combined with the consent to participate in research, such as the
informed consent document as stipulated under the Common Rule or the
Food and Drug Administration=s human subjects regulations. The Common
Rule (\'\_\_.116(a)(5)) requires that Ainformed consent@ include Aa
statement describing the extent, if any, to which confidentiality of
records identifying the subject will be maintained.@ We believe that the
research authorization requirements of \' 164.508(f) complement the
Common Rule=s requirement for informed consent.

*The Secretary=s Authority*

*Comment:* Several commenters, many from the research community,
asserted that the coverage of \"research information unrelated to
treatment\" was beyond the Department\'s legal authority since HIPAA did
not give the Secretary authority to regulate researchers. These
commenters argued that the research records held by researchers who are
performing clinical trials and who keep separate research records should
not be subject to the final rule. These commenters strongly disagreed
that a health provider-researcher cannot carry out two distinct
functions while performing research and providing clinical care to
research subjects and, thus, asserted that research information
unrelated to treatment that is kept separate from the medical record,
would not be covered by the privacy rule.

*Response:* We do not agree the Secretary lacks the authority to adopt
standards relating to research information, including research
information unrelated to treatment. HIPAA provides authority for the
Secretary to set standards for the use and disclosure of individually
identifiable health information created or received by covered entities.
For the reasons commenters identified for why it was not practical or
feasible to divide research information into two categoriesBresearch
information related to treatment and research information unrelated to
treatmentBwe also determined that for a single research study that
includes the treatment of research subjects, it is not practical or
feasible to divide a researcher into two categoriesBa researcher who
provides treatment and a researcher who does not provide treatment to
research subjects. When a researcher is interacting with research
subjects for a research study that involves the delivery of health care
to subjects, it is not always clear to either the researcher or the
research subject whether a particular research activity will generate
research information that will be pertinent to the health care of the
research subject. Therefore, we clarify that a researcher may also be a
health care provider if that researcher provides health care, e.g.,
provides treatment to subjects in a research study, and otherwise meets
the definition of a health care provider, regardless of whether there is
a component of the research study that is unrelated to the health care
of the research subjects. This researcher/health care provider is then a
covered entity with regard to her provider activities if she conducts
standard transactions.

***Valid Authorizations***

*Comment:* In proposed \' 164.508(b)(1), we specified that an
authorization containing the applicable required elements Amust be
accepted by the covered entity.@ A few comments requested clarification
of this requirement.

*Response:* We agree with the commenters that the proposed provision was
ambiguous and we remove it from the final rule. We note that nothing in
the rule requires covered entities to act on authorizations that they
receive, even if those authorizations are valid. A covered entity
presented with an authorization is permitted to make the disclosure
authorized, but is not required to do so.

We want to be clear, however, that covered entities will be in
compliance with this rule if they use or disclose protected health
information pursuant to an authorization that meets the requirements of
\' 164.508. We have made changes in \' 164.508(b)(1) to clarify this
point. First, we specify that an authorization containing the applicable
required elements is a valid authorization. A covered entity may not
reject as invalid an authorization containing such elements. Second, we
clarify that a valid authorization may contain elements or information
in addition to the required elements, as long as the additional elements
are not inconsistent with the required elements.

*Comment:* A few comments requested that we provide a model
authorization or examples of wording meeting the Aplain language@
requirement. One commenter requested changes to the language in the
model authorization to avoid confusion when used in conjunction with an
insurer=s authorization form for application for life or disability
income insurance. Many other comments, however, found fault with the
proposed model authorization form.

*Response:* Because of the myriad of types of forms that could meet
these requirements and the desire to encourage covered entities to
develop forms that meet their specific needs, we do not include a model
authorization form in the final rule. We intend to issue additional
guidance about authorization forms prior to the compliance date. We also
encourage standard-setting organizations to develop model forms meeting
the requirements of this rule.

***Defective Authorizations***

*Comment:* Some commenters suggested we insert a Agood-faith reliance@
or Asubstantial compliance@ standard into the authorization
requirements. Commenters suggested that covered entities should be
permitted to rely on an authorization as long as the individual has
signed and dated the document. They stated that individuals may not fill
out portions of a form that they feel are irrelevant or for which they
do not have an answer. They argued that requiring covered entities to
follow up with each individual to complete the form will cause
unwarranted delays. In addition, commenters were concerned that large
covered entities might act in good faith on a completed authorization,
only to find out that a component of the entity Aknew@ some of the
information on the form to be false or that the authorization had been
revoked. These commenters did not feel that covered entities should be
held in violation of the rule in such situations.

*Response:* We retain the provision as proposed and include one
additional element: the authorization is invalid if it is combined with
other documents in violation of the standards for compound
authorizations. We also clarify that an authorization is invalid if
material information on the form is known to be false. The elements we
require to be included in the authorization are intended to ensure that
individuals knowingly and willingly authorize the use or disclosure of
protected health information about them. If these elements are missing
or incomplete, the covered entity cannot know which protected health
information to use or disclose to whom and cannot be confident that the
individual intends for the use or disclosure to occur.

We have attempted to make the standards for defective authorizations as
unambiguous as possible. In most cases, the covered entity will know
whether the authorization is defective by looking at the form itself.
Otherwise, the covered entity must know that the authorization has been
revoked, that material information on the form is false, or that the
expiration date or event has occurred. If the covered entity does not
know these things and the authorization is otherwise satisfactory on its
face, the covered entity is permitted to make the use or disclosure in
compliance with this rule.

We have added two provisions to make it easier for covered entities to
Aknow@ when an authorization has been revoked. First, under \'
164.508(b)(5), the revocation must be made in writing. Second, under \'
164.508(c)(1)(v), authorizations must include instructions for how the
individual may revoke the authorization. Written revocations submitted
in the manner appropriate for the covered entity should ease covered
entities= compliance burden.

***Compound Authorizations***

*Comment:* Many commenters raised concerns about the specificity of the
authorization requirement. Some comments recommended that we permit
covered entities to include multiple uses and disclosures in a single
authorization and allow individuals to authorize or not authorize
specific uses and disclosures in the authorization. Other commenters
asked whether a single authorization is sufficient for multiple uses or
disclosures for the same purpose, for multiple uses and disclosures for
related purposes, and for uses and disclosures of different types of
information for the same purpose. Some comments from health care
providers noted that specific authorizations would aid their compliance
with requests.

*Response:* As a general rule, we prohibit covered entities from
combining an authorization for the use or disclosure of protected health
information with any other document. For example, an authorization may
not be combined with a consent to receive treatment or a consent to
assign payment of benefits to a provider. We intend the authorizations
required under this rule to be voluntary for individuals, and,
therefore, they need to be separate from other forms of consent that may
be a condition of treatment or payment or that may otherwise be coerced.

We do, however, permit covered entities to combine authorizations for
uses and disclosures for multiple purposes into a single authorization.
The only limitations are that an authorization for the use or disclosure
of psychotherapy notes may not be combined with an authorization for the
use or disclosure of other types of protected health information and
that an authorization that is a condition of treatment, payment,
enrollment, or eligibility may not be combined with any other
authorization.

In \' 164.508(b)(3), we also permit covered entities to combine an
authorization for the use or disclosure of protected health information
created for purposes of research including treatment of individuals with
certain other documents.

We note that covered entities may only make uses or disclosures pursuant
to an authorization that are consistent with the terms of the
authorization. Therefore, if an individual agrees to one of the
disclosures described in the compound authorization but not another, the
covered entity must comply with the individual=s decision. For example,
if a covered entity asks an individual to sign an authorization to
disclose protected health information for both marketing and fundraising
purposes, but the individual only agrees to the fundraising disclosure,
the covered entity is not permitted to make the marketing disclosure.

***Prohibition on Conditioning Treatment, Payment, Eligibility, or
Enrollment***

*Comment:* Many commenters supported the NPRM=s prohibition of covered
entities from conditioning treatment or payment on the individual=s
authorization of uses and disclosures. Some commenters requested
clarification that employment can be conditioned on an authorization.
Some commenters recommended that we eliminate the requirement for
covered entities to state on the authorization form that the
authorization is not a condition of treatment or payment. Some
commenters suggested that we prohibit the provision of anything of
value, including employment, from being conditioned on receipt of an
authorization.

In addition, many commenters argued that patients should not be coerced
into signing authorizations for a wide variety of purposes as a
condition of obtaining insurance coverage. Some health plans, however,
requested clarification that health plan enrollment and eligibility can
be conditioned on an authorization.

*Response:* We proposed to prohibit covered entities from conditioning
treatment, payment, or enrollment in a health plan on an authorization
for the use or disclosure of psychotherapy notes (see proposed \'
164.508(a)(3)(iii)). We proposed to prohibit covered entities from
conditioning treatment or payment on authorization for the use or
disclosure of any other protected health information (see proposed \'
164.508(a)(2)(iii)).

We resolve this inconsistency by clarifying in \' 164.508(b)(4) that,
with certain exceptions, a covered entity may not condition the
provision of treatment, payment, enrollment in a health plan, or
eligibility for benefits on an authorization for the use or disclosure
of any protected health information, including psychotherapy notes. We
intend to minimize the potential for covered entities to coerce
individuals into signing authorizations for the use or disclosure of
protected health information when such information is not essential to
carrying out the relationship between the individual and the covered
entity.

Pursuant to that goal, we have created limited exceptions to the
prohibition. First, a covered health care provider may condition
research-related treatment of an individual on obtaining the
individual=s authorization to use or disclose protected health
information created for the research. Second, except with respect to
psychotherapy notes, a health plan may condition the individual=s
enrollment or eligibility in the health plan on obtaining an
authorization for the use or disclosure of protected health information
for making enrollment or eligibility determinations relating to the
individual or for its underwriting or risk rating determinations. Third,
a health plan may condition payment of a claim for specified benefits on
obtaining an authorization under \' 164.508(e) for disclosure to the
plan of protected health information necessary to determine payment of
the claim. Fourth, a covered entity may condition the provision of
health care that is solely for the purpose of creating protected health
information for disclosure to a third party (such as fitness-for-duty
exams and physicals necessary to obtain life insurance coverage) on
obtaining an authorization for the disclosure of the protected health
information. We recognize that covered entities need protected health
information in order to carry out these functions and provide services
to the individual; therefore, we allow authorization for the disclosure
of the protected health information to be a condition of obtaining the
services.

We believe that we have prohibited covered entities from conditioning
the services they provide to individuals on obtaining an authorization
for uses and disclosures that are not essential to those services. Due
to our limited authority, however, we cannot entirely prevent
individuals from being coerced into signing these forms. We do not, for
example, have the authority to prohibit an employer from requiring its
employees to sign an authorization as a condition of employment.
Similarly, a program such as the Job Corps may make such an
authorization a condition of enrollment in the Job Corps program. While
the Job Corps may include a health care component, the non-covered
component of the Job Corps may require as a condition of enrollment that
the individual authorize the health care component to disclose protected
health information to the non-covered component. See \' 164.504(b).
However, we note that other nondiscrimination laws may limit the ability
to condition these authorizations as well.

*Comment:* A Medicaid fraud control association stated that many states
require or permit state Medicaid agencies to obtain an authorization for
the use and disclosure of protected health information for payment
purposes as a condition of enrolling an individual as a Medicaid
recipient. The commenter, therefore, urged an exception to the
prohibition on conditioning enrollment on obtaining an authorization.

*Response:* As explained above, under \' 164.506(a)(4), health plans and
other covered entities may seek the individual=s consent for the covered
entity=s use and disclosure of protected health information to carry out
treatment, payment, or health care operations. If the consent is sought
in conjunction with enrollment, the health plan may condition enrollment
in the plan on obtaining the individual=s consent.

Under \' 164.506(a)(5), we specify that a consent obtained by one
covered entity is not effective to permit another covered entity to use
or disclose protected health information for payment purposes. If state
law requires a Medicaid agency to obtain the individual=s authorization
for providers to disclose protected health information to the Medicaid
agency for payment purposes, the agency may do so under \' 164.508(e).
This authorization must not be a condition of enrollment or eligibility,
but may be a condition of payment of a claim for specified benefits if
the disclosure is necessary to determine payment of the claim.

***Revocation of Authorizations***

*Comment:* Many commenters supported the right to revoke an
authorization. Some comments, however, suggested that we require
authorizations to remain valid for a minimum period of time, such as one
year or the duration of the individual=s enrollment in a health plan.

*Response:* We retain the right for individuals to revoke an
authorization at any time, with certain exceptions. We believe this
right is essential to ensuring that the authorization is voluntary. If
an individual determines that an authorized use or disclosure is no
longer in her best interest, she should be able to withdraw the
authorization and prevent any further uses or disclosures.

*Comment:* Several commenters suggested that we not permit individuals
to revoke an authorization if the revocation would prevent an
investigation of material misrepresentation or fraud. Other commenters
similarly suggested that we not permit individuals to revoke an
authorization prior to a claim for benefits if the insurance was issued
in reliance on the authorization.

*Response:* To address this concern, we include an additional exception
to the right to revoke an authorization. Individuals do not have the
right to revoke an authorization that was obtained as a condition of
insurance coverage during any contestability period under other law. For
example, if a life insurer obtains the individual=s authorization for
the use or disclosure of protected health information to determine
eligibility or premiums under the policy, the individual does not have
the right to revoke the authorization during any period of time in which
the life insurer can contest a claim for benefits under the policy in
accordance with state law. If an individual were able to revoke the
authorization after enrollment but prior to making a claim, the insurer
would be forced to pay claims without having the necessary information
to determine whether the benefit is due. We believe the existing
exception for covered entities that have acted in reliance on the
authorization is insufficient to address this concern because it is
another person, not the covered entity, that has acted in reliance on
the authorization. In the life insurance example, it is the life insurer
that has taken action (i.e., issued the policy) in reliance on the
authorization. The life insurer is not a covered entity, therefore the
covered entity exception is inapplicable.

*Comment:* Some comments suggested that a covered entity that had
compiled, but not yet disclosed, protected health information would have
already taken action in reliance on the authorization and could
therefore disclose the information even if the individual revoked the
authorization.

*Response:* We intend for covered entities to refrain from further using
or disclosing protected health information to the maximum extent
possible once an authorization is revoked. The exception exists only to
the extent the covered entity has taken action in reliance on the
authorization. If the covered entity has not yet used or disclosed the
protected health information, it must refrain from doing so, pursuant to
the revocation. If, however, the covered entity has already disclosed
the information, it is not required to retrieve the information.

*Comment:* One comment suggested that the rule allow protected health
information to be only rented, not sold, because there can be no right
to revoke authorization for disclosure of protected health information
that has been sold.

*Response:* We believe this limitation would be an unwarranted
abrogation of covered entities= business practices and outside the scope
of our authority. We believe individuals should have the right to
authorize any uses or disclosures they feel are appropriate. We have
attempted to create authorization requirements that make the
individual=s decisions as clear and voluntary as possible.

*Comment:* One commenter expressed concern as to whether the proposed
rule=s standard to protect the protected health information about a
deceased individual for two years would interfere with the payment of
death benefit claims. The commenter asked that the regulation permit the
beneficiary or payee under a life insurance policy to authorize
disclosure of protected health information pertaining to the cause of
death of a decedent or policyholder. Specifically, the commenter
explained that when substantiating a claim a beneficiary, such as a
fiancee or friend, may be unable to obtain the authorization required to
release information to the insurer, particularly if, for example, the
decedent=s estate does not require probate or if the beneficiary is not
on good terms with the decedent=s next of kin. Further, the commenter
stated that particularly in cases where the policyholder dies within two
years of the policy=s issuance (within the policy=s contestable period)
and the cause of death is uncertain, the insurer=s inability to access
relevant protected health information would significantly interfere with
claim payments and increase administrative costs.

*Response:* We do not believe this will be a problem under the final
regulation, because we create an exception to the right to revoke an
authorization if the authorization was obtained as a condition of
obtaining insurance coverage and other applicable law provides the
insurer that obtained the authorization with the right to contest a
claim under the policy. Thus, if a policyholder dies within the two year
contestability period, the authorization the insurer obtained from the
policyholder prior to death could not be revoked during the
contestability period.

***Core Elements and Requirements***

*Comment:* Many commenters raised concerns about the required elements
for a valid authorization. They argued that the requirements were overly
burdensome and that covered entities should have greater flexibility to
craft authorizations that meet their business needs. Other commenters
supported the required elements as proposed because the elements help to
ensure that individuals make meaningful, informed choices about the use
and disclosure of protected health information about them.

*Response:* As in the proposed rule, we define specific elements that
must be included in any authorization. We draw on established laws and
guidelines for these requirements. For example, the July 1977 Report of
the Privacy Protection Study Commission recommended that authorizations
obtained by insurance institutions include plain language, the date of
authorization, and identification of the entities authorized to disclose
information, the nature of the information to be disclosed, the entities
authorized to receive information, the purpose(s) for which the
information may be used by the recipients, and an expiration date.[^13]
The Commission made similar recommendations concerning the content of
authorizations obtained by health care providers.[^14] The National
Association of Insurance Commissioners= Health Information Privacy Model
Act requires authorizations to be in writing and include a description
of the types of protected health information to be used or disclosed,
the name and address of the person to whom the information is to be
disclosed, the purpose of the authorization, the signature of the
individual or the individual=s representative, and a statement that the
individual may revoke the authorization at any time, subject to the
rights of any person that acted in reliance on the authorization prior
to revocation and provided the revocation is in writing, dated, and
signed. Standards of the American Society for Testing and Materials
recommend that authorizations identify the subject of the protected
health information to be disclosed; the name of the person or
institution that is to release the information; the name of each
individual or institution that is to receive the information; the
purpose or need for the information; the information to be disclosed;
the specific date, event, or condition upon which the authorization will
expire, unless revoked earlier; and the signature and date signed. They
also recommend the authorization include a statement that the
authorization can be revoked or amended, but not retroactive to a
release made in reliance on the authorization.[^15]

*Comment:* Some commenters requested clarification that authorizations
Ainitiated by the individual@ include authorizations initiated by the
individual=s representative.

*Response:* In the final rule, we do not classify authorizations as
those initiated by the individual versus those initiated by a covered
entity. Instead, we establish a core set of elements and requirements
that apply to all authorizations and require certain additional elements
for particular types of authorizations initiated by covered entities.

*Comment:* Some commenters urged us to permit authorizations that
designate a class of entities, rather than specifically named entities,
that are authorized to use or disclose protected health information.
Commenters made similar recommendations with respect to the authorized
recipients. Commenters suggested these changes to prevent covered
entities from having to seek, and individuals from having to sign,
multiple authorizations for the same purpose.

*Response:* We agree. Under \' 164.508(c)(1), we require authorizations
to identify both the person(s) authorized to use or disclose the
protected health information and the person(s) authorized to receive
protected health information. In both cases, we permit the authorization
to identify either a specific person a class of persons.

*Comment:* Many commenters requested clarification that covered entities
may rely on electronic authorizations, including electronic signatures.

*Response:* All authorizations must be in writing and signed. We intend
e-mail and electronic documents to qualify as written documents.
Electronic signatures are sufficient, provided they meet standards to be
adopted under HIPAA. In addition, we do not intend to interfere with the
application of the Electronic Signature in Global and National Commerce
Act.

*Comment:* Some commenters requested that we permit covered entities to
use and disclose protected health information pursuant to verbal
authorizations.

*Response:* To ensure compliance and mutual understanding between
covered entities and individuals, we require all authorizations to be in
writing.

*Comment:* Some commenters asked whether covered entities can rely on
copies of authorizations rather than the original. Other comments asked
whether covered entities can rely on the assurances of a third party,
such as a government entity, that a valid authorization has been
obtained to use or disclose protected health information. These
commenters suggested that such procedures would promote the timely
provision of benefits for programs that require the collection of
protected health information from multiple sources, such as
determinations of eligibility for disability benefits.

*Response:* Covered entities must obtain the individual=s authorization
to use or disclose protected health information for any purpose not
otherwise permitted or required under this rule. They may obtain this
authorization directly from the individual or from a third party, such
as a government agency, on the individual=s behalf. In accordance with
the requirements of \' 164.530(j), the covered entity must retain a
written record of authorization forms signed by the individual. Covered
entities must, therefore, obtain the authorization in writing. They may
not rely on assurances from others that a proper authorization exists.
They may, however, rely on copies of authorizations if doing so is
consistent with other law.

*Comment:* We requested comments on reasonable steps that a covered
entity could take to be assured that the individual who requests the
disclosure is whom she or he purports to be. Some commenters stated that
it would be extremely difficult to verify the identity of the person
signing the authorization, particularly when the authorization is not
obtained in person. Other comments recommended requiring authorizations
to be notarized.

*Response:* To reduce burden on covered entities, we are not requiring
verification of the identities of individuals signing authorization
forms or notarization of the forms.

*Comment:* A few commenters asked for clarification regarding the
circumstances in which a covered entity may consider a non-response as
an authorization.

*Response:* Non-responses to requests for authorizations cannot be
considered authorizations. Authorizations must be signed and have the
other elements of a valid authorization described above.

*Comment:* Most commenters generally supported the requirement for an
expiration date on the authorization. Commenters recommended expiration
dates from 6 months to 3 years and/or proposed that the expiration be
tied to an event such as duration of enrollment or when an individual
changes health plans. Others requested no expiration requirement for
some or all authorizations.

*Response:* We have clarified that an authorization may include an
expiration date in the form of a specific date, a specific time period,
or an event directly related to the individual or the purpose of the
authorization. For example, a valid authorization could expire upon the
individual=s disenrollment from a health plan or upon termination of a
research project. We prohibit an authorization from having an
indeterminate expiration date.

These changes were intended to address situations in which a specific
date for the termination of the purpose for the authorization is
difficult to determine. An example may be a research study where it may
be difficult to predetermine the length of the project.

*Comment:* A few commenters requested that the named insured be
permitted to sign an authorization on behalf of dependents.

*Response:* We disagree with the commenter that a named insured should
always be able to authorize uses and disclosures for other individuals
in the family. Many dependents under group health plans have their own
rights under this rule, and we do not assume that one member of a family
has the authority to authorize uses or disclosures of the protected
health information of other family members.

A named insured may sign a valid authorization for an individual if the
named insured is a personal representative for the individual in
accordance with \' 164.502(g). The determination of whether an
individual is a personal representative under this rule is based on
other applicable law that determines when a person can act on behalf of
an individual in making decisions related to health care. This rule
limits a person=s rights and authorities as a personal representative to
only the protected health information relevant to the matter for which
he or she is a personal representative under other law. For example, a
parent may be a personal representative of a child for most health care
treatment and payment decisions under state law. In that case, a parent,
who is a named insured for her minor child, would be able to provide
authorization with respect to most protected health information about
her dependent child. However, a wife who is the named insured for her
husband who is a dependent under a health insurance policy may not be a
personal representative for her husband under other law or may be a
personal representative only for limited purposes, such as for making
decisions regarding payment of disputed claims. In this case, she may
have limited authority to access protected health information related to
the payment of disputed claims, but would not have the authority to
authorize that her husband=s information be used for marketing purposes,
absent any other authority to act for her husband. See \' 164.502(g) for
more information regarding personal representatives.

*Comment:* One commenter suggested that authorizations should be dated
on the day they are signed.

*Response:* We agree and have retained this requirement in the final
rule.

***Additional Elements and Requirements for Authorizations Requested by
the Covered Entity for Its Own Uses and Disclosures***

*Comment:* Some commenters suggested that we should not require
different elements in authorizations initiated by the covered entity
versus authorizations initiated by the individual. The commenters argued
the standards were unnecessary, confusing, and burdensome.

*Response:* The proposed authorization requirements are intended to
ensure that an individual=s authorization is truly voluntary. The
additional elements required for authorizations initiated by the covered
entity for its own uses and disclosures or for receipt of protected
health information from other covered entities to carry out treatment,
payment, or health care operations address concerns that are unique to
these forms of authorization. (See above regarding requirements for
research authorizations under \' 164.508(f).)

First, when applicable, these authorizations must state that the covered
entity will not condition treatment, payment, eligibility, or enrollment
on the individual=s providing authorization for the requested use or
disclosure. This statement is not appropriate for authorizations
initiated by the individual or another person who does not have the
ability to withhold services if the individual does not authorize the
use or disclosure.

Second, the authorization must state that the individual may refuse to
sign the authorization. This statement is intended to signal to the
individual that the authorization is voluntary and may not be accurate
if the authorization is obtained by a person other than a covered
entity.

Third, these authorizations must describe the purpose of the use or
disclosure. We do not include this element in the core requirements
because we understand there may be times when the individual does not
want the covered entity maintaining the protected health information to
know the purpose for the use or disclosure. For example, an individual
contemplating litigation may not want the covered entity to know that
litigation is the purpose of the disclosure. If the covered entity is
initiating the authorization for its own use or disclosure, however, the
individual and the covered entity maintaining the protected health
information should have a mutual understanding of the purpose of the use
or disclosure. Similarly, when a covered entity is requesting
authorization for a disclosure by another covered entity that may have
already obtained the individual=s consent for the disclosure, the
individual and covered entity that maintains the protected health
information should be aware of this potential conflict.

There are two additional requirements for authorizations requested by a
covered entity for its own use or disclosure of protected health
information it maintains. First, we require the covered entity to
describe the individual=s right to inspect or copy the protected health
information to be used or disclosed. Individuals may want to review the
information to be used or disclosed before signing the authorization and
should be reminded of their ability to do so. This requirement is not
appropriate for authorizations for a covered entity to receive protected
health information from another covered entity, however, because the
covered entity requesting the authorization is not the covered entity
that maintains the protected health information and cannot, therefore,
grant or describe the individual=s right to access the information.

If applicable, we also require a covered entity that requests an
authorization for its own use or disclosure to state that the use or
disclosure of the protected health information will result in direct or
indirect remuneration to the entity. Individuals should be aware of any
conflicts of interest or financial incentives on the part of the covered
entity requesting the use or disclosure. These statements are not
appropriate, however, in relation to uses and disclosures to carry out
treatment, payment, and health care operations. Uses and disclosures for
these purposes will often involve remuneration by the nature of the use
or disclosure, not due to any conflict of interest on the part of either
covered entity.

We note that authorizations requested by a covered entity include
authorizations requested by the covered entity=s business associate on
the covered entity=s behalf. Authorizations requested by a business
associate on the covered entity=s behalf and that authorize the use or
disclosure of protected health information by the covered entity or the
business associate must meet the requirements in \' 164.508(d).
Similarly, authorizations requested by a business associate on behalf of
a covered entity to accomplish the disclosure of protected health
information to that business associate or covered entity as described in
\' 164.508(e) must meet the requirements of that provision.

We disagree that these elements are unnecessary, confusing, or
burdensome. We require them to ensure that the individual has a complete
understanding of what he or she is agreeing to permit.

*Comment:* Many commenters suggested we include in the regulation text a
provision stated in the preamble that entities and their business
partners must limit their uses and disclosures to the purpose(s)
specified by the individual in the authorization.

*Response*: We agree. In accordance with \' 164.508(a)(1), covered
entities may only use or disclose protected health information
consistent with the authorization. In accordance with \' 164.504(e)(2),
a business associate may not make any uses or disclosures that the
covered entity couldn=t make.

*Comment:* Some comments suggested that authorizations should identify
the source and amount of financial gain, if any, resulting from the
proposed disclosure. Others suggested that the proposed financial gain
requirements were too burdensome and would decrease trust between
patients and providers. Commenters recommended that the requirement
either should be eliminated or should only require covered entities,
when applicable, to state that direct and foreseeable financial gain to
the covered entity will result. Others requested clarification of how
the requirement for covered entities to disclose financial gain relates
to the criminal penalties that accrue for offenses committed with intent
to sell, transfer, or use individually identifiable health information
for commercial advantage, personal gain, or malicious harm. Some
commenters advocated use of the term Afinancial compensation@ rather
than Afinancial gain@ to avoid confusion with in-kind compensation
rules. Some comments additionally suggested excluding marketing uses and
disclosures from the requirements regarding financial gain.

*Response:* We agree that clarification is warranted. In \'
164.508(d)(1)(iv) of the final rule, we require a covered entity that
asks an individual to sign an authorization for the covered entity=s use
or disclosure of protected health information and that will receive
direct or indirect remuneration from a third party for the use or
disclosure, to state that fact in the authorization. Remuneration from a
third party includes payments such as a fixed price per disclosure,
compensation for the costs of compiling and sending the information to
be disclosed, and, with respect to marketing communications, a
percentage of any sales generated by the marketing communication. For
example, a device manufacturer may offer to pay a fixed price per name
and address of individuals with a particular diagnosis, so that the
device manufacturer can market its new device to people with the
diagnosis. The device manufacturer may also offer the covered entity a
percentage of the profits from any sales generated by the marketing
materials sent. If a covered entity seeks an authorization to make such
a disclosure, the authorization must state that the remuneration will
occur. We believe individuals should have the opportunity to weigh the
covered entity=s potential conflict of interest when deciding to
authorize the covered entity=s use or disclosure of protected health
information. We believe that the term Aremuneration from a third party@
clarifies our intent to describe a direct, tangible exchange, rather
than the mere fact that parties intend to profit from their enterprises.

*Comment:* One commenter suggested we require covered entities to
request authorizations in a manner that does not in itself disclose
sensitive information.

*Response:* We agree that covered entities should make reasonable
efforts to avoid unintentional disclosures. In \' 164.530(c)(2), we
require covered entities to have in place appropriate administrative,
technical, and physical safeguards to protect the privacy of protected
health information.

*Comment:* Some commenters requested clarification that covered entities
are permitted to seek authorization at the time of enrollment or when
individuals otherwise first interact with covered entities. Similarly,
commenters requested clarification that covered entities may disclose
protected health information created after the date the authorization
was signed but prior to the expiration date of the authorization. These
commenters were concerned that otherwise multiple authorizations would
be required to accomplish a single purpose. Other comments suggested
that we prohibit prospective authorizations (i.e., authorizations
requested prior to the creation of the protected health information to
be disclosed under the authorization) because it is not possible for
individuals to make informed decisions about these authorizations.

*Response:* We confirm that covered entities may act on authorizations
signed in advance of the creation of the protected health information to
be released. We note, however, that all of the required elements must be
completed, including a description of the protected health information
to be used or disclosed pursuant to the authorization. This description
must identify the information in a specific and meaningful fashion so
that the individual can make an informed decision as to whether to sign
the authorization.

*Comment:* Some commenters suggested that the final rule prohibit
financial incentives, such as premium discounts, designed to encourage
individuals to sign authorizations.

*Response:* We do not prohibit or require financial incentives for
authorizations. We have attempted to ensure that authorizations are
entered into voluntary. If a covered entity chooses to offer a financial
incentive for the individual to sign the authorization, and the
individual chooses to accept it, they are free to do so.

**SECTION 164.510CUSES AND DISCLOSURES REQUIRING AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE
INDIVIDUAL TO AGREE OR TO OBJECT**

**Section 164.510(a)CUse and Disclosure for Facility Directories**

*Comment:* Many hospital organizations opposed the NPRM=s proposed
opt-in approach to disclosure of directory information. These groups
noted the preamble=s statement that most patients welcomed the
convenience of having their name, location, and general condition
included in the patient directory. They said that requiring hospitals to
obtain authorization before including patient information in the
directory would cause harm to many patients= needs in an effort to serve
the needs of the small number of patients who may not want their
information to be included. Specifically, they argued that the proposed
approach ultimately could have the effect of making it difficult or
impossible for clergy, family members, and florists to locate patients
for legitimate purposes. In making this argument, commenters pointed to
problems that occurred after enactment of privacy legislation in the
State of Maine in 1999. The legislation, which never was officially
implemented, was interpreted by hospitals to prohibit disclosure of
patient information to directories without written consent. As a result,
when hospitals began complying with the law based on their
interpretation, family members and clergy had difficulty locating
patients in the hospital.

*Response:* We share commenters= concern about the need to ensure that
family members and clergy who have a legitimate need to locate patients
are not prevented from doing so by excessively stringent restrictions on
disclosure of protected health information to health care facilities=
directories. Accordingly, the final rule takes an opt-out approach,
stating that health care institutions may include the name, general
condition, religious affiliation, and location of a patient within the
facility in the facility=s directory unless the patient explicitly
objects to the use or disclosure of protected health information for
directory purposes. To ensure that this opt-out can be exercised, the
final rule requires facilities to notify individuals of their right not
to be included in the directory and to give them the opportunity to opt
out. The final rule indicates that the notice and opt-out may be oral.
The final rule that allows health care facilities to disclose to clergy
the four types of protected health information specified above without
requiring the clergy to ask for the individual by name will allow the
clergy to identify the members of his or her faith who are in the
facility, thus ensuring that this rule will not significantly interfere
with the exercise of religion, including the clergy\'s traditional
religious mission to provide services to individuals.

*Comment:* A small number of commenters recommended requiring written
authorization for all disclosures of protected health information for
directory purposes. These commenters believed that the NPRM=s proposed
provision allowing oral agreement would not provide sufficient privacy
protection; that it did not sufficiently hold providers accountable for
complying with patient wishes; and that it could create liability issues
for providers.

*Response*: The final rule does not require written authorization for
disclosure of protected health information for directory purposes. We
believe that requiring written authorization in these cases would
increase substantially the administrative burdens and costs for covered
health care providers and could lead to significant inconvenience for
families and others attempting to locate individuals in health care
institutions. Experience from the State of Maine suggests that requiring
written authorization before patient information may be included in
facility directories can be disruptive for providers, families, clergy,
and others.

*Comment:* Domestic violence organizations raised concerns that
including information about domestic violence victims in health care
facilities= directories could result in further harm to victims. The
NPRM addressed the issue of potential danger to patients by stating that
when patients were incapacitated, covered health care providers could
exercise discretion B consistent with good medical practice and prior
expression of patient preference B regarding whether to disclose
protected health information for directory purposes. Several commenters
recommended prohibiting providers from including information in a health
care facility=s directory about incapacitated individuals when the
provider reasonably believed that the injuries to the individual could
have been caused by domestic violence. These groups believed that such a
prohibition was necessary to prevent abusers from locating and causing
further harm to domestic violence patients.

*Response:* We share commenters= concerns about protecting victims of
domestic violence from further abuse. We are also concerned, however,
that imposing an affirmative duty on institutions not to disclose
information any time injuries to the individual *could have been* the
result of domestic violence would place too high a burden on health care
facilities, essentially requiring them to rule out domestic violence as
a potential cause of the injuries before disclosing to family members
that an incapacitated person is in the institution.

We do believe, however, that it is appropriate to require covered health
care providers to consider whether including the individual=s name and
location in the directory could lead to serious harm. As in the preamble
to the NPRM, in the preamble to the final rule, we encourage covered
health care providers to consider several factors when deciding whether
to include an incapacitated patient=s information in a health care
facility=s directory. One of these factors is whether disclosing an
individual=s presence in the facility could reasonably cause harm or
danger to the individual (for example, if it appeared that an
unconscious patient had been abused and disclosing that the individual
is in the facility could give the attacker sufficient information to
seek out the person and repeat the abuse). Under the final rule, when
the opportunity to object to uses and disclosures for a facility=s
directory cannot practicably be provided due to an individual=s
incapacity or an emergency treatment circumstance, covered health care
providers may use or disclose some or all of the protected health
information that the rule allows to be included in the directory, if the
disclosure is: (1) consistent with the individual=s prior expressed
preference, if known to the covered health care provider; and (2) in the
individual=s best interest, as determined by the covered health care
provider in the exercise of professional judgement. The rule allows
covered health care providers making decisions about incapacitated
patients to include some portions of the patient=s information (such as
name) but not other information (such as location in the facility) to
protect patient interests.

**Section 164.510(b)CUses and Disclosures for Involvement in the
Individual=s Care and Notification Purposes**

*Comment:* A number of comments supported the NPRM=s proposed approach,
which would have allowed covered entities to disclose protected health
information to the individual=s next of kin, family members, or other
close personal friends when the individual verbally agreed to the
disclosure. These commenters agreed that the presumption should favor
disclosures to the next of kin, and they believed that health care
providers should encourage individuals to share genetic information and
information about transmittable diseases with family members at risk.
Others agreed with the general approach but suggested the individual=s
agreement be noted in the medical record. These commenters also
supported the NPRM=s proposed reliance on good professional practices
and ethics to determine when disclosures should be made to the next of
kin when the individual=s agreement could not practicably be obtained.

A few commenters recommended that the individual=s agreement be in
writing for the protection of the covered entity and to facilitate the
monitoring of compliance with the individual=s wishes. These commenters
were concerned that, absent the individual=s written agreement, the
covered entity would become embroiled in intra-family disputes
concerning the disclosures. Others argued that the individual=s
authorization should be obtained for all disclosures, even to the next
of kin.

One commenter favored disclosures to family members and others unless
the individual actively objected, as long as the disclosure was
consistent with sound professional practice. Others believed that no
agreement by the individual was necessary unless sensitive medical
information would be disclosed or unless the health care provider was
aware of the individual=s prior objection. These commenters recommended
that good professional practice and ethics determine when disclosures
were appropriate and that disclosure should relate only to the
individual=s current treatment. A health care provider organization said
that the ethical and legal obligations of the medical professional alone
should control in this area, although it believed the proposed rule was
generally consistent with these obligations.

*Response:* The diversity of comments regarding the proposal on
disclosures to family members, next of kin, and other persons, reflects
a wide range of current practice and individual expectations. We believe
that the NPRM struck the proper balance between the competing interests
of individual privacy and the need that covered health care providers
may have, in some cases, to have routine, informal conversations with an
individual=s family and friends regarding the individual=s treatment.

We do not agree with the comments stating that all such disclosures
should be made only with consent or with the individual=s written
authorization. The rule does not prohibit obtaining the agreement of the
individual in writing; however, we believe that imposing a requirement
for consent or written authorization in all cases for disclosures to
individuals involved in a person=s care would be unduly burdensome for
all parties. In the final rule, we clarify the circumstances in which
such disclosures are permissible. The rule allows covered entities to
disclose to family members, other relatives, close personal friends of
the individual, or any other person identified by the individual, the
protected health information directly relevant to such person=s
involvement with the individual=s care or payment related to the
individual=s health care. In addition, the final rule allows covered
entities to use or disclose protected health information to notify, or
assist in the notification of (including identifying or locating) a
family member, a personal representative of the individual, or another
person responsible for the care of the individual, of the individual=s
location, general condition, or death. The final rule includes separate
provisions for situations in which the individual is present and for
when the individual is not present at the time of disclosure. When the
individual is present and can make his or her own decisions, a covered
entity may disclose protected health information only if the covered
entity: (1) obtains the individual=s agreement to disclose to the third
parties involved in the individual=s care; (2) provides the individual
with the opportunity to object to the disclosure, and the individual
does not express an objection; or (3) reasonably infers from the
circumstances, based on the exercise of professional judgement, that the
individual does not object to the disclosure. The final rule continues
to permit disclosures in circumstances when the individual is not
present or when the opportunity to agree or object to the use or
disclosure cannot practicably be provided due to the individual=s
incapacity or an emergency circumstance. In such instances, covered
entities may, in the exercise of professional judgement, determine
whether the disclosure is in the individual=s best interests and if so,
disclose only the protected health information that is directly relevant
to the person=s involvement with the individual=s health care.

As discussed in the preamble for this section, we do not intend to
disrupt most covered entities= current practices with respect to
informing family members and others with whom a patient has a close
personal relationship about a patient=s specific health condition when a
patient is incapacitated due to a medical emergency and the family
member or close personal friend comes to the covered entity to ask about
the patient=s condition. To the extent that disclosures to family
members and others in these situations currently are allowed under state
law and covered entities= own rules, \' 164.510(b) allows covered
entities to continue making them in these situations, consistent with
the exercise of professional judgement as to the patient=s best
interest. As indicated in the preamble above, this section is not
intended to provide a loophole for avoiding the rule=s other
requirements, and it is not intended to allow disclosures to a broad
range of individuals, such as journalists who may be curious about a
celebrity=s health status.

*Comments*: A few comments supported the NPRM approach because it
permitted the current practice of allowing someone other than the
patient to pick up prescriptions at pharmacies. One commenter noted that
this practice occurs with respect to 25-40% of the prescriptions
dispensed by community retail pharmacies. These commenters strongly
supported the proposal=s reliance on the professional judgement of
pharmacists in allowing others to pick up prescriptions for bedridden or
otherwise incapacitated patients, noting that in most cases it would be
impracticable to verify that the person was acting with the individual=s
permission. Two commenters requested that the rule specifically allow
this practice. One comment opposed the practice of giving prescriptions
to another person without the individual=s authorization, because a
prescription implicitly could disclose medical information about the
individual.

*Response*: As stated in the NPRM, we intended for this provision to
authorize pharmacies to dispense prescriptions to family or friends who
are sent by the individual to the pharmacy to pick up the prescription.
We believe that stringent consent or verification requirements would
place an unreasonable burden on numerous transactions. In addition, such
requirements would be contrary to the expectations and preferences of
all parties to these transactions. Although prescriptions are protected
health information under the rule, we believe that the risk to
individual privacy in allowing this practice to continue is minimal. We
agree with the suggestion that the final rule should state explicitly
that pharmacies have the authority to operate in this manner. Therefore,
we have added a sentence to \' 164.510(b)(3) allowing covered entities
to use professional judgement and experience with common practice to
make reasonable inferences of an individual=s best interest in allowing
a person to act on the individual=s behalf to pick up filled
prescriptions, medical supplies, X-rays, or other similar forms of
protected health information. In such situations, as when making
disclosures of protected health information about an individual who is
not present or is unable to agree to such disclosures, covered entities
should disclose only information which directly relates to the person=s
involvement in the individual=s current health care. Thus, when
dispensing a prescription to a friend who is picking it up on the
patient=s behalf, the pharmacist should not disclose unrelated health
information about medications that the patient has taken in the past
which could prove embarrassing to the patient.

*Comment:* We received a few comments that misunderstood the provision
as addressing disclosures related to deceased individuals.

*Response:* We understand that use of the term next of kin in this
section may cause confusion. To promote clarity in the final rule, we
eliminate the term Anext of kin,@ as well as the term=s proposed
definition. In the final rule, we address comments on next of kin and
the deceased in the section on disclosure of protected health
information about deceased individuals in \' 164.512(g).

*Comments*: A number of commenters expressed concern for the interaction
of the proposed section with state laws. Some of these comments
interpreted the NPRM=s use of the term next of kin as referring to
individuals with health care power of attorney and thus they believed
that the proposed rule=s approach to next of kin was inappropriately
informal and in conflict with state law. Others noted that some state
laws did not allow health care information to be disclosed to family or
friends without consent or other authorization. One commenter said that
case law may be evolving toward imposing a more affirmative duty on
health care practitioners to inform next of kin in a variety of
circumstances. One commenter noted that state laws may not define
clearly who is considered to be the next of kin.

*Response*: The intent of this provision was not to interfere with or
change current practice regarding health care powers of attorney or the
designation of other personal representatives. Such designations are
formal, legal actions which give others the ability to exercise the
rights of or make treatment decisions related to individuals. While
persons with health care powers of attorney could have access to
protected health information under the personal representatives
provision (\' 164.502(g)), and covered entities may disclose to such
persons under this provision, such disclosures do not give these
individuals substantive authority to act for or on behalf of the
individual with respect to health care decisions. State law requirements
regarding health care powers of attorney continue to apply.

The comments suggesting that state laws may not allow the disclosures
otherwise permitted by this provision or, conversely, that they may
impose a more affirmative duty, did not provide any specifics with which
to judge the affect of such laws. In general, however, state laws that
are more protective of an individual=s privacy interests than the rule
by prohibiting a disclosure of protected health information continue to
apply. The rule=s provisions regarding disclosure of protected health
information to family or friends of the individual are permissive only,
enabling covered entities to abide by more stringent state laws without
violating our rules. Furthermore, if the state law creates an
affirmative and binding legal obligation on the covered entity to make
disclosures to family or other persons under specific circumstances, the
final rule allows covered entities to comply with these legal
obligations. See \' 164.512(a).

*Comments*: A number of commenters supported the proposal to limit
disclosures to family or friends to the protected health information
that is directly relevant to that person=s involvement in the
individual=s health care. Some comments suggested that this standard
apply to all disclosures to family or friends, even when the individual
has agreed to or not objected to the disclosure. One commenter objected
to the proposal, stating that it would be too difficult to administer.
According to this comment, it is accepted practice for health care
providers to communicate with family and friends about an individual=s
condition, regardless of whether the person is responsible for or
otherwise involved in the individual=s care.

Other comments expressed concern for disclosures related to particular
types of information. For example, two commenters recommended that
psychotherapy notes not be disclosed without patient authorization. One
commenter suggested that certain sensitive medical information
associated with social stigma not be disclosed to family members or
others without patient consent.

*Response*: We agree with commenters who advocated limiting permissible
disclosures to relatives and close personal friends to information
consistent with a person=s involvement in the individual=s care. Under
the final rule, we clarify the NPRM provision to state that covered
entities may disclose protected health information to family members,
relatives, or close personal friends of an individual or any other
person identified by the individual, to the extent that the information
directly relates to the person=s involvement in the individual=s current
health care. It is not intended to allow disclosure of past medical
history that is not relevant to the individual=s current condition. In
addition, as discussed above, we do not intend to disrupt covered
entities= current practices with respect to disclosing specific
information about a patient=s condition to family members or others when
the individual is incapacitated due to a medical emergency and the
family member or other individual comes to the covered entity seeking
specific information about the patient=s condition. For example, this
section allows a hospital to disclose to a family member the fact that a
patient had a heart attack, and to provide updated information to the
family member about the patient=s progress and prognosis during his or
her period of incapacity.

We agree with the recommendation to require written authorization for a
disclosure of psychotherapy notes to family, close personal friends, or
others involved in the individual=s care. As discussed below, the final
rule allows disclosure of psychotherapy notes without authorization in a
few limited circumstances; disclosure to individuals involved in a
person=s care is not among those circumstances. See \' 164.508 for a
further discussion of the final rule=s provisions regarding disclosure
of psychotherapy notes.

We do not agree, however, with the suggestion to treat some medical
information as more sensitive than others. In most cases, individuals
will have the opportunity to prohibit or limit such disclosures. For
situations in which an individual is unable to do so, covered entities
may, in the exercise of professional judgement, determine whether the
disclosure is in the individual=s best interests and, if so, disclose
only the protected health information that is directly relevant to the
person=s involvement with the individual=s health care.

*Comment*: One commenter suggested that this provision should allow
disclosure of protected health information to the clergy and to the Red
Cross. The commenter noted that clergy have ethical obligations to
ensure confidentiality and that the Red Cross often notifies the next of
kin regarding an individual=s condition in certain circumstances.
Another commenter recommended allowing disclosures to law enforcement
for the purpose of contacting the next of kin of individuals who have
been injured or killed. One commenter sought clarification that Aclose
personal friend@ was intended to include domestic partners and same-sex
couples in committed relationships.

*Response:* As discussed above, \' 164.510(a) allows covered health care
providers to disclose to clergy protected health information from a
health care facility=s directory. Under \' 164.510(b), an individual may
identify any person, including clergy, as involved in his or her care.
This approach provides more flexibility than the proposed rule would
have provided.

As discussed in the preamble of the final rule, this provision allows
disclosures to domestic partners and others in same-sex relationships
when such individuals are involved in an individual=s care or are the
point of contact for notification in a disaster. We do not intend to
change current practices with respect to involvement of others in an
individual=s treatment decisions; informal information-sharing among
persons involved; or the sharing of protected health information during
a disaster. As noted above, a power of attorney or other legal
relationship to an individual is not necessary for these informal
discussions about the individual for the purpose of assisting in or
providing a service related to the individual=s care.

We agree with the comments noting that the Red Cross and other
organizations may play an important role in locating and communicating
with the family about individuals injured or killed in an accident or
disaster situation. Therefore, the final rule includes new language, in
\' 164.510(b)(4), which allows covered entities to use or disclose
protected health information to a public or private entity authorized by
law or its charter to assist in disaster relief efforts, for the purpose
of coordinating with such entities to notify, or assist in the
notification of (including identifying or locating) a family member, an
individual=s personal representative, or another person responsible for
the individual=s care regarding the individual=s location, general
condition, or death. The Red Cross is an example of a private entity
that may obtain protected health information pursuant to these
provisions. We recognize the role of the Red Cross and similar
organizations in disaster relief efforts, and we encourage cooperation
with these entities in notification efforts and other means of
assistance.

*Comment*: One commenter recommended stating that individuals who are
mentally retarded and unable to agree to disclosures under this
provision do not, thereby, lose their access to further medical
treatment. This commenter also proposed stating that mentally retarded
individuals who are able to provide agreement have the right to control
the disclosure of their protected health information. The commenter
expressed concern that the parent, relative, or other person acting *in
loco parentis* may not have the individual=s best interest in mind in
seeking or authorizing for the individual the disclosure of protected
health information.

*Response*: The final rule regulates only uses and disclosures of
protected health information, not the delivery of health care. Under the
final rule=s section on personal representatives (\' 164.502(g)), a
person with authority to make decisions about the health care of an
individual, under applicable law, may make decisions about the protected
health information of that individual, to the extent that the protected
health information is relevant to such person\'s representation.

In the final rule, \' 164.510(b) may apply to permit disclosures to a
person other than a personal representative. Under \' 164.510(b), when
an individual is present and has the capacity to make his or her own
decisions, a covered entity may disclose protected health information
only if the covered entity: (1) obtains the individual=s agreement to
disclose protected health information to the third parties involved in
the individual=s care; (2) provides the individual with an opportunity
to object to such disclosure, and the individual does not express an
objection; or (3) reasonably infers from the circumstances, based on the
exercise of professional judgment, that the individual does not object
to the disclosure. These conditions apply to disclosure of protected
health information about individuals with mental retardation as well as
to disclosures about all other individuals. Thus we do not believe it is
necessary to include in this section of the final rule any language
specifically on persons with mental retardation.

*Comments*: A few commenters recommended that disclosures made in good
faith to the family or friends of the individual not be subject to
sanctions by the Secretary, even if the covered entity had not fully
complied with the requirements of this provision. One commenter believed
that a fear of sanction would make covered entities overly cautious,
such that they would not disclose protected health information to
domestic partners or others not recognized by law as next of kin.
Another commenter recommended that sanctions not be imposed if the
covered entity has proper policies in place and has trained its staff
appropriately. According to this commenter, the lack of documentation of
disclosures in a particular case or medical record should not subject
the entity to sanctions if the information was disclosed in good faith.

*Response:* We generally agree with commenters regarding disclosure in
good faith pursuant to this provision. As discussed above, the final
rule expands the scope of individuals to whom covered entities may
disclose protected health information pursuant to this section. In
addition, we delete the term next of kin, to avoid the appearance of
requiring any legal determination of a person=s relationship in
situations involving informal disclosures. Similarly, consistent with
the informal nature of disclosures pursuant to this section, we do not
require covered entities to document such disclosures. If a covered
entity imposes its own documentation requirements and a particular
covered health care provider does not follow the entity=s documentation
requirements, the disclosure is not a violation of this rule.

*Comments*: The majority of comments on this provision were from
individuals and organizations concerned about domestic violence. Most of
these commenters wanted assurance that domestic violence would be a
consideration in any disclosure to the spouse or relatives of an
individual whom the covered entity suspected to be a victim of domestic
violence or abuse. In particular, these commenters recommended that
disclosures not be made to family members suspected of being the abuser
if to do so would further endanger the individual. Commenters believed
that this limitation was particularly important when the individual was
unconscious or otherwise unable to object to the disclosures.

*Response:* We agree with the comments that victims of domestic violence
and other forms of abuse need special consideration in order to avoid
further harm, and we provide for discretion of a covered entity to
determine that protected health information not be disclosed pursuant to
\' 164.510(b). Section 164.510(b) of the final rule, disclosures to
family or friends involved in the individual=s care, states that when an
individual is unable to agree or object to the disclosure due to
incapacity or another emergency situation, a covered entity must
determine based on the exercise of professional judgment whether it is
in the individual=s best interest to disclose the information. As stated
in the preamble, we intend for this exercise of professional judgment in
the individual=s best interest to account for the potential for harm to
the individual in cases involving domestic violence. These circumstances
are unique and are best decided by a covered entity, in the exercise of
professional judgment, in each situation rather than by a blanket rule.

**SECTION 164.512CUSES AND DISCLOSURES FOR WHICH CONSENT, Authorization,
OR OPPORTUNITY TO AGREE OR OBJECT IS NOT REQUIRED**

**Section 164.512(a)CUses and Disclosures Required by Law**

*Comment:* Numerous commenters addressed directly or by implication the
question of whether the provision permitting uses and disclosures of
protected health information if required by other law was necessary.
Other commenters generally endorsed the need for such a provision. One
such commenter approved of the provision as a needed fail-safe mechanism
should the enumeration of permissible uses and disclosures of protected
health information in the NPRM prove to be incomplete. Other commenters
cited specific statutes which required access to protected health
information, arguing that such a provision was necessary to ensure that
these legally mandated disclosures would continue to be permitted. For
example, some commenters argued for continued access to protected health
information to investigate and remedy abuse and neglect as currently
required by the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of
Rights, 42 U.S.C. 6042, and the Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill
Individuals Act, 42 U.S.C. 10801.

Some comments urged deletion of the provision for uses and disclosures
required by other law. This concern appeared to be based on a
generalized concern that the provision fostered government intrusion
into individual medical information.

Finally, a number of commenters also urged that the required by law
provision be deleted. These commenters argued that the proposed
provision would have undermined the intent of the statute to preempt
state laws which were less protective of individual privacy. As stated
in these comments, the provision for uses and disclosures required by
other law was Abroadly written and could apply to a variety of state
laws that are contrary to the proposed rule and less protective of
privacy. (Indeed, a law [requiring]{.underline} disclosure is the least
protective of privacy since it allows for no discretion.) The breadth of
this provision greatly exceeds the exceptions to preemption contained in
HIPAA.@

*Response:* We agree with the comments that proposed \' 164.510(n) was
necessary to harmonize the rule with existing state and federal laws
mandating uses and disclosures of protected health information.
Therefore, in the final rule, the provision permitting uses and
disclosures as required by other law is retained. To accommodate other
reorganization of the final rule, this provision has been designated as
\' 164.512(a).

We do not agree with the comments expressing concern for increased
governmental intrusion into individual privacy under this provision. The
final rule does not create any new duty or obligation to disclose
protected health information. Rather, it permits covered entities to use
or disclose protected health information when they are required by law
to do so.

We likewise disagree with the characterization of the proposed provision
as inconsistent with or contrary to the preemption standards in the
statute or Part 160 of the rule. As described in the NPRM, we intend
this provision to preserve access to information considered important
enough by state or federal authorities to require its disclosure by law.

The importance of these required uses or disclosures is evidenced by the
legislative or other public process necessary for the government to
create a legally binding obligation on a covered entity. Furthermore,
such required uses and disclosures arise in a myriad of other areas of
law, ranging from topics addressing national security (uses and
disclosures to obtain security clearances), to public health (reporting
of communicable diseases), to law enforcement (disclosures of gun shot
wounds). Required uses and disclosures also may address broad national
concerns or particular regional or state concerns. It is not possible,
or appropriate, for HHS to reassess the legitimacy of or the need for
each of these mandates in each of their specialized contexts. In some
cases where particular concerns have been raised by legal mandates in
other laws, we allow disclosure as required by law, and we establish
additional requirements to protect privacy (for example, informing the
individual as required in \' 164.512(c)) when covered entities make a
legally mandated disclosure.

We also disagree with commenters who suggest that the approach in the
final rule is contrary to the preemption provisions in HIPAA. HIPAA
provides HHS with broad discretion in fashioning privacy protections.
Recognizing the legitimacy of existing legal requirements is certainly
within the Secretary=s discretion. Additionally, given the variety of
these laws, the varied contexts in which they arise, and their
significance in ensuring that important public policies are achieved, we
do not believe that Congress intended to preempt each such law unless
HHS specifically recognized the law or purpose in the regulation.

*Comment:* A number of commenters urged that the provision permitting
uses and disclosures required by other law be amended by deleting the
last sentence which stated: AThis paragraph does not apply to uses or
disclosures that are covered by paragraphs (b) through (m) of this
section.@ Some commenters sought deletion of this sentence to avoid any
inadvertent preemption of mandatory reporting laws, and requested
clarification of the effect on specific statutes.

The majority of the commenters focused their concerns on the potential
conflict between mandatory reporting laws to law enforcement and the
limitations imposed by proposed \' 164.510(f), on uses and disclosures
to law enforcement. For example, the comments raised concerns that
mandatory reporting to law enforcement of injuries resulting from
violent acts and abuse require the health care provider to initiate such
reports to local law enforcement or other state agencies, while the NPRM
would have allowed such reporting on victims of crimes only in response
to specific law enforcement requests for information. Similarly,
mandatory reports of violence-related injuries may implicate suspected
perpetrators, as well as victims, and compliance with such laws could be
blocked by the proposed requirement that disclosures about suspects was
similarly limited to a response to law enforcement inquiries for the
specific purpose of identifying the suspect. The NPRM also would have
limited the type of protected health information that could have been
disclosed about a suspect or fugitive.

In general, commenters sought to resolve this overlap by removing the
condition that the required-by-other-law provision applied only when no
other national priority purpose addressed the particular use or
disclosure. The suggested change would permit the covered entity to
comply with legally mandated uses and disclosures as long as the
relevant requirements of that law were met. Alternatively, other
commenters suggested that the restrictions on disclosures to law
enforcement be lifted to permit full compliance with laws requiring
reporting for these purposes.

Finally, some comments sought clarification of when a use or disclosure
was Acovered by paragraphs (b) through (m).@ These commenters were
confused as to whether a particular use or disclosure had to be
specifically addressed by another provision of the rule or simply within
the scope of the one of the national priority purposes specified by
proposed paragraphs (b) through (m).

*Response:* We agree with the commenters that the provision as proposed
would have inadvertently interfered with many state and federal laws
mandating the reporting to law enforcement or others of protected health
information.

In response to these comments, we have modified the final rule to
clarify how this section interacts with the other provisions in the
rule.

*Comment:* A number of commenters sought expanded authority to use and
disclosure protected health information when permitted by other law, not
just when required by law. These comments specified a number of
significant duties or potential societal benefits from disclosures
currently permitted or authorized by law, and they expressed concern
should these beneficial uses and disclosures no longer be allowed if not
specifically recognized by the rule. For example, one commenter listed
25 disclosures of health records that are currently permitted, but not
required, by state law. This commenter was concerned that many of these
authorized uses and disclosures would not be covered by any of the
national priority purposes specified in the NPRM, and, therefore, would
not be a permissible use or disclosure under the rule. To preserve these
important uses and disclosures, the comments recommended that provision
be made for any use or disclosure which is authorized or permitted by
other law.

*Response:* We do not agree with the comments that seek general
authority to use and disclose protected health information as permitted,
but not required, by other law. The uses and disclosures permitted in
the final rule reflect those purposes and circumstances which we believe
are of sufficient national importance or relevance to the needs of the
health care system to warrant the use or disclosure of protected health
information in the absence of either the individual=s express
authorization or a legal duty to make such use or disclosure. In
permitting specific uses and disclosures that are not required by law,
we have considered the individual privacy interests at stake in each
area and crafted conditions or limitations in each identified area as
appropriate to balance the competing public purposes and individual
privacy needs. A general rule authorizing any use or disclosure that is
permitted, but not required, by other law would undermine the careful
balancing in the final rule.

In making this judgment, we have distinguished between laws that mandate
uses or disclosures and laws that merely permit them. In the former
case, jurisdictions have determined that public policy purposes cannot
be achieved absent the use of certain protected health information, and
we have chosen in general not to disturb their judgments. On the other
hand, where jurisdictions have determined that certain protected health
information is not necessary to achieve a public policy purpose, and
only have permitted its use or disclosure, we do not believe that those
judgments reflect an interest in use or disclosure strong enough to
override the Congressional goal of protecting privacy rights.

Moreover, the comments failed to present any compelling circumstance to
warrant such a general provision. Despite commenters= concerns to the
contrary, most of the beneficial uses and disclosures that the
commenters referenced to support a general provision were, in fact, uses
or disclosures already permissible under the rule. For example, the
general statutory authorities relied on by one state health agency to
investigate disease outbreaks or to comply with health data-gathering
guidelines for reporting to certain federal agencies are permissible
disclosures to public health agencies.

Finally, in the final rule, we add new provisions to \' 164.512 to
address three examples raised by commenters of uses and disclosures that
are authorized or permitted by law, but may not be required by law.
First, commenters expressed concern for the states that provide for
voluntary reporting to law enforcement or state protective services of
domestic violence or of abuse, neglect or exploitation of the elderly or
other vulnerable adults. As discussed below, a new section, \'
164.512(c), has been added to the final rule to specifically address
uses and disclosures of protected health information in cases of abuse,
neglect, or domestic violence. Second, commenters were concerned about
state or federal laws that permitted coordination and cooperation with
organizations or entities involved in cadaveric organ, eye, or tissue
donation and transplantation. In the final rule, we add a new section,
\' 164.512(h), to permit disclosures to facilitate such donation and
transplantation functions. Third, a number of commenters expressed
concern for uses and disclosure permitted by law in certain custodial
settings, such as those involving correctional or detention facilities.
In the final rule, we add a new subsection to the section on uses and
disclosures for specialized government functions (\' 164.512(k), to
identify custodial settings in which special rules are necessary and to
specify the additional uses and disclosures of the protected health
information of inmates or detainees which are necessary in such
facilities.

*Comment:* A number of commenters asked for clarification of the term
Alaw@ and the phrase Arequired by law@ for purposes of the provision
permitting uses or disclosures that are required by law. Some of the
commenters noted that Astate law@ was a defined term in Part 160 of the
NPRM and that the terms should be used consistently. Other commenters
were concerned about differentiating between laws that required a use or
disclosure and those that merely authorize or permit a use or
disclosure. A number of commenters recommended that the final rule
include a definitive list of the laws that mandate a use or disclosure
of protected health information.

*Response:* In the final rule, we clarify that, consistent with the
Astate law@ definition in \' 160.202, Alaw@ is intended to be read
broadly to include the full array of binding legal authority, such as
constitutions, statutes, rules, regulations, common law, or other
governmental actions having the effect of law. However, for the purposes
of \' 164.512(a), law is not limited to state action; rather, it
encompasses federal, state or local actions with legally binding effect,
as well as those by territorial and tribal governments.

For more detail on the meaning of Arequired by law,@ see \' 164.501.
Only where the law imposes a duty on the health care professional to
report would the disclosure be considered to be required by law.

The final rule does not include a definitive list of the laws that
contain legal mandates for disclosures of protected health information.
In light of the breadth of the term Alaw@ and number of federal, state,
local, and territorial or tribal authorities that may engage in the
promulgation of binding legal authority, it would be impossible to
compile and maintain such a list. Covered entities have an independent
duty to be aware of their legal obligations to federal, state, local and
territorial or tribal authorities. The rule=s approach is simply
intended to avoid any obstruction to the health plan or covered health
care provider=s ability to comply with its existing legal obligations.

*Comment:* A number of commenters recommended that the rule compel
covered entities to use or disclose protected health information as
required by law. They expressed concern that covered entities could
refuse or delay compliance with legally mandated disclosures by
misplaced reliance on a rule that permits, but does not require, a use
or disclosure required by other law.

*Response:* We do not agree that the final rule should require covered
entities to comply with uses or disclosures of protected health
information mandated by law. The purpose of this rule is to protect
privacy, and to allow those disclosures consistent with sound public
policy. Consistent with this purpose, we mandate disclosure only to the
individual who is the subject of the information, and for purposes of
enforcing the rule. Where a law imposes a legal duty on the covered
entity to use or disclose protected health information, it is sufficient
that the privacy rule permit the covered entity to comply with such law.
The enforcement of that legal duty, however, is a matter for that other
law.

**Section 164.512(b)CUses and Disclosures for Public Health Activities**

*Comment:* Several non-profit entities commented that medical records
research by nonprofit entities to ensure public health goals, such as
disease-specific registries, would not have been covered by this
provision. These organizations collect information without relying on a
government agency or law. Commenters asserted that such activities are
essential and must continue. They generally supported the provisions
allowing the collection of individually identifiable health information
without authorization for registries. One stated that both governmental
and non-governmental cancer registries should be exempt from the
regulation. They stated that Asuch entities, by their very nature,
collect health information for legitimate public health and research
purposes.@ Another, however, addressed its comments only to Adisclosure
to non-government entities operating such system as required or
authorized by law.@

*Response:* We acknowledge that such entities may be engaged in
disease-specific or other data collection activities that provide a
benefit to their members and others affected by a particular malady and
that they contribute to the public health and scientific database on low
incidence or little known conditions. However, in the absence of some
nexus to a government public health authority or other underlying legal
authority, it is unclear upon what basis covered entities can determine
which registries or collections are Alegitimate@ and how the
confidentiality of the registry information will be protected.
Commenters did not suggest methods for Avalidating@ these private
registry programs, and no such methods currently exist at the federal
level. It is unknown whether any states have such a program. Broadening
the exemption could provide a loophole for private data collections for
inappropriate purposes or uses under a Apublic health@ mask.

In this rule, we do not seek to make judgments as to the legitimacy of
private entities= disease-specific registries or of private data
collection endeavors. Rather, we establish the general terms and
conditions for disclosure and use of protected health information. Under
the final rule, covered entities may obtain authorization to disclose
protected health information to private entities seeking to establish
registries or other databases; they may disclose protected health
information as required by law; or they may disclose protected health
information to such entities if they meet the conditions of one of the
provisions of \'\' 164.510 or 164.512. We believe that the circumstances
under which covered entities may disclose protected health information
to private entities should be limited to specified national priority
purposes, as reflected through the FDA requirements or directives listed
in \' 164.512(b)(iii), and to enable recalls, repairs, or replacements
of products regulated by the FDA. Disclosures by covered health care
providers who are workforce members of an employer or are conducting
evaluations relating to work-related injuries or illnesses or workplace
surveillance also may disclose protected health information to employers
of findings of such evaluations that are necessary for the employer to
comply with requirements under OSHA and related laws.

*Comment:* Several commenters said that the NPRM did not indicate how to
distinguish between public health data collections and government health
data systems. They suggested eliminating proposed \' 164.510(g) on
disclosures and uses for government health data systems, because they
believed that such disclosures and uses were adequately covered by
proposed \' 164.510(b) on public health.

*Response:* As discussed below, we agree with the commenters who
suggested that the proposed provision that would have permitted
disclosures to government health data bases was overly broad, and we
remove it from the final rule. We reviewed the important purposes for
which some commenters said government agencies needed protected health
information, and we believe that most of those needs can be met through
the other categories of permitted uses and disclosures without
authorization allowed under the final rule, including provisions
permitting covered entities to disclose information (subject to certain
limitations) to government agencies for public health, health oversight,
law enforcement, and otherwise as required by law. For example, the
final rule continues to allow collection of protected health information
without authorization to monitor trends in the spread of infectious
disease, morbidity and mortality.

*Comment:* Several commenters recommended expanding the scope of
disclosures permissible under proposed \' 164.510(b)(1)(iii), which
would have allowed covered entities to disclose protected health
information to private entities that could demonstrate that they were
acting to comply with requirements, or at the direction, of a public
health authority. These commenters said that they needed to collect
individually identifiable health information in the process of drug and
device development, approval, and post-market surveillance B activities
that are related to, and necessary for, the FDA regulatory process.
However, they noted that the specific data collections involved were not
required by FDA regulations. Some commenters said that they often
devised their own data collection methods, and that health care
providers disclosed information to companies voluntarily for activities
such as post-marketing surveillance and efficacy surveys. Commenters
said they used this information to comply with FDA requirements such as
reporting adverse events, filing other reports, or recordkeeping.
Commenters indicated that the FDA encouraged but did not require them to
establish other data collection mechanisms, such as pregnancy registries
that track maternal exposure to drugs and the outcomes.

Accordingly, several commenters recommended modifying proposed \'
164.510(b) to allow covered entities to disclose protected health
information without authorization to manufacturers registered with the
FDA to manufacture, distribute, or sell a prescription drug, device, or
biological product, in connection with post-marketing safety and
efficacy surveillance or for the entity to obtain information about the
drug, device, or product or its use. One commenter suggested including
in the regulation an illustrative list of examples of FDA-related
requirements, and stating in the preamble that all activities taken in
furtherance of compliance with FDA regulations are Apublic health
activities.@

*Response:* We recognize that the FDA conducts or oversees many
activities that are critical to help ensure the safety or effectiveness
of the many products it regulates. These activities include, for
example, reporting of adverse events, product defects and problems;
product tracking; and post-marketing surveillance. In addition, we
believe that removing defective or harmful products from the market is a
critical national priority and is an important tool in FDA efforts to
promote the safety and efficacy of the products it regulates. We
understand that in most cases, the FDA lacks statutory authority to
require product recalls. We also recognize that the FDA typically does
not conduct recalls, repairs, or product replacement surveillance
directly, but rather, that it relies on the private entities it
regulates to collect data, notify patients when applicable, repair and
replace products, and undertake other activities to promote the safety
and effectiveness of FDA-regulated products.

We believe, however, that modifying the NPRM to allow disclosure of
protected health information to private entities as part of any
data-gathering activity related to a drug, device, or biological product
or its use, or for any activity that is consistent with, or that appears
to promote objectives specified, in FDA regulation would represent an
inappropriately broad exception to the general requirement to obtain
authorization prior to disclosure. Such a change could allow, for
example, drug companies to collect protected health information without
authorization to use for the purpose of marketing pharmaceuticals. We do
not agree that all activities taken to promote compliance with FDA
regulations represent public health activities as that term is defined
in this rule. In addition, we believe it would not be appropriate to
include in the regulation text an Aillustrative list@ of requirements
Arelated to@ the FDA. The regulation text and preamble list the
FDA-related activities for which we believe disclosure of protected
health information to private entities without authorization is
warranted.

We believe it is appropriate to allow disclosure of protected health
information without authorization to private entities only: for purposes
that the FDA has, in effect, identified as national priorities by
issuing regulations or express directions requiring such disclosure; or
if such disclosure is necessary for a product recall. For example, we
believe it is appropriate to allow covered health care providers to
disclose to a medical device manufacturer recalling defective heart
valves the names and last known addresses of patients in whom the
provider implanted the valves. Thus, in the final rule, we allow covered
entities to disclose protected health information to entities subject to
FDA jurisdiction for the following activities: to report adverse events
(or similar reports with respect to food or dietary supplements),
product defects or problems (including problems with the use or labeling
of a product), or biological product deviations, if the disclosure is
made to the person required or directed to report such information to
the FDA; to track products if the disclosure is made to a person
required or directed by the FDA to track the product; to enable product
recalls, repairs, or replacement (including locating and notifying
individuals who have received products of product recalls, withdrawals,
or other problems); or to conduct post-marketing surveillance to comply
with requirements or at the direction of the FDA. The preamble above
provides further detail on the meaning of some of the terms in this
list. Covered entities may disclose protected health information to
entities for activities other than those described above only as
required by law; with authorization; or if permissible under another
section of this rule.

We understand that many private registries, such as pregnancy
registries, currently obtain patient authorization for data collection.
We believe the approach of \' 164.512(b) strikes an appropriate balance
between the objective of promoting patient privacy and control over
their health information and the objective of allowing private entities
to collect data that ultimately may have important public health
benefits.

*Comment:* One commenter remarked that our proposal may impede
fetal/infant mortality and child fatality reviews.

*Response:* The final rule permits a covered entity to disclose
protected health information to a public health authority authorized by
law to conduct public health activities, including the collection of
data relevant to death or disease, in accordance with \' 164.512(b).
Such activities may also meet the definition of Ahealth care
operations.@ We therefore do not believe this rule impedes these
activities.

*Comment:* Several comments requested that the final regulation clarify
that employers be permitted to use and/or disclose protected health
information pursuant to the requirements of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act and its accompanying regulations (AOSHA@). A few comments
asserted that the regulation should not only permit employers to use and
disclose protected health information without first obtaining an
authorization consistent with OSHA requirements, but also permit them to
use and disclose protected health information if the use or disclosure
is consistent with the spirit of OSHA. One commenter supported the
permissibility of these types of uses and disclosures, but warned that
the regulation should not grant employers unfettered access to the
entire medical record of employees for the purpose of meeting OSHA
requirements. Other commenters noted that OSHA not only requires
disclosures to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, but
also to third parties, such as employers and employee representatives.
Thus, this comment asked HHS to clarify that disclosures to third
parties required by OSHA are also permissible under the regulation.

*Response:* Employers as such are not covered entities under HIPAA and
we generally do not have authority over their actions. When an employer
has a health care component, such as an on-site medical clinic, and the
components meets the requirements of a covered health care provider,
health plan or health care clearinghouse, the uses and disclosures of
protected health information by the health care component, including
disclosures to the larger employer entity, are covered by this rule and
must comply with its provisions.

A covered entity, including a covered health care provider, may disclose
protected health information to OSHA under \' 164.512(a), if the
disclosure is required by law, or if the disclosure is a discretionary
one for public health activities, under \' 164.512(b). Employers may
also request employees to provide authorization for the employer to
obtain protected health information from covered entities to conduct
analyses of work-related health issues. See \' 164.508.

We also permit covered health care providers who provide health care as
a workforce member of an employer or at the request of an employer to
disclose protected health information to the employer concerning
work-related injuries or illnesses or workplace medical surveillance in
situations where the employer has a duty to keep records on or act on
such information under the OSHA or similar laws. We added this provision
to ensure that employers are able to obtain the information that they
need to meet federal and state laws designed to promote safer and
healthier workplaces. These laws are vital to protecting the health and
safety of workers and we permit specified covered health care providers
to disclose protected health information as necessary to carry out these
purposes.

*Comment:* A few comments suggested that the final regulation clarify
how it would interact with existing and pending OSHA requirements. One
of these comments requested that the Secretary delay the effective date
of the regulation until reviews of existing requirements are complete.

*Response:* As noted in the ARelationship to Other Federal Laws@ section
of the preamble, we are not undertaking a complete review of all
existing laws with which covered entities might have to comply. Instead
we have described a general framework under which such laws may be
evaluated. We believe that adopting national standards to protect the
privacy of individually identifiable health information is an urgent
national priority. We do not believe that it is appropriate to delay the
effective date of this regulation.

*Comment:* One commenter asserted that the proposed regulation
conflicted with the OSHA regulation requirement that when a designated
representative (to whom the employee has already provided a written
authorization to obtain access) requests a release form for access to
employee medical records, the form must include the purpose for which
the disclosure is sought, which the proposed privacy regulation does not
require.

*Response:* We do not agree that this difference creates a conflict for
covered entities. If an employer seeks to obtain a valid authorization
under \' 164.508, it may add a purpose statement to the authorization so
that it complies with OSHA=s requirements and is a valid authorization
under \' 164.508 upon which a covered entity may rely to make a
disclosure of protected health information to the employer.

*Comment:* One commenter stated that access to workplace medical records
by the occupational medical physicians is fundamental to workplace and
community health and safety. Access is necessary whether it is a single
location or multiple sites of the same company, such as production
facilities of a national company located throughout the country.

*Response:* We permit covered health care providers who provide health
care as a workforce member of an employer or at the request of an
employer to disclose protected health information to the employer
concerning work-related injuries or illnesses or workplace medical
surveillance, as described in this paragraph. Information obtained by an
employer under this paragraph would be available for it to use,
consistent with other laws and regulations, as it chooses and throughout
the national company. We do not regulate uses or disclosures of
individually identifiable health information by employers acting as
employers.

**Section 164.512(c)CDisclosures about Victims of Abuse, Neglect, or
Domestic Violence**

The NPRM did not include a paragraph specifically addressing covered
entities= disclosures of protected health information regarding victims
of abuse, neglect, or domestic violence. Rather, the NPRM addressed
disclosures about child abuse pursuant to proposed \' 164.510(b), which
would have allowed covered entities to report child abuse to a public
health authority or to another appropriate authority authorized by law
to receive reports of child abuse or neglect. We respond to comments
regarding victims of domestic violence or abuse throughout the final
rule where relevant. (See responses to comments on \'\' 164.502(g),
164.510(b), 164.512(f)(3), 164.522, and 164.524.)

*Comment:* Several commenters urged us to require that victims of
domestic violence be notified about requests for or disclosures of
protected health information about them, so that victims could take
safety precautions.

*Response:* We agree that, in balancing the burdens on covered entities
from such a notification requirement against the benefits to be gained,
victims of domestic abuse merit heightened concern. For this reason, we
generally require covered entities to inform the individual when they
disclose protected health information to authorized government
authorities. As the Family Violence Prevention Fund has noted in its
[Health Privacy Principles for Protecting Victims of Domestic
Violence]{.underline} (October 2000), victims of domestic violence and
abuse sometimes are subject to retaliatory violence. By informing a
victim of abuse or domestic violence of a disclosure to law enforcement
or other authorities, covered entities give victims the opportunity to
take appropriate safety precautions. See the above preamble discussion
of \' 164.512(c) for more detail about the requirements for disclosing
protected health information about victims of domestic violence.

*Comment:* Some commenters argued that a consent requirement should
apply at a minimum to disclosures involving victims of crime or victims
of domestic violence.

*Response:* We agree, and we modify the proposed rule to require covered
entities to obtain an individual=s agreement prior to disclosing
protected health information in most instances involving victims of a
crime or of abuse, neglect, or domestic violence. See the above preamble
discussions of \' 164.512(c), on disclosures about victims of abuse,
neglect, or domestic violence, and \' 164.512(f)(3), on disclosures to
law enforcement about crime victims.

**Section 164.512(d)CUses and Disclosures for Health Oversight
Activities**

*Comment:* A couple of commenters supported the NPRM=s approach to
health oversight. Several other commenters generally supported the
NPRM=s approach to disclosure of protected health information for
national priority purposes, and they recommended some clarification
regarding disclosure for health oversight. Two commenters recommended
clarifying in the final rule that disclosure is allowed to all federal,
state, and local agencies that use protected health information to carry
out legally mandated responsibilities.

*Response:* The final rule permits disclosures to public agencies that
meet the definition of a health oversight agency and for oversight of
the particular areas described in the statute. Section 164.512(a) of the
final rule permits disclosures that are required by law. As discussed in
the responses to comments of \' 164.512(a), we do not in the final rule
permit disclosures merely authorized by other laws that do not fit
within the other public policy purposes recognized by the rule.

*Comment*: One commenter recommended clarifying in the final rule that
covered entities are not required to establish business partner
contracts with health oversight agencies or public health authorities to
release individually identifiable information to them for purposes
exempt from HIPAA and sanctioned by state law.

*Response:* The final rule does not require covered entities to
establish business associate contracts with health oversight agencies
when they disclose protected health information to these agencies for
oversight purposes.

*Comment:* Two commenters recommended clarifying in the regulation text
that the health oversight section does not create a new right of access
to protected health information.

*Response:* We agree and include such a statement in the preamble of \'
164.512(d) of the final rule.

*Comment:* Several commenters were concerned that the proposed oversight
section allowed but did not require disclosure of protected health
information to health oversight agencies for oversight activities.

*Response:* This rule=s purpose is to protect the privacy of
individually identifiable health information. Except to enforce the rule
and to establish individuals= right to access their own protected health
information (see \' 164.502(a)(2)), we do not require disclosure of
protected health information to any person or entity. We allow such
disclosure for situations in which other laws require disclosure.

*Comment:* Some commenters were concerned that the NPRM would have
allowed health oversight agencies to re-use and redisclose protected
health information to other entities, and they were particularly
concerned about re-disclosure to and re-use by law enforcement agencies.
One commenter believed that government agencies would use the label of
health oversight to gain access to protected health information from
covered entities B thereby avoiding the procedural requirements of the
law enforcement section (proposed \' 164.510(f)) and subsequently would
turn over information to law enforcement officials. Thus, these groups
were concerned that the potential for oversight access to protected
health information under the rule to become the Aback door@ to law
enforcement access to such information.

Based on their concerns, these commenters recommended establishing a
general prohibition on the re-use and re-disclosure of protected health
information obtained by health oversight agencies in actions against
individuals. One health plan expressed general concern about
re-disclosure among all of the public agencies covered in the proposed
\' 164.510. It recommended building safeguards into the rule to prevent
information gathered for one purpose (for example, public health) from
being used for another purpose (such as health oversight).

Many of the commenters concerned about re-disclosure of protected health
information obtained for oversight purposes said that if the Secretary
lacked statutory authority to regulate oversight agencies= re-disclosure
of protected health information and the re-use of this information by
other agencies covered in proposed \' 164.510, the President should
issue an Executive Order barring such re-disclosure and re-use. One of
these groups specified that the Executive Order should bar re-use and
re-disclosure of protected health information in actions against
individuals.

In contrast, some commenters advocated information-sharing between law
enforcement and oversight agencies. Most of these commenters recognized
that the NPRM would have allowed re-use and re-disclosure of protected
health information from oversight to law enforcement agencies, and they
supported this approach.

*Response:* We believe that the language we have added to the rule, at
\' 164.512(d)(2) and the corresponding explanation in the preamble, to
clarify the boundary between disclosures for health oversight and for
law enforcement purposes should partially address the concern expressed
by some that oversight agencies will be the back door for access by law
enforcement. In situations when the individual is the subject of an
investigation or activity and the investigation or activity is not
related to health care fraud, the requirements for disclosure to law
enforcement must be met, and an oversight agency cannot request the
information under its more general oversight authority.

We acknowledge, however, that there will be instances under the rule
when a health oversight agency (or a law enforcement agency in its
oversight capacity) that has obtained protected health information
appropriately will be able to redisclose the information to a law
enforcement agency for law enforcement purposes. Under HIPAA, we have
the authority to restrict re-disclosure of protected health information
only by covered entities. Re-disclosures by public agencies such as
oversight agencies are not within the purview of this rule. We support
the enactment of comprehensive privacy legislation that would govern
such public agencies= re-use and re-disclosure of this information.
Furthermore, in an effort to prevent health oversight provisions from
becoming the back door to law enforcement access to protected health
information, the President is issuing an Executive Order that places
strict limitations on the use of protected health information gathered
in the course of an oversight investigation for law enforcement
activities. For example, such use will be subject to review by the
Deputy Attorney General.

*Comment:* Several commenters recommended modifying the proposed
oversight section to require health oversight officials to justify and
document their need for identifiable information.

*Response:* We encourage covered entities to work with health oversight
agencies to determine the scope of information needed for health
oversight inquiries. However, we believe that requiring covered entities
to obtain extensive documentation of health oversight information needs
could compromise health oversight agencies= ability to complete
investigations, particularly when an oversight agency is investigating
the covered entity from which it is seeking information.

*Comment:* Several commenters believed that health oversight activities
could be conducted without access to individually identifiable health
information. Some of these groups recommended requiring information
provided to health oversight agencies to be de-identified to the extent
possible.

*Response:* We encourage health oversight agencies to use de-identified
information whenever possible to complete their investigations. We
recognize, however, that in some cases, health oversight agencies need
identifiable information to complete their investigations. For example,
as noted in the preamble to the NPRM, to determine whether a hospital
has engaged in fraudulent billing practices, it may be necessary to
examine billing records for a set of individual cases. Similarly, to
determine whether a health plan is complying with federal or state
health care quality standards, it may be necessary to examine
individually identifiable health information in comparison with such
standards. Thus, to allow health oversight agencies to conduct the
activities that are central to their mission, the final rule does not
require covered entities to de-identify protected health information
before disclosing it to health oversight organizations.

*Comment:* One commenter recommended requiring whistleblowers, pursuant
to proposed \' 164.518(a)(4) of the NPRM, to raise the issue of a
possible violation of law with the affected covered entity before
disclosing such information to an oversight agency, attorney, or law
enforcement official.

*Response:* We believe that such a requirement would be inappropriate,
because it would create the potential for covered entities that are the
subject of whistleblowing to take action to evade law enforcement and
oversight action.

*Comment:* One commenter recommended providing an exemption from the
proposed rule=s requirements for accounting for disclosures when such
disclosures were for health oversight purposes.

*Response:* We recognize that in some cases, informing individuals that
their protected health information has been disclosed to a law
enforcement official or to a health oversight agency could compromise
the ability of law enforcement and oversight officials to perform their
duties appropriately. Therefore, in the final rule, we retain the
approach of proposed \' 164.515 of the NPRM. Section 164.528(a)(2) of
the final rule states that an individual=s right to receive an
accounting of disclosures to a health oversight agency, law enforcement
official, or for national security or intelligence purposes may be
temporarily suspended for the time specified by the agency or official.
As described in \' 164.528(a)(2), for such a suspension to occur, the
agency or official must provide the affected covered entity with a
written request stating that an accounting to the individual would be
reasonably likely to impede the agency=s activity. The request must
specify the time for which the suspension is required. We believe that
providing a permanent exemption to the right to accounting for
disclosures for health oversight purposes would fail to ensure that
individuals are sufficiently informed about the extent of disclosures of
their protected health information.

*Comment:* One commenter recommended making disclosures to health
oversight agencies subject to a modified version of the NPRM=s proposed
three-part test governing disclosure of protected health information to
law enforcement pursuant to an administrative request (as described in
proposed \' 164.510(f)(1)).

*Response:* We disagree that it would be appropriate to apply the
procedural requirements for law enforcement to health oversight. We
apply more extensive procedural requirements to law enforcement
disclosures than to disclosures for health oversight because we believe
that law enforcement investigations more often involve situations in
which the individual is the subject of the investigation (and thus could
suffer adverse consequences), and we believe that it is appropriate to
provide greater protection to individuals in such cases. Health
oversight involves investigations of institutions that use health
information as part of business functions, or of individuals whose
health information has been used to obtain a public benefit. These
circumstances justify broader access to information.

***Overlap Between Law Enforcement and Oversight***

*Comment:* Some commenters expressed concern that the NPRM=s provisions
permitting disclosures for health oversight and disclosures for law
enforcement overlapped, and that the overlap could create confusion
among covered entities, members of the public, and government agencies.
The commenters identified particular factors that could lead to
confusion, including that (1) the phrase Acriminal, civil, or
administrative proceeding@ appeared in the definitions of both law
enforcement and oversight; (2) the examples of oversight agencies listed
in the preamble included a number of organizations that also conduct law
enforcement activities; (3) the NPRM addressed the issue of disclosures
to investigate health care fraud in the law enforcement section (\'
164.510(f)(5)), yet health care fraud investigations are central to the
mission of some health care oversight agencies; (4) the NPRM established
more stringent rules for disclosure of protected health information
pursuant to an administrative subpoena issued for law enforcement than
for disclosure pursuant to an oversight agency=s administrative
subpoena; and (5) the preamble, but not the NPRM regulation text,
indicated that agencies conducting both oversight and law enforcement
activities would be subject to the oversight requirements when
conducting oversight activities.

Some commenters said that covered entities would be confused by the
overlap between law enforcement and oversight and that this concern
would lead to litigation over which rules should apply when an entity
engaged in more than one of the activities listed under the exceptions
in proposed \' 164.510. Other commenters believed that covered entities
could manipulate the NPRM=s ambiguities in their favor, claim that the
more stringent law enforcement disclosure rules always should apply, and
thereby delay investigations. A few comments suggested that the
confusion could be clarified by making the regulation text consistent
with the preamble, by stating that when agencies conducting both law
enforcement and oversight seek protected health information as part of
their oversight activities, the oversight rules would apply.

*Response:* We agree that the boundary between disclosures for health
oversight and disclosures for law enforcement proposed in the NPRM could
have been more clear. Because many investigations, particularly
investigations involving public benefit programs, have both health
oversight and law enforcement aspects to them, and because the same
agencies often perform both functions, drawing any distinction between
the two functions is necessarily difficult. For example, traditional law
enforcement agencies, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, have
a significant role in health oversight. At the same time, traditional
health oversight agencies, such as federal Offices of Inspectors
General, often participate in criminal investigations.

To clarify the boundary between law enforcement and oversight for
purposes of complying with this rule, we add new language in the final
rule, at \' 164.512(d)(2). This section indicates that health oversight
activities do not include an investigation or activity in which the
individual is the subject of the investigation or activity and the
investigation or activity does not arise out of and is not directly
related to health care fraud. In this rule, we describe investigations
involving suspected health care fraud as investigations related to: (1)
the receipt of health care; (2) a claim for public benefits related to
health; or (3) qualification for, or receipt of public benefits or
services where a patient=s health is integral to the claim for public
benefits or services. In such cases, where the individual is the subject
of the investigation and the investigation does not relate to health
care fraud, identified as investigations regarding issues (a) through
(c), the rules regarding disclosure for law enforcement purposes (see \'
164.512(f)) apply.

Where the individual is not the subject of the activity or
investigation, or where the investigation or activity relates to health
care fraud, a covered entity may make a disclosure pursuant to \'
164.512(d)(1), allowing uses and disclosures for health oversight
activities. For example, when the U.S. Department of Labor=s Pension and
Welfare Benefits Administration (PWBA) needs to analyze protected health
information about health plan enrollees in order to conduct an audit or
investigation of the health plan (i.e., the enrollees are not subjects
of the investigation) to investigate potential fraud by the health plan,
the health plan may disclose protected health information to the PWBA
under the health oversight rules.

To clarify further that health oversight disclosure rules apply
generally in health care fraud investigations (subject to the exception
described above), in the final rule, we eliminate proposed \'
164.510(f)(5)(i), which would have established requirements for
disclosure related to health fraud for law enforcement purposes. All
disclosures of protected health information that would have been
permitted under proposed \' 164.510(f)(5)(i) are permitted under \'
164.512(d).

We also recognize that sections 201 and 202 of HIPAA, which established
a federal Fraud and Abuse Control Program and the Medicare Integrity
Program, identified health care fraud-fighting as a critical national
priority. Accordingly, under the final rule, in joint law
enforcement/oversight investigations involving suspected health care
fraud, the health oversight disclosures apply, even if the individual
also is the subject of the investigation.

We also recognize that in some cases, health oversight agencies may
conduct joint investigations with other oversight agencies involved in
investigating claims for benefits unrelated to health. For example, in
some cases, a state Medicaid agency may be working with officials of the
Food Stamps program to investigate suspected fraud involving Medicaid
and Food Stamps. While this issue was not raised specifically in the
comments, we add new language (\' 164.512(d)(3)) to provide guidance to
covered entities in such situations. Specifically, we clarify that if a
health oversight investigation is conducted in conjunction with an
oversight activity related to a claim for benefits unrelated to health,
the joint activity or investigation is considered health oversight for
purposes of the rule, and the covered entities may disclose protected
health information pursuant to the health oversight provisions.

*Comment:* An individual commenter recommended requiring authorization
for disclosure of patient records in fraud investigations, unless the
individual was the subject or target of the investigation. This
commenter recommended requiring a search warrant for cases in which the
individual was the subject and stating that fraud investigators should
have access to the minimum necessary patient information.

*Response:* As described above, we recognize that in some cases,
activities include elements of both law enforcement and health
oversight. Because we consider both of these activities to be critical
national priorities, we do not require covered entities to obtain
authorization for disclosure of protected health information to law
enforcement or health oversight agencies B including those oversight
activities related to health care fraud. We believe that investigations
involving health care fraud represent health oversight rather than law
enforcement. Accordingly, as indicated above, we remove proposed \'
164.510(f)(5)(i) from the law enforcement section of the proposed rule
and clarify that all disclosures of protected health information for
health oversight are permissible without authorization. As discussed in
greater detail in \' 164.514, the final rule=s minimum necessary
standard applies to disclosures under \' 164.512 unless the disclosure
is required by law under \' 164.512(a).

*Comment:* A large number of commenters expressed concern about the
potential for health oversight agencies to become, in effect, the Aback
door@ for law enforcement access to such information. The commenters
suggested that health oversight agencies could use their relatively
unencumbered access to protected health information to circumvent the
more stringent process requirements that otherwise would apply to
disclosures for law enforcement purposes. These commenters urged us to
prohibit health oversight agencies from re-disclosing protected health
information to law enforcement.

*Response:* As indicated above, we do not intend for the rule=s
permissive approach to health oversight or the absence of specific
documentation to permit the government to gather large amounts of
protected health information for purposes unrelated to health oversight
as defined in the rule, and we do not intend for these oversight
provisions to serve as a Aback door@ for law enforcement access to
protected health information. While we do not have the statutory
authority to regulate law enforcement and oversight agencies= re-use and
re-disclosure of protected health information, we strongly support
enactment of comprehensive privacy legislation that would govern public
agencies= re-use and re-disclosure of this information. Furthermore, in
an effort to prevent health oversight provisions from becoming the back
door to law enforcement access to protected health information, the
President is issuing an Executive Order that places strict limitations
on the use of protected health information gathered in the course of an
oversight investigation for law enforcement activities.

*Comment:* One commenter asked us to allow the requesting agency to
decide whether a particular request for protected health information was
for law enforcement or oversight purposes.

*Response:* As described above, we clarify the overlap between law
enforcement disclosures and health oversight disclosures based on the
privacy and liberty interests of the individual (whether the individual
also is the subject of the official inquiry) and the nature of the
public interest (whether the inquiry relates to health care fraud or to
another potential violation of law). We believe it is more appropriate
to establish these criteria than to leave the decision to the discretion
of an agency that has a stake in the outcome of the investigation.

**Section 164.512(e)CDisclosures for Judicial and Administrative
Proceedings**

*Comment:* A few commenters suggested that the final rule not permit
disclosures without an authorization for judicial and administrative
proceedings.

*Response:* We disagree. Protected health information is necessary for a
variety of reasons in judicial and administrative proceedings. Often it
may be critical evidence that may or may not be about a party. Requiring
an authorization for all such disclosures would severely impede the
review of legal and administrative claims. Thus, we have tried to
balance the need for the information with the individual=s privacy. We
believe the approach described above provides individuals with the
opportunity to object to disclosures and provides a mechanism through
which their privacy interests are taken into account.

*Comment:* A few commenters sought clarification about the interaction
between permissible disclosures for judicial and administrative
proceedings, law enforcement, and health oversight.

*Response:* In the final rule, we state that the provision permitting
disclosures without an authorization for judicial and administrative
proceedings does not supersede other provisions in \' 164.512 that would
otherwise permit or restrict the use or disclosure of protected health
information. Additionally, in the descriptive preamble of \' 164.512, we
provide further explanation of how these provisions relate to one
another.

*Comments*: Many commenters urged the Secretary to revise the rule to
state that it does not preempt or supersede existing rules and statutes
governing judicial proceedings, including rules of evidence, procedure,
and discovery. One commenter asserted that dishonest health care
providers and others should not be able to withhold their records by
arguing that state subpoena and criminal discovery statutes compelling
disclosure are preempted by the privacy regulation. Other commenters
maintained that there is no need to replace providers= current practice,
which typically requires either a signed authorization from the patient
or a subpoena to release medical information.

*Response:* These comments are similar to many of the more general
preemption comments we received. For a full discussion of the
Secretary=s response on preemption issues, see Part 160 - Subpart B.

*Comment:* One commenter stated that the proposed rule creates a
conflict with existing rules and statutes governing judicial
proceedings, including rules of evidence and discovery. This commenter
stated that the rule runs afoul of state judicial procedures for
enforcement of subpoenas that require judicial involvement only when a
party seeks to enforce a subpoena.

*Response:* We disagree with this comment. The final rule permits
covered entities to disclose protected health information for any
judicial or administrative procedure in response to a subpoena,
discovery request, or other lawful process if the covered entity has
received satisfactory assurances that the party seeking the disclosure
has made reasonable efforts to ensure that the individual has been given
notice of the request or has made reasonable efforts to secure a
qualified protective order from a court or administrative tribunal. A
covered entity may disclose protected health information in response to
a subpoena, discovery request, or other lawful process without a
satisfactory assurance if it has made reasonable efforts to provide the
individual with such notice or to seek a qualified protected order
itself. These rules do not require covered entities or parties seeking
the disclosure of protected health information to involve the judiciary;
they may choose the notification option rather than seeking a qualified
protective order.

Many states have already enacted laws that incorporate these concepts.
In California, for instance, an individual must be given ten days notice
that his or her medical records are being subpoenaed from a health care
provider and state law requires that the party seeking the records
furnishes the health care provider with proof that the notice was given
to the individual. In Montana, a party seeking discovery or compulsory
process of medical records must give notice to the individual at least
ten days in advance of serving the request on a health care provider,
Service of the request must be accompanied by written certification that
the procedure has been followed. In Rhode Island, an individual must be
given notice that his or her medical records are being subpoenaed and
notice of his or her right to object. The party serving the subpoena on
the health care provider must provide written certification to the
provider that: (1) this procedure has been followed, (2) twenty days
have passed from the date of service, and (3) no challenge has been made
to the disclosure or the court has ordered disclosure after resolution
of a legal court challenge. In Washington, an individual must be given
at least fourteen days from the date of service of notice that his or
her health information is the subject of a discovery request or
compulsory process to obtain a protective order. The notice must
identify the health care provider from whom the information is sought,
specify the health care information that is sought, and the date by
which a protective order must be obtained in order to prevent the
provider from disclosing the information.

*Comment:* A few commenters expressed concern that the rule would place
unnecessary additional burdens on health care providers because when
they receive a request for disclosure in connection with an
administrative or judicial procedure, they would have to determine
whether the litigant=s health was at issue before they made the
disclosure. A number of commenters complained that this requirement
would make it too easy for litigants to obtain protected health
information. One commenter argued that litigants should not be able to
circumvent state evidentiary rules that would otherwise govern
disclosure of protected health information simply upon counsel=s
statement that the other party=s medical condition or history is at
issue.

Other commenters, however, urged that disclosure without authorization
should be permitted whenever a patient places his or her medical
condition or history at issue and recommended requiring the request for
information to include a certification to this effect. Only if another
party to litigation has raised a medical question, do these commenters
believe a court order should be required. Similarly, one commenter
supported a general requirement that disclosure without authorization be
permitted only with a court order unless the patient has placed his or
her physical or mental condition at issue.

*Response:* We agree with the concerns expressed by several commenters
about this provision and has eliminated this requirement from the final
rule.

*Comment*: A number of commenters stated that the proposed rule should
be modified to permit disclosure without authorization pursuant to a
lawful subpoena. One commenter argued that the provision would limit the
scope of the Inspector General=s subpoena power for judicial and
administrative proceedings to information concerning a litigant whose
health condition or history is at issue, and would impose a requirement
that the Inspector General provide a written certification to that
effect. Other commenters stated that the proposed rule would seriously
impair the ability of state agencies to conduct administrative hearings
on physician licensing and disciplinary matters. These commenters stated
that current practice is to obtain information using subpoenas.

Other commenters argued that disclosure of protected health information
for judicial and administrative proceedings should require a court order
and/or judicial review unless the subject of the information consents to
disclosure. These commenters believed that an attorney=s certification
should not be considered sufficient authority to override an
individual=s privacy, and that the proposed rule made it too easy for a
party to litigation to obtain information about the other party.

*Response*: As a general matter, we agree with these comments. As noted,
the final rule deletes the provision that would permit a covered entity
to disclose protected health information pursuant to an attorney=s
certification that the individual is a party to the litigation and has
put his or her medical condition at issue. Under the final rule, covered
entities may disclose protected health information in response to a
court or administrative order, provided that only the protected health
information expressly authorized by the order is disclosed. Covered
entities may also disclose protected health information in response to a
subpoena, discovery request, or other lawful process without a court
order, but only if the covered entity receives satisfactory assurances
that the party seeking disclosure has made reasonable efforts to ensure
that the individual has been notified of the request or that reasonable
efforts have been made by the party seeking the information to secure a
qualified protective order. Additionally, a covered entity may disclose
protected health information in response to a subpoena, discovery
request, or other lawful process without a satisfactory assurance if it
makes reasonable efforts to provide the individual with such notice or
to seek a qualified protected order itself.

We also note that the final rule specifically provides that nothing in
Subchapter C should be construed to diminish the authority of any
Inspector General, including authority provided in the Inspector General
Act of 1978.

*Comment:* A number of commenters expressed concern that the proposed
rule would not permit covered entities to introduce material evidence in
proceedings in which, for example, the provisions of an insurance
contract are at issue, or when a billing or payment issue is presented.
They noted that although the litigant may be the owner of an insurance
policy, he or she may not be the insured individual to whom the health
information pertains. In addition, they stated that the medical
condition or history of a deceased person may be at issue when the
deceased person is not a party.

*Response:* We disagree. Under the final rule, a covered entity may
disclose protected health information without an authorization pursuant
to a court or administrative order. It may also disclose protected
health information with an authorization for judicial or administrative
proceedings in response to a subpoena, discovery request, or other
lawful process without a court order, if the party seeking the
disclosure provides the covered entity with satisfactory assurances that
it has make reasonable efforts to ensure that the individual has been
notified of the request or to seek a qualified protective order.
Additionally, a covered entity may disclose protected health information
in response to a subpoena, discovery request, or other lawful process
without a satisfactory assurance if it makes reasonable efforts to
provide the individual with such notice or to seek a qualified protected
order itself. Therefore, a party may obtain the information even if the
subject of the information is not a party to the litigation or deceased.

*Comment:* A few commenters argued that disclosure of protected health
information should be limited only to those cases in which the
individual has consented or a court order has been issued compelling
disclosure.

*Response:* The Secretary believes that such an approach would impose an
unreasonable burden on covered entities and the judicial system and that
greater flexibility is necessary to assure that the judicial and
administrative systems function smoothly. We understand that even those
states that have enacted specific statutes to protect the privacy of
health information have not imposed requirements as strict as these
commenters would suggest.

*Comment:* Many commenters asked that the final rule require the
notification of the disclosure be provided to the individual whose
health information is subject to disclosure prior to the disclosure as
part of a judicial or administrative proceeding. Most of these
commenters also asked that the rule require that the individual who is
the subject of a disclosure be given an opportunity to object to the
disclosure. A few commenters suggested that patients be given ten days
to object before requested information may be disclosed and recommend
that the rule require the requester to provide a certification that
notice has been provided and that ten days have passed with no objection
from the subject of the information. Some commenters suggested that if a
subpoena for disclosure is not accompanied by a court order, the covered
entities be prohibited from disclosing protected health information
unless the individual has been given notice and an opportunity to
object. Another commenter recommended requiring, in most circumstances,
notice and an opportunity to object before a court order is issued and
requiring the requestor of information to provide a signed document
attesting the date of notification and forbid disclosure until ten days
after notice is given.

*Response:* We agree that in some cases the provision of notice with an
opportunity to object to the disclosure is appropriate. Thus, in the
final rule we provide that a covered entity may disclose protected
health information in response to a subpoena, discovery request or other
lawful process that is not accompanied by a court order if it receives
satisfactory assurance from the party seeking the request that the
requesting party has made a good faith attempt to provide written notice
to the individual that includes sufficient information about the
litigation or proceeding to permit the individual to raise an objection
to the court or administrative tribunal and that the time for the
individual to raise objections has elapsed (and that none were filed or
all have been resolved). Covered entities may make reasonable efforts to
provide such notice as well.

In certain instances, however, the final rule permits covered entities
to disclose protected health information for judicial and administrative
proceedings without notice to the individual if the party seeking the
request has made reasonable efforts to seek a qualified protective
order, as described in the rule. A covered entity may also make
reasonable efforts to seek a qualified protective order in order to make
the disclosure. Additionally, a covered entity may disclose protected
health information for judicial and administrative proceedings in
response to an order of a court or administrative tribunal provided that
the disclosure is limited to only that information that is expressly
authorized by the order. The Secretary believes notice is not necessary
in these instances because a court or administrative tribunal is in the
best position to evaluate the merits of the arguments of the party
seeking disclosure and the party who seeks to block it before it issues
the order and that imposing further procedural obstacles before a
covered entity may honor that disclosure request is unnecessary.

*Comment:* Many commenters urged the Secretary to require specific
criteria for court and administrative orders. Many of these commenters
proposed that a provision be added to the rule that would require court
and administrative orders to safeguard the disclosure and use of
protected health information. These commenters urged that the
information sought must be relevant and material, as specific and
narrowly drawn as reasonably practicable, and only disclosed if
de-identified information could not reasonably be used.

*Response:* The Secretary=s authority is limited to covered entities.
Therefore, we do not impose requirements on courts and administrative
tribunals. However, we note that the final rule limits the permitted
disclosures by covered entities in court or administrative proceedings
to only that information which is specified in the order from a court or
an administrative body should provide a degree of protection for
individuals from unnecessary disclosure.

*Comment:* Several commenters asked that the Aminimum necessary@
standard not apply to disclosures made pursuant to a court order because
individuals could then use the rule to contest the scope of discovery
requests. However, many other commenters recommended that the rule
permit disclosure only of information Areasonably necessary@ to respond
to a subpoena. These commenters raised concerns with applying the
Aminimum necessary@ standard in judicial and administrative proceedings,
but did not believe the holder of protected health information should
have blanket authority to disclose all protected health information.
Some of the commenters urged that disclosure of any information about
third parties that may be included in the medical records of another
person B for example, the HIV status of a partner - be prohibited.
Finally, some commenters disagreed with the proposed rule because it did
not require covered entities to evaluate the validity of subpoenas and
discovery requests to determine whether these requests ask for the
Aminimum necessary@ or Areasonably necessary@ amount of information.

*Response*: Under the final rule, if the disclosure is pursuant to an
order of a court or administrative tribunal, covered entities may
disclose only the protected health information expressly authorized by
the order. In these instances, a covered entity is not required to make
a determination whether or not the order might otherwise meet the
minimum necessary requirement.

If the disclosure is pursuant to a satisfactory assurance from the party
seeking the disclosure, at least a good faith attempt has been made to
notify the individual in writing of the disclosure before it is made or
a the parties have sought a qualified protective order that prohibits
them from using or disclosing the protected health information for any
purpose of than the litigation or proceeding for which the information
was requested and that the information will be returned to the covered
entity or destroyed at the end of the litigation or the proceeding.
Alternatively, the covered entity may seek such notice or qualified
protective order itself. This approach provides the individual with
protections and places the burden on the parties to resolve their
differences about the appropriateness and scope of disclosure as part of
the judicial or administrative procedure itself before the order is
issued, rather than requiring the covered entity to get involved in
evaluating the merits of the dispute in order to determine whether or
not the particular request is appropriate or too broad. In these cases,
the covered entity must disclose only the protected health information
that is the minimum amount necessary to achieve the purpose for which
the information is sought.

We share the concern of the commenters that covered entities should
redact any information about third parties before disclosing an
individual=s protected health information. During the fact-finding stage
of our consideration of revisions to the proposed rule, we discussed
this issue with representatives of covered entities. Currently,
information about third parties is sometimes redacted by medical records
personnel responding to requests for information. In particular,
information regarding HIV status is treated with special sensitivity by
these professionals. Although we considered including a special
provision in the final rule prohibiting such disclosure, we decided that
the revisions made to the proposed rule would provide sufficient
protection. By restricting disclosure of protected health information to
only that information specified in a court or administrative order or
released pursuant to other types of lawful process only if the
individual had notice and an opportunity to object or if the information
was subject to a protective order, individuals who are concerned about
disclosure of information concerning third parties will have the
opportunity to raise that issue prior to the request for disclosure
being presented to the covered entity. We are reluctant to put the
covered entity in the position of having to resolve disputes concerning
the type of information that may be disclosed when that dispute should
more appropriately be settled through the judicial or administrative
procedure itself.

*Comment:* One commenter asked that the final regulation clarify that a
court order is not required when disclosure would otherwise be permitted
under the rule. This commenter noted that the preamble states that the
requirement for a court order would not apply if the disclosure would
otherwise be permitted under the rule. For example, disclosures of
protected health information pursuant to administrative, civil, and
criminal proceedings relating to Ahealth oversight@ are permitted, even
if no court or administrative orders have been issued. However, the
commenter was concerned that this principle only appeared in the
preamble and not in the rule itself.

*Response:* Section 164.512(e)(4) of the final regulation contains this
clarification.

*Comment:* One commenter was concerned that the rule is unclear as to
whether governmental entities are given a special right to Ause@
protected health information that private parties do not have under the
proposed regulation or whether governmental entities that seek or use
protected health information are treated the same as private parties in
their use of such information. This commenter urged that we clarify our
intent regarding the use of protected health information by governmental
entities.

*Response:* Generally governmental entities are treated the same as
private entities under the rule. In a few clearly defined cases, a
special rule applies. For instance, under \' 164.504(e)(3), when a
covered entity and its business associate are both governmental
entities, they may enter into a memorandum of understanding or adopt a
regulation with the force and effect of law that incorporates the
requirements of a business associate contract, rather than having to
negotiate a business associate contract itself.

*Comment:* One commenter recommended that final rule state that
information developed as part of a quality improvement or medical error
reduction program may not be disclosed under this provision. The
commenter explained that peer review information developed to identify
and correct systemic problems in delivery of care must be protected from
disclosure to allow a full discussion of the root causes of such events
so they may be identified and addressed. According to the commenter,
this is consistent with peer review protections afforded this
information by the states.

*Response*: The question of whether or not such information should be
protected is currently the subject of debate in Congress and in the
states. It would be premature for us to adopt a position on this issue
until a clear consensus emerges. Under the final rule, no special
protection against disclosure is provided for peer review information of
the type the commenter describes. However, unless the request for
disclosure fits within one of the categories of permitted or required
disclosures under the regulation, it may not be disclosed. For instance,
if disclosure of peer review information is required by another law
(such as Medicare or a state law), covered entities subject to that law
may disclose protected health information consistent with the law.

*Comment*: One commenter stated that the requirements of this section
are in conflict with Medicare contractor current practices, as defined
by the HCFA Office of General Counsel and suggested that the final rule
include more specific guidelines.

*Response:* Because the commenter failed to indicate the nature of these
conflicts, we are unable to respond.

*Comment*: One commenter stated that the rule should require rather than
permit disclosure pursuant to court orders.

*Response:* Under the statutory framework adopted by Congress in HIPAA,
a presumption is established that the data contained in an individual=s
medical record belongs to the individual and must be protected from
disclosure to third parties. The only instance in which covered entities
holding that information [must]{.underline} disclose it is if the
individual requests access to the information himself or herself. In the
final rule (as in the proposed rule), covered entities [may]{.underline}
use or disclose protected health information under certain enumerated
circumstances, but are not required to do so. We do not believe that
this basic principle should be compromised merely because a court order
has been issued. Consistent with this principle, we provide covered
entities with the flexibility to deal with circumstances in which the
covered entity may have valid reasons for declining to release the
protected health information without violating this regulation.

*Comment:* One commenter noted that in some states, public health
records are not subject to discovery, and that the proposed rule would
not permit disclosure of protected health information pursuant to court
order or subpoena if the disclosure is not allowed by state law. The
commenter requested clarification as to whether a subpoena in a federal
civil action would require disclosure if a state law prohibiting the
release of public health records existed.

*Response:* As explained above, the final rule permits, but does not
require, disclosure of protected health information pursuant to a court
order. Under the applicable preemption provisions of HIPAA, state laws
relating to the privacy of medical information that are more stringent
than the federal rules are not preempted. To the extent that an
applicable state law precludes disclosure of protected health
information that would otherwise be permitted under the final rule,
state law governs.

*Comment:* A number of commenters expressed concern that the proposed
rule would negatively impact state and federal benefits programs,
particularly social security and workers= compensation. One commenter
requested that the final rule remove any possible ambiguity about
application of the rule to the Social Security Administration=s (SSA)
evidence requests by permitting disclosure to all administrative level
of benefit programs. In addition, several commenters stated that
requiring SSA or states to provide the covered entity holding the
protected health information with an individual=s consent before it
could disclose the information would create a huge administrative and
paperwork burden with no added value to the individual. In addition,
several other commenters indicated that states that make disability
determinations for SSA also support special accommodation for SSA=s
determination process. They expressed concern that providers will
narrowly interpret the HIPAA requirements, resulting in significant
increases in processing time and program costs for obtaining medical
evidence (especially purchased consultative examinations when evidence
of record cannot be obtained). A few commenters were especially
concerned about the impact on states and SSA if the final rule were to
eliminate the NPRM=s provision for a broad consent for Aall evidence
from all sources.@

Some commenters also note that it would be inappropriate for a provider
to make a minimum necessary determination in response to a request from
SSA because the provider usually will not know the legal parameters of
SSA=s programs, or have access to the individual=s other sources of
evidence. In addition, one commenter urged the Secretary to be sensitive
to these concerns about delay and other negative impacts on the timely
determination of disability by SSA for mentally impaired individuals.

*Response:* Under the final rule, covered entities may disclose
protected health information pursuant to an administrative order so the
flow of protected health information from covered entities to SSA and
the states should not be disrupted.

Although some commenters urged that special rules should be included for
state and federal agencies that need protected health information, the
Secretary rejects that suggestion because, wherever possible, the public
and the private sectors should operate under the same rules regarding
the disclosure of health information. To the extent the activities of
SSA constitute an actual administrative tribunal, covered entities must
follow the requirements of \' 164.512(e), if they wish to disclose
protected health information to SSA in those circumstances. Not all
administrative inquiries are administrative tribunals, however. If SSA=s
request for protected health information comes within another category
of permissible exemptions, a covered entity, following the requirements
of the applicable section, may disclose the information to SSA. For
example, if SSA seeks information for purposes of health oversight, a
covered entity that wishes to disclose the information to SSA may do so
under \' 164.512(d) and not \' 164.512(e). If the disclosure does not
come within one of the other permissible disclosures would a covered
entity need to meet the requirements of \' 164.512(e). If the SSA
request does not come within another permissible disclosure, the agency
will be treated like anyone else under the rules.

The Secretary recognizes that even under current circumstances,
professional medical records personnel do not always respond
unquestioningly to an agency=s request for health information. During
the fact finding process, professionals charged with managing provider
response to requests for protected health information indicated to us
that when an agency=s request for protected health information is over
broad, the medical records professional will contact the agency and
negotiate a more limited request. In balancing the interests of
individuals against the need of governmental entities to receive
protected health information, we think that applying the minimum
necessary standard is appropriate and that covered entities should be
responsible for ensuring that they disclose only that protected health
information that is necessary to achieve the purpose for which the
information is sought.

*Comment:* In a similar vein, one commenter expressed concern that the
proposed rule would adversely affect the informal administrative process
usually followed in processing workers= compensation claims. Using
formal discovery is not always possible, because some programs do not
permit it. The commenter urged that the final rule must permit
administrative agencies, employers, and workers= compensation carriers
to use less formal means to obtain relevant medical evidence while the
matter is pending before the agency. This commenter asked that the rule
be revised to permit covered entities to disclose protected health
information without authorization for purposes of federal or state
benefits determinations at all levels of processing, from the initial
application through continuing disability reviews.

*Response:* If the disclosure is required by a law relating to workers=
compensation, a covered entity may disclose protected health information
as authorized by and to the extent necessary to comply with that law
under \' 164.512(l). If the request for protected health information in
connection with a workers= compensation claim is part of an
administrative proceeding, a covered entity must meet the requirements
set forth in \' 164.512(e), and discussed above, before disclosing the
information. As noted, one permissible manner by which a covered entity
may disclose protected health information under \' 164.512(e) is if the
party seeking the disclosure makes reasonable efforts to provide notice
to the individual as required by this provision. Under this method, the
less formal process noted by the commenter would not be disturbed.
Covered entity may disclose protected health information in response to
other types of requests only as permitted by this regulation.

**Section 164.512(f)CDisclosures for Law Enforcement Purposes**

***General Comments on Proposed \' 164.510(f)***

*Comment:* Some commenters argued that current law enforcement use of
protected health information was legitimate and important. These
commenters cited examples of investigations and prosecutions for which
protected health information is needed, from white collar insurance
fraud to violent assault, to provide incriminating evidence or to
exonerate a suspect, to determine what charges are warranted and for
bail decisions. For example, one commenter argued that disclosure of
protected health information for law enforcement purposes should be
exempt from the rule, because the proposed regulation would hamper Drug
Enforcement Administration investigations. A few commenters argued that
effective law enforcement requires early access to as much information
as possible, to rule out suspects, assess severity of criminal acts, and
for other purposes. A few commenters noted the difficulties criminal
investigators and prosecutors face when fighting complex criminal
schemes. In general, these commenters argued that all disclosures of
protected health information to law enforcement should be allowed, or
for elimination of the process requirements proposed in \'
164.510(f)(1).

*Response:* The importance and legitimacy of law enforcement activities
are beyond question, and they are not at issue in this regulation. We
permit disclosure of protected health information to law enforcement
officials without authorization in some situations precisely because of
the importance of these activities to public safety. At the same time,
individuals= privacy interests also are important and legitimate. As
with all the other disclosures of protected health information permitted
under this regulation, the rules we impose attempt to balance competing
and legitimate interests.

*Comment:* Law enforcement representatives stated that law enforcement
agencies had a good track record of protecting patient privacy and that
additional restrictions on their access and use of information were not
warranted. Some commenters argued that no new limitations on law
enforcement access to protected health information were necessary,
because sufficient safeguards exist in state and federal laws to prevent
inappropriate disclosure of protected health information by law
enforcement.

*Response:* Disclosure of protected health information by law
enforcement is not at issue in this regulation. Law enforcement access
to protected health information in the first instance, absent any
re-disclosure by law enforcement, impinges on individuals= privacy
interests and must therefore be justified by a public purpose that
outweighs individuals= privacy interests.

We do not agree that sufficient safeguards already exist in this area.
We are not aware of, and the comments did not provide, evidence of a
minimum set of protections for individuals relating to access by law
enforcement to their protected health information. Federal and state
laws in this area vary considerably, as they do for other areas
addressed in this final rule. The need for standards in this area is no
less critical than in the other areas addressed by this rule.

*Comment:* Many commenters argued that no disclosures of protected
health information should be made to law enforcement (absent
authorization) without a warrant issued by a judicial officer after a
finding of probable cause. Others argued that a warrant or subpoena
should be required prior to disclosure of protected health information
unless the disclosure is for the purposes of identifying a suspect,
fugitive, material witness, or missing persons, as described in proposed
\' 164.510(f)(2). Some commenters argued that judicial review prior to
release of protected health information to law enforcement should be
required absent the exigent and urgent circumstances identified in the
NPRM in \' 164.510(f)(3) and (5), or absent Aa compelling need@ or
similar circumstances.

*Response:* In the final rule, we attempt to match the level of
procedural protection for privacy required by this rule with the nature
of the law enforcement need for access, the existence of other
procedural protections, and individuals= privacy interests. Where other
rules already impose procedural protections, this rule generally relies
on those protections rather than imposing new ones. Thus, where access
to protected health information is granted after review by an
independent judicial officer (such as a court order or court-ordered
warrant, or a subpoena or summons issued by a judicial officer), no
further requirements are necessary. Similarly, because information
disclosed to a grand jury is vital to law enforcement purposes and is
covered by secrecy protection, this rule allows disclosure with no
further process.

We set somewhat stricter standards for disclosure of protected health
information pursuant to administrative process, such as administrative
subpoenas, summonses, and civil or authorized investigative demands. In
these cases, the level of existing procedural protections is lower than
for judicially-approved or grand jury disclosures. We therefore require
a greater showing, specifically, the three-part test described in \'
164.512(f)(1)(ii), before the covered entity is permitted to release
protected health information. Where the information to be disclosed is
about the victim of a crime, privacy interests are heightened and we
require the victim=s agreement prior to disclosure in most instances.

In the limited circumstances where law enforcement interests are
heightened, we allow disclosure of protected health information without
prior legal process or agreement, but we impose procedural protections
such as limits on the information that may lawfully be disclosed, limits
on the circumstances in which the information may be disclosed, and
requirements for verifying the identity and authority of the person
requesting the disclosures. For example, in some cases law enforcement
officials may seek limited but focused information needed to obtain a
warrant. A witness to a shooting may know the time of the incident and
the fact that the perpetrator was shot in the left arm, but not the
identity of the perpetrator. Law enforcement would then have a
legitimate need to ask local emergency rooms whether anyone had
presented with a bullet wound to the left arm near the time of the
incident. Law enforcement may not have sufficient information to obtain
a warrant, but instead would be seeking such information. In such cases,
when only limited identifying information is disclosed and the purpose
is solely to ascertain the identity of a person, the invasion of privacy
would be outweighed by the public interest. For such circumstances, we
allow disclosure of protected health information in response to a law
enforcement inquiry where law enforcement is seeking to identify a
suspect, fugitive, material witness, or missing person, but allow only
disclosure of a limited list of information.

Similarly, it is in the public interest to allow covered entities to
take appropriate steps to protect the integrity and safety of their
operations. Therefore, we permit covered entities on their own
initiative to disclose to law enforcement officials protected health
information for this purpose. However, we limit such disclosures to
protected health information that the covered entity believes in good
faith constitutes evidence of criminal conduct that occurred on the
premises of the covered entity.

We shape the rule=s provisions with respect to law enforcement according
to the limited scope of our regulatory authority under HIPAA, which
applies only to the covered entities and not to law enforcement
officials. We believe the rule sets the correct standards for when an
exception to the rule of non-disclosure is appropriate for law
enforcement purposes. There may be advantages, however, to legislation
that applies the appropriate standards directly to judicial officers,
prosecutors in grand juries, and to those making administrative or other
requests for protected health information, rather than to covered
entities. These advantages could include measures to hold officials
accountable if they seek or receive protected health information
contrary to the legal standard. In Congressional consideration of law
enforcement access, there have also been useful discussions of other
topics, such as limits on re-use of protected health information
gathered in the course of health oversight activities. The limitations
on our regulatory authority provide additional reason to support
comprehensive medical privacy legislation.

*Comment:* A few commenters cited existing sanctions for law enforcement
officials who violate the rights of individuals in obtaining evidence,
ranging from suppression of that evidence to monetary penalties, and
argued that such sanctions are sufficient to protect patients= privacy
interests.

*Response:* After-the-fact sanctions are important, but they are
effective only when coupled with laws that establish the ground rules
for appropriate behavior. That is, a sanction applies only where some
other rule has been violated. This regulation sets such basic ground
rules. Further, under the HIPAA statutory authority, we cannot impose
sanctions on law enforcement officials or require suppression of
evidence. We must therefore rely on rules that regulate disclosure of
protected health information by covered entities in the first instance.

*Comment:* Several commenters argued that disclosure of protected health
information under \' 164.510(f) should be mandatory, not just permitted.
Others argued that we should mandate disclosure of protected health
information in response to Inspector General subpoenas. A few commenters
argued that we should require all covered entities to include disclosure
of protected health information to law enforcement in their required
notice of privacy practices.

*Response:* The purpose of this regulation is to protect individuals=
privacy interests, consistent with other important public activities.
Other laws set the rules governing those public activities, including
when health information is necessary for their effective operation. See
discussion of \' 164.512(a).

*Comment:* Some commenters questioned whether the Secretary had
statutory authority to directly or indirectly impose new procedural or
substantive requirements on otherwise lawful legal process issued under
existing federal and state rules. They argued that, while the provisions
are imposed on \"covered entities,\" the rule would result in law
enforcement officials being compelled to modify current practices to
harmonize them with the requirements this rule imposes on covered
entities. A number of state law enforcement agencies argued that the
rule would place new burdens on state administrative subpoenas and
requests that are intrusive in state functions. At least one commenter
argued that the requirement for prior process places unreasonable
restrictions on the right of the states to regulate law enforcement
activities.

*Response:* This rule regulates the ability of health care
clearinghouses, health plans, and covered health care providers to use
and disclose health information. It does not regulate the behavior of
law enforcement officials or the courts, nor does it prevent states from
regulating law enforcement officials. All regulations have some effects
on entities that are not directly regulated. We have considered those
effects in this instance and have determined that the provisions of the
rule are necessary to protect the privacy of individuals.

*Comment:* One commenter argued that state licensing boards should be
exempt from restrictions placed on law enforcement officials, because
state licensing and law enforcement are different activities.

*Response:* Each state=s law determines what authorities are granted to
state licensing boards. Because state laws differ in this regard, we
cannot make a blanket determination that state licensing officials are
or are not law enforcement officials under this regulation. We note,
however, that the oversight of licensed providers generally is included
as a health oversight activity at \' 164.512(d).

*Relationship to Existing Rules and Practices*

*Comment:* Many commenters expressed concern that the proposed rule
would have expanded current law enforcement access to protected health
information. Many commenters said that the NPRM would have weakened
their current privacy practices with respect to law enforcement access
to health records. For example, some of the commenters arguing that a
warrant or subpoena should be required prior to disclosure of protected
health information unless the disclosure is for the purposes of
identifying a suspect, fugitive, material witness, or missing persons,
did so because they believed that such a rule would be consistent with
current state law practices.

*Response:* This regulation does not expand current law enforcement
access to protected health information. We do not mandate any
disclosures of protected health information to law enforcement
officials, nor do we make lawful any disclosures of protected health
information which are unlawful under other rules and regulations.
Similarly, this regulation does not describe a set of Abest practices.@
Nothing in this regulation should cause a covered entity to change
practices that are more protective of privacy than the floor of
protections provided in this regulation.

This regulation sets forth the minimum practices which a covered entity
must undertake in order to avoid sanctions under the HIPAA. We expect
and encourage covered entities to exercise their judgment and
professional ethics in using and disclosing health information, and to
continue any current practices that provide privacy protections greater
than those mandated in this regulation.

*Comment:* Many commenters asserted that, today, consent or judicial
review always is required prior to release of protected health
information to law enforcement; therefore, they said that the proposed
rule would have lessened existing privacy protections.

*Response:* In many situations today, law enforcement officials lawfully
obtain health information absent any prior legal process and absent
exigent circumstances. The comments we received on the NPRM, both from
law enforcement and consumer advocacy groups, describe many such
situations. Moreover, this rule sets forth minimum privacy protections
and does not preempt more stringent, pre-existing standards.

*Comment:* Some commenters argued that health records should be entitled
to at least as much protection as cable subscription records and video
rental records.

*Response:* We agree. The Secretary, in presenting her initial
recommendations on the protection of health information to the Congress
in 1997, stated that, AWhen Congress looked at the privacy threats to
our credit records, our video records, and our motor vehicle records, it
acted quickly to protect them. It is time to do the same with our health
care records@ (Testimony of Donna E. Shalala, Secretary, U. S.
Department of Health and Human Services, before the Senate Committee on
Labor & Human Resources, September 11, 1997). However, the limited
jurisdiction conferred on us by the HIPAA does not allow us to impose
such restrictions on law enforcement officials or the courts.

*Comment:* At least one commenter argued that the regulation should
allow current routine uses for law enforcement under the Privacy Act.

*Response:* This issue is discussed in the \"Relationship to Other
Federal Laws\" preamble discussion of the Privacy Act.

*Comment:* A few commenters expressed concern that people will be less
likely to provide protected health information for public health
purposes if they fear the information could be used for law enforcement
purposes.

*Response:* This regulation does not affect law enforcement access to
records held by public health authorities, nor does it expand current
law enforcement access to records held by covered entities. These
agencies are for the most part not covered entities under HIPAA.
Therefore, this regulation should not reduce current cooperation with
public health efforts.

*Relationship to Other Provisions of This Regulation*

*Comment:* Several commenters pointed out an unintended interaction
between proposed \'\' 164.510(f) and 164.510(n). Because proposed \'
164.510(n), allowing disclosures mandated by other laws, applied only if
the disclosure would not fall into one of the categories of disclosures
provided for in \' 164.510 (b) - (m), disclosures of protected health
information mandated for law enforcement purposes by other law would
have been preempted.

*Response:* We agree, and in the final rule we address this unintended
interaction. It is not our intent to preempt these laws. To clarify the
interaction between these provisions, in the final rule we have
specifically added language to the paragraph addressing disclosures for
law enforcement that permits covered entities to comply with legal
mandates, and have included a specific cross reference in the provision
of the final rule that permits covered entities to make other
disclosures required by law. See \' 164.512(a).

*Comment:* Several commenters argued that, when a victim of abuse or of
a crime has requested restrictions on disclosure, the restrictions
should be communicated to any law enforcement officials who receive that
protected health information.

*Response:* We do not have the authority to regulate law enforcement use
and disclosure of protected health information, and therefore we could
not enforce any such restrictions communicated to law enforcement
officials. For this reason, we determined that the benefits to be gained
from requiring communication of restrictions would not outweigh the
burdens such a requirement would place on covered entities. We expect
that professional ethics will guide health care providers=
communications to law enforcement officials about the welfare of victims
of abuse or other crime.

*Comment:* Some commenters argued against imposing the Aminimum
necessary@ requirement on disclosure of protected health information to
law enforcement officials. Some law enforcement commenters expressed
concern that the Aminimum necessary@ test could be Amanipulated@ by a
covered entity that wished to withhold relevant evidence. A number of
covered entities complained that they were ill-equipped to substitute
their judgment for that of law enforcement for what was the minimum
amount necessary, and they also argued that the burden of determining
the Aminimum necessary@information should be transferred to law
enforcement agencies. Some commenters argued that imposing such
\"uninformed\" discretion on covered entities would delay or thwart
legitimate investigations, and would result in withholding information
that might exculpate an individual or might be necessary to present a
defendant=s case. One comment suggested that covered entities have
Aimmunity@ for providing too much information to law enforcement.

*Response:* The Aminimum necessary@ standard is discussed at \' 164.514.

*Comment:* A few commenters asked us to clarify when a disclosure is for
a AJudicial or Administrative Proceeding@ and when it is for ALaw
Enforcement@ purposes.

*Response:* In the final rule we have clarified that \' 164.512(e)
relating to disclosures for judicial or administrative proceedings does
not supersede the authority of a covered entity to make disclosures
under other provisions of the rule.

*Use of Protected Health Information after Disclosure to Law
Enforcement*

*Comment:* Many commenters recommended that we restrict law enforcement
officials= re-use and re-disclosure of protected health information.
Some commenters asked us to impose such restrictions, while other
commenters noted that the need for such restrictions underscores the
need for legislation. Another argued for judicial review prior to
release of protected health information to law enforcement because this
regulation cannot limit further uses or disclosures of protected health
information once it is in the hands of law enforcement agencies.

*Response:* We agree that there are advantages to legislation that
imposes appropriate restrictions directly on the re-use and
re-disclosure of protected health information by many persons who may
lawfully receive protected health information under this regulation, but
whom we cannot regulate under the HIPAA legislative authority, including
law enforcement agencies.

*Comment:* A few commenters expressed concern that protected health
information about persons who are not suspects may be used in court and
thereby become public knowledge. These commenters urged us to take steps
to minimize or prevent such protected health information from becoming
part of the public record.

*Response:* We agree that individuals should be protected from
unnecessary public disclosure of health information about them. However,
we do not have the statutory authority in this regulation to require
courts to impose protective orders. To the extent possible within the
HIPAA statutory authority, we address this problem in \' 164.512(e),
Judicial and Administrative Proceedings.

*Comment:* Some commenters argued that evidence obtained in violation of
the regulation should be inadmissible at trial.

*Response:* In this regulation, we do not have the authority to regulate
the courts. We can neither require nor prohibit courts from excluding
evidence obtain in violation of this regulation.

***Comments Regarding Proposed \' 164.510(f)(1), Disclosures to Law
Enforcement Pursuant to Process***

*Comments Supporting or Opposing a Requirement of Consent or Court
Order*

*Comment:* Some commenters argued that a rule that required a court
order for every instance that law enforcement sought protected health
information would impose substantial financial and administrative
burdens on federal and state law enforcement and courts. Other
commenters argued that imposing a new requirement of prior judicial
process would compromise the time-sensitive nature of many
investigations.

*Response:* We do not impose such a requirement in this regulation.

*Comment:* Many commenters argued that proposed \' 164.510(f)(1) would
have given law enforcement officials the choice of obtaining records
with or without a court order, and that law enforcement Awill choose the
least restrictive means of obtaining records, those that do not require
review by a judge or a prosecutor.@ Several commenters argued that this
provision would have provided the illusion of barriers \-- but no real
barriers \-- to law enforcement access to protected health information.
A few argued that this provision would have allowed law enforcement to
regulate itself.

*Response:* We agree with commenters that, in some cases, a law
enforcement official may have discretion to seek health information
under more than one legal avenue. Allowing a choice in these
circumstances does not mean an absence of real limits. Where law
enforcement officials choose to obtain protected health information
through administrative process, they must meet the three-part test
required by this regulation.

*Comment:* At least one commenter argued for judicial review prior to
disclosure of health information because the rule will become the A*de
facto*@ standard for release of protected health information.

*Response:* We do not intend for this regulation to become the A*de
facto*@ standard for release of protected health information. Nothing in
this regulation limits the ability of states and other governmental
authorities to impose stricter requirements on law enforcement access to
protected health information. Similarly, we do not limit the ability of
covered entities to adopt stricter policies for disclosure of protected
health information not mandated by other laws.

*Comment*: A few commenters expressed concern that proposed \'
164.510(f)(1) would have overburdened the judicial system.

*Response:* The comments did not provide any factual basis for
evaluating this concern.

*Comment:* Some commenters argued that, while a court order should be
required, the standard of proof should be something other than Aprobable
cause.@ For example, one commenter argued that the court should apply
the three-part test proposed in \' 164.510(f)(1)(C). Another commenter
suggested a three-part test: the information is necessary, the need
cannot be met with non-identifiable information, and the need of law
enforcement outweighs the privacy interest of the patient. Some
commenters suggested that we impose a \"clear and convincing\" standard.
Another suggested that we require clear and convincing evidence that:
(1) the information sought is relevant and material to a legitimate
criminal investigation; (2) the request is as specific and narrow as is
reasonably practicable; (3) de-identified information, for example coded
records, could not reasonably be used; (4) on balance, the need for the
information outweighs the potential harm to the individuals and to
patient care generally; and (5) safeguards appropriate to the situation
have been considered and imposed. This comment also suggested the
following as such appropriate safeguard: granting only the right to
inspect and take notes; allowing copying of only certain portions of
records; prohibiting removing records from the premises; placing limits
on subsequent use and disclosure; and requiring return or destruction of
the information at the earliest possible time.) Others said the court
order should impose a Aminimum necessary@ standard.

*Response:* We have not revised the regulation in response to comments
suggesting that we impose additional standards relating to disclosures
to comply with court orders. Unlike administrative subpoenas, where
there is no independent review of the order, court orders are issued by
an independent judicial officer, and we believe that covered entities
should be permitted under this rule to comply with them. Court orders
are issued in a wide variety of cases, and we do not know what hardships
might arise by imposing standards that would require judicial officers
to make specific findings related to privacy.

*Comment:* At least one commenter argued that the proposed rule would
have placed too much burden on covered entities to evaluate whether to
release information in response to a court order. This comment suggested
that the regulation allow disclosure to attorneys for assessment of what
the covered entity should release in response to a court order.

*Response:* This regulation does not change current requirements on or
rights of covered entities with respect to court orders for the release
of health information. Where such disclosures are required today, they
continue to be required under this rule. Where other law allows a
covered entity to challenge a court order today, this rule will not
reduce the ability of a covered entity to mount such a challenge. Under
\' 164.514, a covered entity will be permitted to rely on the face of a
court order to meet this rule=s requirements for verification of the
legal authority of the request for information. A covered entity may
disclose protected health information to its attorneys as needed, to
perform health care operations, including to assess the covered entity=s
appropriate response to court orders. See definition of Ahealth care
operations@ under \' 164.501.

*Comment:* Many commenters argued that the regulation should prohibit
disclosures of protected health information to law enforcement absent
patient consent.

*Response:* We disagree with the comment. Requiring consent prior to any
release of protected health information to a law enforcement official
would unduly jeopardize public safety. Law enforcement officials need
protected health information for their investigations in a variety of
circumstances. The medical condition of a defendant could be relevant to
whether a crime was committed, or to the seriousness of a crime. The
medical condition of a witness could be relevant to the reliability of
that witness. Health information may be needed from emergency rooms to
locate a fleeing prison escapee or criminal suspect who was injured and
is believed to have stopped to seek medical care.

These and other uses of medical information are in the public interest.
Requiring the authorization of the subject prior to disclosure could
make apprehension or conviction of some criminals difficult or
impossible. In many instances, it would not be possible to obtain such
consent, for example because the subject of the information could not be
located in time (or at all). In other instances, the covered entity may
not wish to undertake the burden of obtaining the consent. Rather than
an across-the-board consent requirement, to protect individuals= privacy
interests while also promoting public safety, we impose a set of
procedural safeguards (described in more detail elsewhere in this
regulation) that covered entities must ensure are met before disclosing
protected health information to law enforcement officials.

In most instances, such procedural safeguards consist of some prior
legal process, such as a warrant, grand jury subpoena, or an
administrative subpoena that meets a three-part test for protecting
privacy interests. When the information to be disclosed is about the
victim of a crime, privacy interests are heightened and we require the
victim=s agreement prior to disclosure in most instances. In the limited
circumstances where law enforcement interests are heightened and we
allow disclosure of protected health information without prior legal
process or agreement, the procedural protections include limits on the
information that may lawfully be disclosed, the circumstances in which
the information may be disclosed, and requirements for verifying the
identity and authority of the person requesting the disclosures.

We also allow disclosure of protected health information to law
enforcement officials without consent when other law mandates the
disclosures. When such other law exists, another public entity has made
the determination that law enforcement interests outweigh the
individual=s privacy interests in the situations described in that other
law, and we do not upset that determination in this regulation.

*Comment:* Several commenters recommended requiring that individuals
receive notice and opportunity to contest the validity of legal process
under which their protected health information will be disclosed, prior
to disclosure of their records to law enforcement. Some of these
commenters recommended adding this requirement to provisions proposed in
the NPRM, while others recommended establishing this requirement as part
of a new requirement for a judicial warrant prior to all disclosures of
protected health information to law enforcement. At least one of these
commenters proposed an exception to such a notice requirement where
notice might lead to destruction of the records.

*Response:* Above we discuss the reasons why we believe it is
inappropriate to require consent or a judicial order prior to any
release of protected health information to law enforcement. Many of
those reasons apply here, and they lead us not to impose such a notice
requirement.

*Comment:* A few commenters believed that the proposed requirements in
\' 164.510(f)(1) would hinder investigations under the Civil Rights for
Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA).

*Response:* We did not intend that provision to apply to investigations
under CRIPA, and we clarify in the final rule that covered entities may
disclose protected health information for such investigations under the
health oversight provisions of this regulation (see \' 164.512(d) for
further detail).

*Comments Suggesting Changes to the Proposed Three-Part Test*

*Comment:* Many commenters argued for changes to the proposed three-part
test that would make the test more difficult to meet. Many of these
urged greater, but unspecified, restrictions. Others argued that the
proposed test was too stringent, and that it would have hampered
criminal investigations and prosecutions. Some argued that it was too
difficult for law enforcement to be specific at the beginning of an
investigation. Some argued that there was no need to change current
practices, and they asked for elimination of the three-part test because
it was Amore stringent@ than current practices and would make protected
health information more difficult to obtain for law enforcement
purposes. These commenters urged elimination of the three-part test so
that administrative bodies could continue current practices without
additional restrictions. Some of these argued for elimination of the
three-part test for all administrative subpoenas; others argued for
elimination of the three-part test for administrative subpoenas from
various Inspectors General offices. A few commenters argued that the
provisions in proposed \' 164.510(f)(1) should be eliminated because
they would have burdened criminal investigations and prosecutions but
would have served Ano useful public purpose.@

*Response:* We designed the proposed three-part test to require proof
that the government=s interest in the health information was
sufficiently important and sufficiently focused to overcome the
individual=s privacy interest. If the test were weakened or eliminated,
the individual=s privacy interest would be insufficiently protected. At
the same time, if the test were significantly more difficult to meet,
law enforcement=s ability to protect the public interest could be unduly
compromised.

*Comment:* At least one comment argued that, in the absence of a
judicial order, protected health information should be released only
pursuant to specific statutory authority.

*Response:* It is impossible to predict all the facts and circumstances,
for today and into the future, in which law enforcement=s interest in
health information outweigh individuals= privacy interests. Recognizing
this, states and other governments have not acted to list all the
instances in which health information should be available to law
enforcement officials. Rather, they specify some such instances, and
rely on statutory, constitutional, and other limitations to place
boundaries on the activities of law enforcement officials. Since the
statutory authority to which the commenter refers does not often exist,
many uses of protected health information that are in the public
interest (described above in more detail) would not be possible under
such an approach.

*Comment:* At least one commenter, an administrative agency, expressed
concern that the proposed rule would have required its subpoenas to be
approved by a judicial officer.

*Response:* This rule does not require judicial approval of
administrative subpoenas. Administrative agencies can avoid the need for
judicial review under this regulation by issuing subpoenas for protected
health information only where the three-part test has been met.

*Comment:* Some commenters suggested alternative requirements for law
enforcement access to protected health information. A few suggested
replacing the three-part test with a requirement that the request for
protected health information from law enforcement be in writing and
signed by a supervisory official, and/or that the request Aprovide
enough information about their needs to allow application of the minimum
purpose rule.@

*Response:* A rule requiring only that the request for information be in
writing and signed fails to impose appropriate substantive standards for
release of health information. A rule requiring only sufficient
information for the covered entity to make a Aminimum necessary@
determination would leave these decisions entirely to covered entities=
discretion. We believe that protection of individuals= privacy interests
must start with a minimum floor of protections applicable to all. We
believe that while covered entities may be free to provide additional
protections (within the limits of the law), they should not have the
ability to allow unjustified access to health information.

*Comment:* Some commenters argued that the requirement for an
unspecified \"finding\" for a court order should be removed from the
proposed rule, because it would have been confusing and would have
provided no guidance to a court as to what finding would be sufficient.

*Response:* We agree that the requirement would have been confusing, and
we delete this language from the final regulation.

*Comment:* A few commenters argued that the proposed three-part test
should not be applied where existing federal or state law established a
standard for issuing administrative process.

*Response:* It is the content of such a standard, not its mere
existence, that determines whether the standard strikes an appropriate
balance between individuals= privacy interests and the public interest
in effective law enforcement activities. We assume that current
authorities to issue administrative subpoena are all subject to some
standards. When an existing standard provides at least as much
protection as the three-part test imposed by this regulation, the
existing standard is not disturbed by this rule. When, however, an
existing standard for issuing administrative process provides less
protection, this rule imposes new requirements.

*Comment:* Some covered entities said that they should not have been
asked to determine whether the proposed three-part test has been met.
Some argued that they were ill-equipped to make a judgment on whether an
administrative subpoena actually met the three-part test, or that it was
unfair to place the burden of making such determinations on covered
entities. Some argued that the burden should have been on law
enforcement, and that it was inappropriate to shift the burden to
covered entities. Other commenters argued that the proposal would have
given too much discretion to the record holders to withhold evidence
without having sufficient expertise or information on which to make such
judgments. At least one comment said that this aspect of the proposal
would have caused delay and expense in the detection and prevention of
health care fraud. The commenter believed that this delay and expense
could be prevented by shifting to law enforcement and health care
oversight the responsibility to determine whether standards have been
met.

At least one commenter recommended eliminating the three-part test for
disclosures of protected health information by small providers.

Some commenters argued that allowing covered entities to rely on law
enforcement representation that the three-part test has been met would
render the test meaningless.

*Response:* Because the statute does not bring law enforcement officials
within the scope of this regulation, the rule must rely on covered
entities to implement standards that protect individuals= privacy
interests, including the three-part test for disclosure pursuant to
administrative subpoenas. To reduce the burden on covered entities, we
do not require a covered entity to second-guess representations by law
enforcement officials that the three part test has been met. Rather, we
allow covered entities to disclose protected health information to law
enforcement when the subpoena or other administrative request indicates
on its face that the three-part test has been met, or where a separate
document so indicates. Because we allow such reliance, we do not believe
that it is necessary or appropriate to reduce privacy protections for
individuals who obtain care from small health care providers.

*Comment:* Some commenters ask for modification of the three-part test
to include a balancing of the interests of law enforcement and the
privacy of the individual, pointing to such provisions in the
Leahy-Kennedy bill.

*Response:* We agree with the comment that the balancing of these
interests is important in this circumstance. We designed the
regulation=s three-part test to accomplish that result.

*Comment:* At least one commenter recommended that Arelevant and
material@ be changed to Arelevant,@ because Arelevant@ is a term at the
core of civil discovery rules and is thus well understood, and because
it would be difficult to determine whether information is Amaterial@
prior to seeing the documents. As an alternative, this commenter
suggested explaining what we meant by Amaterial.@

*Response:* Like the term Arelevant,@ the term Amaterial@ is commonly
used in legal standards and well understood.

*Comment:* At least one commenter suggested deleting the phrase
Areasonably practical@ from the second prong of the test, because, the
commenter believed, it was not clear who would decide what is
Areasonably practical@ if the law enforcement agency and covered entity
disagreed.

*Response:* We allow covered entities to rely on a representation on the
face of the subpoena that the three-part test, including the Areasonably
practical@ criteria, is met. If a covered entity believes that a
subpoena is not valid, it may challenge that subpoena in court just as
it may challenge any subpoena that today it believes is not lawfully
issued. This is true regardless of the specific test that a subpoena
must meet, and is not a function of the Areasonably practical@ criteria.

*Comment:* Some commenters requested elimination of the third prong of
the test. One of these commenters suggested that the regulation should
specify when de-identified information could not be used. Another
recommended deleting the phrase Acould not reasonably be used@ from the
third prong of the test, because the commenter believed it was not clear
who would determine whether de-identified information Acould reasonably
be used@ if the law enforcement agency and covered entity disagreed.

*Response:* We cannot anticipate in regulation all the facts and
circumstances surrounding every law enforcement activity today, or in
the future as technologies change. Such a rigid approach could not
account for the variety of situations faced by covered entities and law
enforcement officials, and would become obsolete over time. Thus, we
believe it would not be appropriate to specify when de-identified
information can or cannot be used to meet legitimate law enforcement
needs.

In the final rule, we allow the covered entity to rely on a
representation on the face of the subpoena (or similar document) that
the three-part test, including the Acould not reasonably be used@
criteria, is met. If a covered entity believes that a subpoena is not
valid, it may challenge that subpoena in court just as it may challenge
today any subpoena that it believes is not lawfully issued. This is true
regardless of the specific test that a subpoena must meet, and it is not
a function of the Acould not reasonably be used@ criteria.

***Comments Regarding Proposed \' 164.510(f)(2), Limited Information for
Identifying Purposes***

*Comment:* A number of commenters recommended deletion of this
provision. These commenters argued that the legal process requirements
in proposed \' 164.510(f)(1) should apply when protected health
information is disclosed for identification purposes. At least one
privacy group recommended that if the provision were not eliminated in
its entirety, Asuspects@ should be removed from the list of individuals
whose protected health information may be disclosed for identifying
purposes. Many commenters expressed concern that this provision would
allow

compilation of large data bases of health information that could be use
for purposes beyond those specified in this provision.

*Response:* We retain this provision in the final rule. We continue to
believe that identifying fugitives, material witnesses, missing persons,
and suspects is an important national priority and that allowing
disclosure of limited identifying information for this purpose is in the
public interest. Eliminating this provision B or eliminating suspects
from the list of types of individuals about whom disclosure of protected
health information to law enforcement is allowed B would impede law
enforcement agencies= ability to apprehend fugitives and suspects and to
identify material witnesses and missing persons. As a result, criminals
could remain at large for longer periods of time, thereby posing a
threat to public safety, and missing persons could be more difficult to
locate and thus endangered.

However, as described above and in the following paragraphs, we make
significant changes to this provision, to narrow the information that
may be disclosed and make clear the limited purpose of the provision.
For example, the proposed rule did not state explicitly whether covered
entities would have been allowed to initiate B in the absence of a
request from law enforcement B disclosure of protected health
information to law enforcement officials for the purpose of identifying
a suspect, fugitive, material witness or missing person. In the final
rule, we clarify that covered entities may disclose protected health
information for identifying purposes only in response to a request by a
law enforcement official or agency. A Arequest by a law enforcement
official or agency@ is not limited to direct requests, but also includes
oral or written requests by individuals acting on behalf of a law
enforcement agency, such as a media organization broadcasting a request
for the public=s assistance in identifying a suspect on the evening
news. It includes AWanted@ posters, public announcements, and similar
requests to the general public for assistance in locating suspects or
fugitives.

*Comment:* A few commenters recommended additional restrictions on
disclosure of protected health information for identification purposes.
For example, one commenter recommended that the provision should either
(1) require that the information to be disclosed for identifying
purposes be relevant and material to a legitimate law enforcement
inquiry and that the request be as specific and narrowly drawn as
possible; or (2) limit disclosures to circumstances in which (a) a crime
of violence has occurred and the perpetrator is at large, (b) the
perpetrator received an injury during the commission of the crime, (c)
the inquiry states with specificity the type of injury received and the
time period during which treatment would have been provided, and (d)
Aprobable cause@ exists to believe the perpetrator received treatment
from the provider.

*Response:* We do not agree that these additional restrictions are
appropriate for disclosures of limited identifying information for
purposes of locating or identifying suspects, fugitives, material
witnesses or missing persons. The purpose of this provision is to permit
law enforcement to obtain limited time-sensitive information without the
process requirements applicable to disclosures for other purposes. Only
limited information may be disclosed under this provision, and
disclosure is permitted only in limited circumstances. We believe that
these safeguards are sufficient, and that creating additional
restrictions would undermine the purpose of the provision and that it
would hinder law enforcement=s ability to obtain essential,
time-sensitive information.

*Comment:* A number of law enforcement agencies recommended that the
provision in the proposed rule be broadened to permit disclosure to law
enforcement officials for the purpose of Alocating@ as well as
Aidentifying@ a suspect, fugitive, material witness or missing person.

*Response:* We agree with the comment and have changed the provision in
the final rule. We believe that locating suspects, fugitives, material
witnesses and missing persons is an important public policy priority,
and that it can be critical to identifying these individuals. Further,
efforts to locate suspects, fugitives, material witnesses, and missing
persons can be at least as time-sensitive as identifying such
individuals.

*Comment:* Several law enforcement agencies requested that the provision
be broadened to permit disclosure of additional pieces of identifying
information, such as ABO blood type and Rh factor, DNA information,
dental records, fingerprints, and/or body fluid and tissue typing,
samples and analysis. These commenters stated that additional
identifying information may be necessary to permit identification of
suspects, fugitives, material witnesses or missing persons. On the other
hand, privacy and consumer advocates, as well as many individuals, were
concerned that this section would allow all computerized medical records
to be stored in a large law enforcement data base that could be scanned
for matches of blood, DNA, or other individually identifiable
information.

*Response:* The final rule seeks to strike a balance in protecting
privacy and facilitating legitimate law enforcement inquiries.
Specifically, we have broadened the NPRM=s list of data elements that
may be disclosed pursuant to this section, to include disclosure of ABO
blood type and rh factor for the purpose of identifying or locating
suspects, fugitives, material witnesses or missing persons. We agree
with the commenters that these pieces of information are important to
law enforcement investigations and are no more invasive of privacy than
the other pieces of protected health information that may be disclosed
under this provision.

However, as explained below, protected health information associated
with DNA and DNA analysis; dental records; or typing, samples or
analyses of tissues and bodily fluids other than blood (e.g., saliva)
cannot be disclosed for the location and identification purposes
described in this section. Allowing disclosure of this information is
not necessary to accomplish the purpose of this provision, and would be
substantially more intrusive into individuals= privacy. In addition, we
understand commenters= concern about the potential for such information
to be compiled in law enforcement data bases. Allowing disclosure of
such information could make individuals reluctant to seek care out of
fear that health information about them could be compiled in such a data
base.

*Comment:* Many commenters argued that proposed \' 164.510(f)(2) should
be deleted because it would permit law enforcement to engage in Afishing
expeditions@ or to create large data bases that could be searched for
suspects and others.

*Response:* Some of this fear may have stemmed from the inclusion of the
phrase Aother distinguishing characteristic@ B which could be construed
broadly B in the list of items that could have been disclosed pursuant
to this section. In the final rule, we delete the phrase Aother
distinguishing characteristic@ from the list of items that can be
disclosed pursuant to \' 164.512(f)(2). In its place, we allow
disclosure of a description of distinguishing physical characteristics,
such as scars, tattoos, height, weight, gender, race, hair and eye
color, and the presence or absence of facial hair such as a beard or
moustache. We believe that such a change, in addition to the changes
described in the paragraph above, responds to commenters= concern that
the NPRM would have allowed creation of a government data base of
personal identifying information. Further, this modification provides
additional guidance to covered entities regarding the type of
information that may be disclosed under this provision.

*Comment:* At least one commenter recommended removing social security
numbers (SSNs) from the list of items that may be disclosed pursuant to
proposed \' 164.510(f)(2). The commenter was concerned that including
SSNs in the (f)(2) list would cause law enforcement agencies to demand
that providers collect SSNs. In addition, the commenter was concerned
that allowing disclosure of SSNs could lead to theft of identity by
unscrupulous persons in policy departments and health care
organizations.

*Response:* We disagree. We believe that on balance, the potential
benefits from use of SSNs for this purpose outweigh the potential
privacy intrusion from such use of SSNs. For example, SSNs can help law
enforcement officials identify suspects are using aliases.

***Comments Regarding Proposed \' 164.510(f)(3), Information About a
Victim of Crime or Abuse***

*Comment:* Some law enforcement organizations expressed concern that
proposed \' 164.510(f)(3) could inhibit compliance with state mandatory
reporting laws.

*Response:* We recognize that the NPRM could have preempted such state
mandatory reporting laws, due to the combined impact of proposed \'\'
164.510(m) and 164.510(f). As explained in detail in \' 164.512(a)
above, we did not intend that result, and we modify the final rule to
make clear that this rule does not preempt state mandatory reporting
laws.

*Comment:* Many commenters, including consumer and provider groups,
expressed concern that allowing covered entities to disclose protected
health information without authorization to law enforcement regarding
victims of crime, abuse, and other harm could endanger victims,
particularly victims of domestic violence, who could suffer further
abuse if their abuser learned that the information had been reported.
Provider groups also expressed concern about undermining
provider-patient relationships. Some law enforcement representatives
noted that in many cases, health care providers= voluntary reports of
abuse or harm can be critical for the successful prosecution of violent
crime. They argued, that by precluding providers from voluntarily
reporting to law enforcement evidence of potential abuse, the proposed
rule could make it more difficult to apprehend and prosecute criminals.

*Response:* We recognize the need for heightened sensitivity to the
danger facing victims of crime in general, and victims of domestic abuse
or neglect in particular. As discussed above, the final rule includes a
new section (\' 164.512(c)) establishing strict conditions for
disclosure of protected health information about victims of abuse,
neglect, and domestic violence.

Victims of crime other than abuse, neglect, or domestic violence can
also be placed in further danger by disclosure of protected health
information relating to the crime. In \' 164.512(f)(3) of the final
rule, we establish conditions for disclosure of protected health
information in these circumstances, and we make significant
modifications to the proposed rule=s provision for such disclosures.
Under the final rule, unless a state or other government authority has
enacted a law requiring disclosure of protected health information about
a victim to law enforcement officials, in most instances, covered
entities must obtain the victim=s agreement before disclosing such
information to law enforcement officials. This requirement gives victims
control over decision making about their health information where their
safety could be at issue, helps promote trust between patients and
providers, and is consistent with health care providers= ethical
obligation to seek patient authorization whenever possible before
disclosing protected health information.

At the same time, the rule strikes a balance between protecting victims
and providing law enforcement access to information about potential
crimes that cause harm to individuals, by waiving the requirement for
agreement in two situations. In allowing covered entities to disclose
protected health information about a crime victim pursuant to a state or
other mandatory reporting law, we defer to other governmental bodies=
judgments on when certain public policy objectives are important enough
to warrant mandatory disclosure of protected health information to law
enforcement. While some mandatory reporting laws are written more
broadly than others, we believe that it is neither appropriate nor
practicable to distinguish in federal regulations between what we
consider overly broad and sufficiently focused mandatory reporting laws.

The final rule waives the requirement for agreement if the covered
entity is unable to obtain the individual=s agreement due to incapacity
or other emergency circumstance, and (1) the law enforcement official
represents that the information is needed to determine whether a
violation of law by a person other than the victim has occurred and the
information is not intended to be used against the victim; (2) the law
enforcement official represents that immediate law enforcement activity
that depends on the disclosure would be materially and adversely
affected by waiting until the individual is able to agree to the
disclosure; and (3) the covered entity determines, in the exercise of
professional judgment, that the disclosure is in the individual=s best
interests. By allowing covered entities, in the exercise of professional
judgment, to determine whether such disclosures are in the individual=s
best interests, the final rule recognizes the importance of the
provider-patient relationship.

In addition, the final rule allows covered entities to initiate
disclosures of protected health information about victims without the
victim=s permission to law enforcement officials only if such disclosure
is required under a state mandatory reporting law. In other
circumstances, plans and providers may disclose protected health
information only in response to a request from a law enforcement
official. We believe that such an approach recognizes the importance of
promoting trust between victims and their health care providers. If
providers could initiate reports of victim information to law
enforcement officials absent a legal reporting mandate, victims may
avoid give their providers health information that could facilitate
their treatment, or they may avoid seeking treatment completely.

*Comment:* Many commenters believed that access to medical records
pursuant to this provision should occur only after judicial review.
Others believed that it should occur only with patient consent or after
notifying the patient of the disclosure to law enforcement. Similarly,
some commenters said that the minimum necessary standard should apply to
this provision, and they recommended restrictions on law enforcement
agencies= re-use of the information.

*Response:* As discussed above, the final rule generally requires
individual agreement as a condition for disclosure of a victim=s health
information; this requirement provides greater privacy protection and
individual control than would a requirement for judicial review. We also
discuss above the situations in which this requirement for agreement may
be waived, and why that is appropriate. The requirement that covered
entities disclose the minimum necessary protected health information
consistent with the purpose of the disclosure applies to disclosures of
protected health information about victims to law enforcement, unless
the disclosure is required by law. (See \' 164.514 for more detail on
the requirements for minimum necessary use and disclosure of protected
health information.) As described above, HIPAA does not provide
statutory authority for HHS to regulate law enforcement agencies= re-use
of protected health information that they obtain pursuant to this rule.

*Comment:* A few commenters expressed concern that the NPRM would not
have required law enforcement agencies= requests for protected health
information about victims to be in writing. They believed that written
requests could promote clarity in law enforcement requests, as well as
greater accountability among law enforcement officials seeking
information.

*Response:* We do not impose this requirement in the final rule. We
believe that such a requirement would not provide significant new
protection for victims and would unduly impede the completion of
legitimate law enforcement investigations.

*Comment:* A provider group was concerned that it would be difficult for
covered entities to evaluate law enforcement officials= claims that
information is needed and that law enforcement activity may be
necessary. Some comments from providers and individuals expressed
concern that the proposed rule would have provided open-ended access by
law enforcement to victims= medical records because of this difficulty
in evaluating law enforcement claims of their need for the information.

*Response:* We modify the NPRM in several ways that reduce covered
entities= decisionmaking burdens. The final rule clarifies that covered
entities may disclose protected health information about a victim of
crime where a report is required by state or other law, and it requires
the victim=s agreement for disclosure in most other instances. The
covered entity must make the decision whether to disclose only in
limited circumstances: when there is no mandatory reporting law; or when
the victim is unable to provide agreement and the law enforcement
official represents that: the protected health information is needed to
determine whether a violation of law by a person other than the victim
has occurred, that the information will not be used against the victim,
and that immediate law enforcement activity that depends on such
information would be materially and adversely affected by waiting until
the individual is able to agree to the disclosure. In these
circumstances, we believe it is appropriate to rely on the covered
entity, in the exercise of professional judgment, to determine whether
the disclosure is in the individual=s best interests. Other sections of
this rule allow covered entities to reasonably rely on certain
representations by law enforcement officials (see \' 164.514, regarding
verification,) and require disclosure of the minimum necessary protected
health information for this purpose. Together, these provisions do not
allow open-ended access or place undue responsibility on providers.

***Comments Regarding Proposed \' 164.510(f)(4), Intelligence and
National Security Activities***

In the final rule, we recognize that disclosures for intelligence and
national security activities do not always involve law enforcement.
Therefore, we delete the provisions of proposed \' 164.510(f)(4), and we
address disclosures for intelligence and national security activities in
\' 164.512(k), on uses and disclosures for specialized government
functions. Comments and responses on these issues are included below, in
the comments for that section.

***Comments Regarding Proposed \' 164.510(f)(5), Health Care Fraud,
Crimes on the Premises, and Crimes Witnessed by the Covered Entity=s
Workforce***

*Comment:* Many commenters noted that proposed \' 164.510(f)(5)(i),
which covered disclosures for investigations and prosecutions of health
care fraud, overlapped with proposed \' 164.510(c) which covered
disclosures for health oversight activities.

*Response:* As discussed more fully in \' 164.512(d) of this preamble,
above, we agree that proposed \' 164.510(f)(5)(i) created confusion
because all disclosures covered by that provision were already permitted
under proposed \' 164.510(c) without prior process. In the final rule,
therefore, we delete proposed \' 164.510(f)(5)(i).

*Comment:* One commenter was concerned the proposed provision would not
have allowed an emergency room physician to report evidence of abuse
when the suspected abuse had not been committed on the covered entity=s
premises.

*Response:* Crimes on the premises are only one type of crime that
providers may report to law enforcement officials. The rules for
reporting evidence of abuse to law enforcement officials are described
in \' 164.512(c) of the rule, and described in detail in \' 164.512(c)
of the preamble. An emergency room physician may report evidence of
abuse if the conditions in \' 164.512(c) are met, regardless of where
the abuse occurred.

*Comment:* One commenter argued that covered entities should be
permitted to disclose information that Aindicates the potential
existence@ of evidence, not just information that Aconstitutes evidence@
of crimes on the premises or crimes witnessed by a member of the covered
entity=s workforce.

*Response:* We agree that covered entities should not be required to
guess correctly whether information will be admitted to court as
evidence. For this reason, we include a good-faith standard in this
provision. Covered entities may disclose information that it believes in
good faith constitutes evidence of a crime on the premises. If the
covered entity discloses protected health information in good faith but
is wrong in its belief that the information is evidence of a violation
of law, the covered entity will not be subject to sanction under this
regulation.

**Section 164.512(g)CUses and Disclosures about Decedents**

***Coroners and Medical Examiners***

*Comment:* We received several comments, for example, from state and
county health departments, a private foundation, and a provider
organization, in support of the NPRM provision allowing disclosure
without authorization to coroners and medical examiners.

*Response:* The final rule retains the NPRM=s basic approach to
disclosure of coroners and medical examiners. It allows covered entities
to disclose protected health information without authorization to
coroners and medical examiners, for identification of a deceased person,
determining cause of death, or other duties authorized by law.

*Comment:* In the preamble to the NPRM, we said we had considered but
rejected the option of requiring covered entities to redact from
individuals= medical records any information identifying other persons
before disclosing the record to a coroner or medical examiner. We
solicited comment on whether health care providers routinely identify
other persons specifically in an individual=s medical record and if so,
whether in the final rule we should require health care providers to
redact information about the other person before providing it to a
coroner or medical examiner.

A few commenters said that medical records typically do not include
information about persons other than the patient. One commenter said
that patient medical records occasionally reference others such as
relatives or employers. These commenters recommended requiring redaction
of such information in any report sent to a coroner or medical examiner.
On the other hand, other commenters said that redaction should not be
required. These commenters generally based their recommendation on the
burden and delay associated with redaction. In addition to citing the
complexity and time involved in redaction of medical records provided to
coroners, one commenter said that health plans and covered health care
providers were not trained to determine the identifiable information
necessary for coroners and medical examiners to do thorough
investigations. Another commenter said that redaction should not be
required because coroners and medical examiners needed some additional
family information to determine what would be done with the deceased
after their post-mortem investigation is completed.

*Response:* We recognize the burden associated with redacting medical
records to remove the names of persons other than the patient. In
addition, as stated in the preamble to the NPRM, we recognize that there
is a limited time period after death within which an autopsy must be
conducted. We believe that the delay associated with this burden could
make it impossible to conduct a post-mortem investigation within the
required time frame. In addition, we agree that health plans and covered
health care providers may lack the training necessary to determine the
identifiable information necessary for coroners and medical examiners to
do thorough investigations. Thus, in the final rule, we do not require
health plans or covered providers to redact information about persons
other than the patient who may be identified in a patient=s medical
record before disclosing the record to a coroner or medical examiner.

*Comment:* One commenter said that medical records sent to coroners and
medical examiners were considered their work product and thus were not
released from their offices to anyone else. The commenter recommended
that HHS establish regulations on how to dispose of medical records and
that we create a Ano re-release@ statement to ensure that individual
privacy is maintained without compromising coroners= or medical
examiners= access to protected health information. The organization said
that such a policy should apply regardless of whether the investigation
was civil or criminal.

*Response:* HIPAA does not provide HHS with statutory authority to
regulate coroners= or medical examiners= re-use or re-disclosure of
protected health information unless the coroner or medical examiner is
also a covered entity. However, we consistently have supported
comprehensive privacy legislation to regulate disclosure and use of
individually identifiable health information by all entities that have
access to it.

***Funeral Directors***

*Comment:* One commenter recommended modifying the proposed rule to
allow disclosure without authorization to funeral directors. To
accomplish this change, the commenter suggested either: (1) adding
another subsection to proposed \' 164.510 of the NPRM, to allow
disclosure without authorization to funeral directors as needed to make
arrangements for funeral services and for disposition of a deceased
person=s remains; or (2) revising proposed \' 164.510(e) to allow
disclosure of protected health information to both coroners and funeral
directors. According to this commenter, funeral directors often need
certain protected health information for the embalming process, because
a person=s medical condition may affect the way in which embalming is
performed. For example, the commenter noted, funeral directors
increasingly receive bodies after organ and tissue donation, which has
implications for funeral home staff duties associated with embalming.

*Response:* We agree with the commenter. In the final rule, we permit
covered entities to disclose protected health information to funeral
directors, consistent with applicable law, as necessary to carry out
their duties with respect to a decedent. When necessary for funeral
directors to carry out their duties, covered entities may disclose
protected health information prior to and in reasonable anticipation of
the individual=s death.

*Comment:* One commenter recommended clarifying in the final rule that
it does not restrict law enforcement agencies= release of medical
information that many state records laws require to be reported, for
example, as part of autopsy reports. The commenter recommended stating
that law enforcement officials may independently gather medical
information, that such information would not be covered by these rules,
and that it would continue to be covered under applicable state and
federal access laws.

*Response:* HIPAA does not give HHS statutory authority to regulate law
enforcement officials= use or disclosure of protected health
information. As stated elsewhere, we continue to support enactment of
comprehensive privacy legislation to cover disclosure and use of all
individually identifiable health information.

*Comment:* One commenter recommended prohibiting health plans and
covered health care providers from disclosing psychotherapy notes to
coroners or medical examiners.

*Response:* We disagree with the commenter who asserted that
psychotherapy notes should only be used by or disclosed to coroners and
medical examiners with authorization. Psychotherapy notes are sometimes
needed by coroners and medical examiners to determine cause of death,
such as in cases where suicide is suspected as the cause of death. We
understand that several states require the disclosure of protected
health information, including psychotherapy notes, to medical examiners
and coroners. However, in the absence of a state law requiring such
disclosure, we do not intend to prohibit coroners or medical examiners
from obtaining the protected health information necessary to determine
an individual=s cause of death.

**Section 164.512(h)CUses and Disclosures for Organ Donation and
Transplantation Purposes**

*Comment:* Commenters noted that under the organ donation system,
information about a patient is disclosed before seeking consent for
donation from families. These commenters offered suggestions for
ensuring that the system could continue to operate without consent for
information sharing with organ procurement organizations and tissue
banks. Commenters suggested that organ and tissue procurement
organizations should be Acovered entities@ or that the procurement of
organs and tissues be included in the definition of health care
operations or treatment, or in the definition of emergency
circumstances.

*Response:* We agree that organ and tissue donation is a special
situation due to the need to protect potential donors= families from the
stress of considering whether their loved one should be a donor before a
determination has been made that donation would be medically suitable.
Rather than list the entities that are Acovered entities@ or modify the
definitions of health care operations and treatment or emergency
circumstances to explicitly include organ procurement organizations and
tissue banks, we have modified \' 164.512 to permit covered entities to
use or disclose protected health information to organ procurement
organizations or other entities engaged in the procurement, banking, or
transplantation of cadaveric organs, eyes, or tissues.

*Comment:* Commenters asked that the rule clarify that organ procurement
organizations are health care providers but not business partners of the
hospitals.

*Response:* We agree that organ procurement organizations and tissue
banks are generally not business associates of hospitals.

**Disclosures and Uses for Government Health Data Systems**

*Comment:* We received a number of comments supporting the exception for
disclosure of protected health information to government health data
systems. Some supporters stated a general belief that the uses of such
information were important to improve and protect the health of the
public. Commenters said that state agencies used the information from
government health data systems to contribute to the improvement of the
health care system by helping prevent fraud and abuse and helping
improve health care quality, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness.
Commenters asserted that state agencies take action to ensure that data
they release based on these data systems do not identify individuals

We also received a large volume of comments opposed to the exception for
use and disclosure of protected health information for government health
data systems. Many commenters expressed general concern that the
provision threatened their privacy, and many believed that their health
information would be subject to abuse by government employees.
Commenters expressed concern that the provision would facilitate
collection of protected health information in one large, centralized
government health database that could threaten privacy. Others argued
that the proposed rule would facilitate law enforcement access to
protected health information and could, in fact, become a database for
law enforcement use.

Many commenters asserted that this provision would make individuals
concerned about confiding in their health care providers. Some
commenters argued that the government should not be allowed to collect
individually identifiable health information without patient consent,
and that the government could use de-identified data to perform the
public policy analyses. Many individual commenters said that HHS lacked
statutory and Constitutional authority to give the government access and
control of their medical records without consent.

Many commenters believed that the NPRM language on government health
data systems was too broad and would allow virtually any government
collection of data to be covered. They argued that the government health
data system exception was unnecessary because there were other
provisions in the proposed rules providing sufficient authority for
government agencies to obtain the information they need.

Some commenters were concerned that the NPRM=s government health data
system provisions would allow disclosure of protected health information
for purposes unrelated to health care. These commenters recommended
narrowing the provision to allow disclosure of protected health
information without consent to government health data systems in support
of health care-related policy, planning, regulatory, or management
functions. Others recommended narrowing the exception to allow use and
disclosure of protected health information for government health
databases only when a specific statute or regulation has authorized
collection of protected health information for a specific purpose.

*Response:* We agree with the commenters who suggested that the proposed
provision that would have permitted disclosures to government health
data bases was overly broad, and we remove it from the final rule.

We reviewed the important purposes identified in the comments for
government access to protected health information, and believe that the
disclosures of protected health information that should appropriately be
made without individuals= authorization can be achieved through the
other disclosures provided for in the final rule, including provisions
permitting covered entities to disclose information (subject to certain
limitations) to government agencies for public health, research, health
oversight, law enforcement, and otherwise as required by law. For
example, the final rule continues to allow a covered entity to disclose
protected health information without authorization to a public health
authority to monitor trends in the spread of infectious disease,
morbidity, and mortality. Under the rule=s health oversight provision,
covered entities can continue to disclose protected health information
to public agencies for purposes such as analyzing the cost and quality
of services provided by covered entities; evaluating the effectiveness
of federal, state, and local public programs; examining trends in health
insurance coverage of the population; and analyzing variations in access
to health coverage among various segments of the population. We believe
that it is better to remove the proposed provision for government health
data systems generally and to rely on other, more narrowly tailored
provisions in the rule to authorize appropriate disclosures to
government agencies.

*Comment:* Some provider groups, private companies, and industry
organizations recommended expanding the exception for government health
data systems to include data collected by private entities. These
commenters said that such an expansion would be justified, because
private entities often perform the same functions as public agencies
collecting health data.

*Response:* We eliminate the exception for government health data
systems because it was over broad and the uses and disclosures we were
trying to permit are permitted by other provisions. We note that private
organizations may use or disclose protected health information pursuant
to multiple provisions of the rule.

*Comment:* One commenter recommended clarifying in the final rule that
the government health data system provisions apply to: (1) manufacturers
providing data to HCFA and its contractors to help the agency make
reimbursement and related decisions; and to (2) third- party payors that
must provide data collected by device manufacturers to HCFA to help the
agency make reimbursement and related decisions.

*Response:* The decision to eliminate the general provision permitting
disclosures to government health data systems makes this issue moot with
respect to such disclosures. We note that the information used by
manufacturers to support coverage determinations often is gathered
pursuant to patient authorization (as part of informed consent for
research) or as an approved research project. There also are many cases
in which information can be de-identified before it is disclosed. Where
HCFA hires a contractor to collect such protected health information,
the contractor may do so under HCFA=s authority, subject to the business
associate provisions of this rule.

*Comment:* One commenter recommended stating in the final rule that
de-identified information from government health data systems can be
disclosed to other entities.

*Response:* HHS does not have the authority to regulate re-use or
re-disclosure of information by agencies or institutions that are not
covered entities under the rule. However, we support the policies and
procedures that public agencies already have implemented to de-identify
any information that they redisclose, and we encourage the continuation
of these activities.

**Disclosures for Payment Processes**

Proposed \' 164.510(j) of the NPRM would have allowed disclosure of
protected health information without authorization for banking and
payment processes. In the final rule, we eliminate this provision.
Disclosures that would have been allowed under it, as well as comments
received on proposed \' 164.510(j), are addressed under \' 164.501 of
the final rule, under the definition of Apayment.@

**Section 164.512(i)CUses and Disclosures for Research Purposes**

***Documentation Requirements of IRB or Privacy Board Approval of
Waiver***

*Comment:* A number of commenters argued that the proposed research
requirements of \' 164.510(j) exceeded the Secretary=s authority under
section 246(c) of HIPAA. In particular, several commenters argued that
the Department was proposing to extend the Common Rule and the use of
the IRB or privacy boards beyond federally-funded research projects,
without the necessary authority under HIPAA to do so. One commenter
stated that, ASection 246(c) of HIPAA requires the Secretary to issue a
regulation setting privacy standards for individually identifiable
health information transmitted in connection with the transactions
described in section 1173(a),@ and thus concluded that the disclosure of
health information to researchers is not covered. Some of these
commenters also argued that the documentation requirements of proposed
\' 164.510(j), did not shield the NPRM from having the effect of
regulating research by placing the onus on covered health care providers
to seek documentation that certain standards had been satisfied before
providing protected health information to researchers. These commenters
argued that the proposed rule had the clear and intended effect of
directly regulating researchers who wish to obtain protected health
information from a covered entity.

*Response:* As discussed above, we do not agree with commenters that the
Secretary=s authority is limited to individually identifiable health
information transmitted in connection with the transactions described in
section 1173(a) of HIPAA. We also disagree that the proposed research
documentation requirements would have constituted the unauthorized
regulation of researchers. The proposed requirements established
conditions for the use of protected health information by covered
entities for research and the disclosure of protected health information
by covered entities to researchers. HIPAA authorizes the Secretary to
regulate such uses and disclosures, and the final rule retains
documentation requirements similar to those proposed.

*Comment*: Several commenters believed that the NPRM was proposing
either directly or indirectly to modify the Common Rule and, therefore,
stated that such modification was beyond the Secretary=s authority under
HIPAA. Many of these commenters arrived at this conclusion because the
waiver of authorization criteria proposed in \' 164.510(j) differed from
the Common Rule=s criteria for the waiver of informed consent (Common
Rule, \' \_\_\_.116(d)).

*Response:* We do not agree that the proposed provision relating to
research would have modified the Common Rule. The provisions that we
proposed and provisions that we include in the final rule place
conditions that must be met before a covered entity may use or disclose
protected health information. Those conditions are in addition to any
conditions required of research entities under the Common Rule. Covered
entities will certainly be subject to laws and regulations in addition
to the rule, but the rule does not require compliance with these other
laws or regulations. For covered health care providers and health plans
that are subject to both the final rule and the Common Rule, both sets
of regulations will need to be followed.

*Comment:* A few commenters suggested that the Common Rule should be
extended to all research, regardless of funding source.

*Response:* We generally agree with the commenters on the need to
provide protections to all human subjects research, regardless of
funding source. HIPAA, however, did not provide the Department with
authority to extend the Common Rule beyond its current purview. For
research that relies on the use or disclosure of protected health
information by covered entities without authorization, the final rule
applies the Common Rule=s principles for protecting research subjects
by, in most instances, requiring documentation of independent board
review, and a finding that specified criteria designed to protect the
privacy of prospective research subjects have been met.

*Comment*: A large number of commenters agreed that the research use and
disclosure of protected health information should not require
authorization. Of these commenters, many supported the proposed rule=s
approach to research uses and disclosures without authorization,
including many from health care provider organizations, the mental
health community, and members of Congress. Others, while they agreed
that the research use and disclosure should not require authorization
disagreed with the NPRM=s approach and proposed alternative models.

The commenters who supported the NPRM=s approach to permitting
researchers access to protected health information without authorization
argued that it was appropriate to apply ACommon Rule-like@ provisions to
privately funded research. In addition, several commenters explicitly
argued that the option to use a privacy board, in lieu of an IRB, must
be maintained because requiring IRB review to include all aspects of
patient privacy could diffuse focus and significantly compromise an
IRB=s ability to execute its primary patient protection role.
Furthermore, several commenters believed that privacy board review
should be permitted, but wanted equal oversight and accountability for
privacy boards and IRBs.

Many other commenters agreed that the research use and disclosure should
not require authorization, but disagreed with the proposed rule=s
approach and proposed alternative models. Several of these commenters
argued that the final rule should eliminate the option for privacy board
review and that all research to be subject to IRB review. These
commenters stated that having separate and unequal systems to approve
research based on its funding source would complicate compliance and go
against the spirit of the regulations. Several of these commenters, many
from patient and provider organizations, opposed the permitted use of
privacy boards to review research studies and instead argued that IRB
review should be required for all studies involving the use or
disclosure of protected health information. These commenters argued that
although privacy board requirements would be similar, they are not
equitable; for example, only three of the Common Rule=s six requirements
for the membership of IRBs were proposed to be required for the
membership on privacy boards, and there was no proposed requirement for
annual review of ongoing research studies that used protected health
information. Several commenters were concerned that the proposed option
to obtain documentation of privacy board review, in lieu of IRB review,
would perpetuate the divide in the oversight of federally-funded versus
publically-funded research, rather than eliminate the differential
oversight of publically- and privately-funded research, with the former
still being held to a stricter standard. Some of these commenters argued
that these unequal protections would be especially apparent for the
disclosure of research with authorization, since under the Common Rule,
IRB review of human subjects studies is required, regardless of the
subject=s consent, before the study may be conducted.

*Response:* Although we share the concern raised by commenters that the
option for the documentation of privacy board approval for an alteration
or waiver of authorization may perpetuate the unequal mechanisms of
protecting the privacy of human research subjects for federally-funded
versus publically-funded research, the final rule is limited by HIPAA to
addressing only the use and disclosure of protected health information
by covered entities, not the protection of human research subjects more
generally. Therefore, the rule cannot standardize human subjects
protections throughout the country. Given the limited scope of the final
rule with regard to research, the Department believes that the option to
obtain documentation of privacy board approval for an alteration or
waiver of authorization in lieu of IRB approval provides covered
entities with needed flexibility. Therefore, in the final rule we have
retained the option for covered entities to rely on documentation of
privacy board approval that specified criteria have been met.

We disagree with the rationale suggested by commenters who argued that
the option for privacy board review must be maintained because requiring
IRB review to include all aspects of patient privacy could diffuse focus
and significantly compromise an IRB=s ability to execute its primary
patient protection role. For research that involves the use of
individually identifiable health information, assessing the risk to the
privacy of research subjects is currently one of the key risks that must
be assessed and addressed by IRBs. In fact, we expect that it will be
appropriate for many research organizations that have existing IRBs to
rely on these IRBs to meet the documentation requirements of \'
164.512(i).

*Comment:* One health care provider organization recommended that the
IRB or privacy board mechanism of review should be applied to
non-research uses and disclosures.

*Response:* We disagree. Imposing documentation of privacy board
approval for other public policy uses and disclosures permitted by \'
164.512 would result in undue delays in the use or disclosure of
protected health information that could harm individuals and the public.
For example, requiring that covered health care providers obtain
third-party review before permitting them to alert a public health
authority that an individual was infected with a serious communicable
disease could cause delay appropriate intervention by a public health
authority and could present a serious threat to the health of many
individuals.

*Comment*: A number of commenters, including several members of
Congress, argued that since the research provisions in proposed \'
164.510(j) were modeled on the existing system of human subjects
protections, they were inadequate and would shatter public trust if
implemented. Similarly, some commenters, asserted that IRBs are not
accustomed to reviewing and approving utilization reviews, outcomes
research, or disease management programs and, therefore, IRB review may
not be an effective tool for protecting patient privacy in connection
with these activities. Some of these commenters noted that proposed \'
164.510(j) would exacerbate the problems inherent in the current federal
human subjects protection system especially in light of the recent GAO
reports that indicate the IRB system is already over-extended.
Furthermore, a few commenters argued that the Common Rule=s requirements
may be suited for interventional research involving human subjects, but
is ill suited to the archival and health services research typically
performed using medical records without authorization. Therefore, these
commenters concluded that extending ACommon Rule-like@ provisions to the
private sector would be inadequate to protect human subjects and would
result in significant and unnecessary cost increases.

*Response:* While the vast majority of government-supported and
regulated research adheres to strict protocols and the highest ethical
standards, we agree that the federal system of human subjects
protections can and must be strengthened. To work toward this goal, on
May 23, the Secretary announced several additional initiatives to
enhance the safety of subjects in clinical trials, strengthen government
oversight of medical research, and reinforce clinical researchers=
responsibility to follow federal guidelines. As part of this initiative,
the National Institutes of Health have undertaken an aggressive effort
to ensure IRB members and IRB staff receive appropriate training in
bioethics and other issues related to research involving human subjects,
including research that involves the use of individually identifiable
health information. With these added improvements, we believe that the
federal system of human subjects protections continues to be a good
model to protect the privacy of individually identifiable health
information that is used for research purposes. This model of privacy
protection is also consistent with the recent recommendations of both
the Institute of Medicine in their report entitled, AProtecting Data
Privacy in Health Services Research,@ and the Joint Commission on
Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations and the National Committee for
Quality Assurance in their report entitled, AProtecting Personal Health
Information: A Framework for Meeting the Challenges in a Managed Care
Environment.@ Both of these reports similarly concluded that health
services research that involves the use of individually identifiable
health information should undergo IRB review or review by another board
with sufficient expertise in privacy and confidentiality protection.

Furthermore, it is important to recognize that the Common Rule applies
not only to interventional research, but also to research that uses
individually identifiable health information, including archival
research and health services research. The National Bioethics Advisory
Commission (NBAC) is currently developing a report on the federal
oversight of human subjects research, which is expected to address the
unique issues raised by non-interventional human subjects research. The
Department looks forward to receiving NBAC=s report, and carefully
considering the Commission=s recommendations. This final rule is the
first step in enhancing patients= privacy and we will propose
modifications to the rule if changes are warranted by the Commission=s
findings and recommendations.

*Comment:* Many commenters argued that the proposed research provision
would have a chilling affect on the willingness of health plans and
covered providers to participate in research because of the criminal and
civil penalties that could be imposed for failing to meet the
requirements that would have been required by proposed \' 164.510(j).
Some of these commenters cautioned, that over time, research could be
severely hindered if covered entities choose not to disclose protected
health information to researchers. In addition, one commenter
recommended that a more reasonable approach would be to require IRB or
privacy board approval only if the results of the research were to be
broadly published. Another commenter expressed concern that the privacy
rule could influence IRBs or privacy boards to refuse to recognize the
validity of decisions by other IRBs or privacy boards and specifically
recommended that the privacy rule include a preamble statement that: (1)
the Arisk@ balancing consider only the risk to the patient, not the risk
to the institution, and (2) add a phrase that the decision by the
initial IRB or privacy board to approve the research shall be given
deference by other IRBs or privacy boards. This commenter also
recommended that to determine whether IRBs or privacy boards were giving
such deference to prior IRB or privacy board review, HHS should monitor
the disapproval rate by IRB or privacy boards conducting secondary
reviews.

*Response:* As the largest federal sponsor of medical research, we
understand the important role of research in improving our Nation=s
health. However, the benefits of research must be balanced against the
risks, including the privacy risks, for those who participate in
research. An individual=s rights and welfare must never be sacrificed
for scientific or medical progress. We believe that the requirements for
the use and disclosure of protected health information for research
without authorization provides an appropriate balance. We understand
that some covered health care providers and health plans may conclude
that the rule=s documentation requirements for research uses and
disclosures are too burdensome.

We rejected the recommendation that documentation of IRB or privacy
board approval of the waiver of authorization should only be required if
the research were to be Abroadly published.@ Research findings that are
published in de-identified form have little influence on the privacy
interests of individuals. We believe that it is the use or disclosure of
individually identifiable health information to a researcher that poses
the greater risk to individuals= privacy, not publication of
de-identified information.

We agree with the commenters that IRB or privacy board review should
address the privacy interests of individuals and not institutions. This
provision is intended to protect individuals from unnecessary uses and
disclosures of their health information and does not address
institutional privacy.

We disagree with the comment that documentation of IRB or privacy board
approval of the waiver of authorization should be given deference by
other IRBs or privacy boards conducting secondary reviews. We do not
believe that it is appropriate to restrict the deliberations or
judgments of privacy boards, nor do we have the authority under this
rule to instruct IRBs on this issue. Instead, we reiterate that all
disclosures for research purposes under \' 164.512(i) are voluntary, and
that institutions may choose to impose more stringent requirements for
any use and disclosure permitted under \' 164.512.

*Comment:* Some commenters were concerned about the implications of
proposed \' 164.510(j) on multi-center research. These commenters argued
that for multi-center research, researchers may require protected health
information from multiple covered entities, each of whom may have
different requirements for the documentation of IRB or privacy board
review. Therefore, there was concern that documentation that may suffice
for one covered entity, may not for another, thereby hindering
multi-center research.

*Response:* Since \' 164.512(i) establishes minimum documentation
standards for covered health care providers and health plans using or
disclosing protected health information for research purposes, we
understand that some covered providers and health plans may choose to
require additional documentation requirements for researchers. We note,
however, that nothing in the final rule would preclude a covered health
care provider or health plan from developing the consistent
documentation requirements provided they meet the requirements of \'
164.512(i).

*Comment:* One commenter who was also concerned that the minimum
necessary requirements of proposed \' 164.506(b) would negatively affect
multi-center research because covered entities participating in
multi-site research studies would no longer be permitted to rely upon
the consent form approved by a central IRB, and nor would participating
entities be permitted to report data to the researcher using the case
report form approved by the central IRB to guide what data points to
include. This commenter noted that the requirement that each site would
need to undertake a separate minimum necessary review for each
disclosure would erect significant barriers to the conduct of research
and may compromise the integrity and validity of data combined from
multiple sites. This commenter recommended that the Secretary absolve a
covered entity of the responsibility to make its own individual minimum
necessary determinations if the entity is disclosing information
pursuant to an IRB or privacy board-approved protocol.

*Response:* The minimum necessary requirements in the final rule have
been revised to permit covered entities to rely on the documentation of
IRB or privacy board approval as meeting the minimum necessary
requirements of \' 164.514. However, we anticipate that much multi-site
research, such as multi-site clinical trials, will be conducted with
patients= informed consent as required by the Common Rule and FDA=s
protection of human subjects regulations, and that patients=
authorization will also be sought for the use or disclosure of protected
health information for such studies. Therefore, it should be noted that
the minimum necessary requirements do not apply for uses or disclosures
made with an authorization. In addition, the final rule allows a covered
health care provider or health plan to use or disclose protected health
information pursuant to an authorization that was approved by a single
IRB or privacy board, provided the authorization met the requirements of
\' 164.508. The final rule does not, however, require IRB or privacy
board review for the use or disclosure of protected health information
for research conducted with individuals= authorization.

*Comment:* Some commenters believed that proposed \' 164.510(j) would
have required documentation of both IRB and privacy board review before
a covered entity would be permitted to disclose protected health
information for research purposes without an individual=s authorization.

*Response:* This is incorrect. Section 164.512(i)(1)(i) of the final
rule requires documentation of alteration or waiver approval by either
an IRB or a privacy board.

*Comment:* Some commenters believed that the proposed rule would have
required that patients be notified whenever protected health information
about themselves was disclosed for research purposes.

*Response:* This is incorrect. Covered entities are not required to
inform individuals that protected health information about themselves
has been disclosed for research purposes. However, as required in \'
164.520 of the final rule, the covered entity must include research
disclosures in their notice of information practices. In addition, as
required by \' 164.528 of the rule, covered health care providers and
health plans must provide individuals, upon request, with an accounting
of disclosures made of protected health information about the
individual.

*Comment:* One commenter recommended that IRB and privacy boards also be
required to be accredited.

*Response:* While we agree that the issue of accrediting IRBs and
privacy boards deserves further consideration, we believe it is
premature to require covered entities to ensure that the IRB or privacy
board that approves an alteration or waiver of authorization is
accredited. Currently, there are no accepted accreditation standards for
IRBs or privacy boards, nor a designated accreditation body. Recognizing
the need for and value of greater uniformity and public accountability
in the review and approval process, HHS, with support from the Office of
Human Research Protection, National Institutes of Health, Food and Drug
Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Agency
for Health Care Research and Quality, has engaged the Institute of
Medicine to recommend uniform performance resource-based standards for
private, voluntary accreditation of IRBs. This effort will draw upon
work already undertaken by major national organizations to develop and
test these standards by the spring of 2001, followed by initiation of a
formal accreditation process before the end of next year. Once the
Department has received the Institute of Medicine=s recommended
accreditation standards and process for IRBs, we plan to consider
whether this accreditation model would also be applicable to privacy
boards.

*Comment:* A few commenters also noted that if both an IRB and a privacy
board reviewed a research study and came to conflicting decisions,
proposed \' 164.510(j) was unclear about which board=s decision would
prevail.

*Response:* The final rule does not stipulate which board=s decision
would prevail if an IRB and a privacy board came to conflicting
decisions. The final rule requires covered entities to obtain
documentation that one IRB or privacy board has approved of the
alteration or waiver of authorization. The covered entity, however, has
discretion to request information about the findings of all IRBs and/or
privacy boards that have reviewed a research proposal. We strongly
encourage researchers to notify IRBs and privacy boards of any prior IRB
or privacy board review of a research protocol.

*Comment:* Many commenters noted that the NPRM included no guidance on
how the privacy board should approve or deny researchers= requests. Some
of these commenters recommended that the regulation stipulate that
privacy boards be required to follow the same voting rules as required
under the Common Rule.

*Response:* We agree that the Common Rule (\' \_\_\_.108(b)) provides a
good model of voting procedures for privacy boards and incorporate such
procedures to the extent they are relevant. In the final rule, we
require that the documentation of alteration or waiver of authorization
state that the alteration or waiver has been reviewed and approved by
either (1) an IRB that has followed the voting requirements of the
Common Rule (\' \_\_\_.108(b)), or the expedited review procedures of
the Common Rule (\' \_\_\_.110); or (2) unless an expedited review
procedure is used, a privacy board that has reviewed the proposed
research at a convened meeting at which a majority of the privacy board
members are present, including at least one member who is not affiliated
with the covered entity, not affiliated with any entity conducting or
sponsoring the research, and not related to any person who is affiliated
with any such entities, and the alteration or waiver of authorization is
approved by the majority of privacy board members present at the
meeting.

*Comment:* A few commenters were concerned that the research provisions
would be especially onerous for small non-governmental entities,
furthering the federal monopoly on research.

*Response:* We understand that the documentation requirements of \'
164.512(i), as well as other provisions in the final rule, may be more
onerous for small entities than for larger entities. We believe,
however, that when protected health information is to be used or
disclosed for research without an individual=s authorization, the
additional privacy protections in \' 164.512(i) are essential to reduce
the risk of harm to the individual.

*Comment:* One commenter believed that it was paradoxical that, under
the proposed rule, the disclosure of protected health information for
research conducted with an authorization would have been more heavily
burdened than research that was conducted without authorization, which
they reasoned was far less likely to bring personal benefit to the
research subjects.

*Response:* It was not our intent to impose more requirements on covered
entities using or disclosing protected health information for research
conducted with authorization than for research conducted without
authorization. In fact, the proposed rule would have required only
authorization as stipulated in proposed \' 164.508 for research
disclosures made with authorization, and would have been exempt from the
documentation requirements in proposed \' 164.510(j). We retain this
treatment in the final rule. We disagree with the commenter who asserted
that the requirements for research conducted with authorization are more
burdensome for covered health care providers and plans than the
documentation provisions of this paragraph.

*Comment:* A number of comments, mostly from the pharmaceutical
industry, recommended that the final rule state that privacy boards be
permitted to waive authorization only with respect to research uses of
medical information collected in the course of treatment or health care
operations, and not with respect to clinical research. Similarly, one
commenter recommended that IRBs and privacy boards be authorized to
review privacy issues only, not the entire research project. These
commenters were concerned that by granting waiver authority to privacy
boards and IRBs, and by incorporating the Common Rule waiver criteria
into the waiver criteria included in the proposed rule, the Secretary
has set the stage for privacy boards to review and approve waivers in
circumstances that involve interventional research that is not subject
to the Common Rule.

*Response:* We agree with the commenters who recommended that the final
rule clarify that the documentation of IRB or privacy board approval of
the waiver of authorization would be based only on an assessment of the
privacy risks associated with a research study, not an assessment of all
relevant risks to participants. In the final rule, we have amended the
language in the waiver criteria to make clear that these criteria relate
only to the privacy interests of the individual. We anticipate, however,
that the vast majority of uses and disclosures of protected health
information for interventional research will be made with individuals=
authorization. Therefore, we expect it will be rare that a researcher
will seek IRB or privacy board approval for the alteration or waiver of
authorization, but seek informed consent for participation for the
interventional component of the research study. Furthermore, we believe
that interventional research, such as most clinical trials, could not
meet the waiver criteria in the final rule (\' 164.512(i)(2)(ii)(C)),
which states Athe research could not practicably be conducted without
the alteration or waiver.@ If a researcher is to have direct contact
with research subjects, the researcher should in virtually all cases be
able to seek and obtain patients= authorization for the use and
disclosure of protected health information about themselves for the
research study.

*Comment:* A few commenters recommended that the rule explicitly state
that covered entities would be permitted to rely upon an IRB or privacy
boards= representation that the research proposal meets the requirements
of proposed \' 164.510(j).

*Response:* We agree with this comment. The final rule clarifies that
covered health care providers and health plans are allowed to rely on an
IRB=s or privacy board=s representation that the research proposal meets
the requirements of \' 164.512(i).

*Comment:* One commenter recommended that IRBs be required to maintain
web sites with information on proposed and approved projects.

*Response:* We agree that it could be useful for IRBs and privacy boards
to maintain web sites with information on proposed and approved
projects. However, requiring this of IRBs and privacy boards is beyond
the scope of our authority under HIPAA. In addition, this recommendation
raises concerns that would need to be addressed, including concerns
about protecting the confidentiality of research participants and
propriety information that may be contained in research proposals. For
these reasons, we decided not to incorporate this requirement into the
final rule.

*Comment:* One commenter recommended that HHS collect data on
research-related breaches of confidentiality and investigate existing
anecdotal reports of such breaches.

*Response:* This recommendation is beyond HHS= legal authority, since
HIPAA did not give us the authority to regulate researchers. Therefore,
this recommendation was not included in the final rule.

*Comment:* A number of commenters were concerned that HIPAA did not give
the Secretary the authority to protect information once it was disclosed
to researchers who were not covered entities.

*Response:* The Secretary shares these commenters= concerns about the
Department=s limited authority under HIPAA. We strongly support the
enactment of additional federal legislation to fill these crucial gaps
in the Secretary=s authority.

*Comment:* One commenter recommended that covered entities should be
required to retain the IRB=s or privacy board=s documentation of
approval of the waiver of individuals= authorization for at least six
years from when the waiver was obtained.

*Response:* We agree with this comment and have included such a
requirement in the final rule. See \' 164.530(j).

*Comment:* One commenter recommended that whenever health information is
used for research or administrative purposes, a plan is in place to
evaluate whether to and how to feed patient-specific information back
into the health system to benefit an individual or group of patients
from whom the health information was derived.

*Response:* While we agree that this recommendation is consistent with
the responsible conduct of research, HIPAA did not give us the authority
to regulate research. Therefore, this recommendation was not included in
the final rule.

*Comment:* A few commenters recommended that contracts between covered
entities and researcher be pursued. Comments received in favor of
requiring contractual agreements argued that such a contract would be
enforceable under law, and should prohibit secondary disclosures by
researchers. Some of these commenters recommended that contracts between
covered entities and researchers should be the same as, or modeled on,
the proposed requirements for business partners. In addition, some
commenters argued that contracts between covered entities and
researchers should be required as a means of placing equal
responsibility on the researcher for protecting protected health
information and for not improperly re-identifying information.

*Response:* In the final rule, we have added an additional waiver
criteria to require that there are adequate written assurances from the
researcher that protected health information will not be re-used or
disclosed to any other person or entity, except as required by law, for
authorized oversight of the research project, or for other research for
which the use or disclosure of protected health information would be
permitted by this subpart. We believe that this additional waiver
criteria provides additional assurance that protected health information
will not be misused by researchers, while not imposing the additional
burdens of a contractual requirement on covered health care providers
and health plans. We were not persuaded by the comments received that
contractual requirements would provide necessary additional protections,
that would not also be provided by the less burdensome waiver criteria
for adequate written assurance that the researcher will not re-use or
disclose protected health information, with few exceptions. Our intent
was to strengthen and extend existing privacy safeguards for protected
health information that is used or disclosed for research, while not
creating unnecessary disincentives to covered health care providers and
health plans who choose to use or disclose protected health information
for research purposes.

*Comment:* Some commenters explicitly opposed requiring contracts
between covered entities and researchers as a condition of permitting
the use or disclosure of protected health information for research
purposes. This commenters argued that such a contractual requirement
would be too onerous for covered entities and researchers and would
hinder or halt important research.

*Response:* We agree with the arguments raised by these commenters, and
thus, the final rule does not require contracts between covered entities
and researchers as a condition of using or disclosing protected health
information for research purposes without authorization.

*Comment:* A large number of commenters strongly supported requiring
patient consent before protected health information could be used or
disclosed, including but not limited to use and disclosure for research
purposes. These commenters argued that the unconsented-to use of their
medical records abridged their autonomy right to decide whether or not
to participate in research. A few referenced the Nuremberg Code in
support of their view, noting that the Nuremberg Code required
individual consent for participation in research.

*Response:* We agree that it is of foremost importance that individuals=
privacy rights and welfare be safeguarded when protected health
information about themselves is used or disclosed for research studies.
We also strongly believe that continued improvements in the nation=s
health requires that researchers be permitted access to protected health
information without authorization in certain circumstances. Additional
privacy protections are needed, however, and we have included several in
the final rule. If covered entities plan to disclose protected health
without individuals= authorization for research purposes, individuals
must be informed of this through the covered entity=s notice to patients
of their information practices. In addition, before covered health care
providers or health plans may use or disclose protected health
information for research without authorization, they must obtain
documentation that an IRB or privacy board has found that specified
waiver criteria have been met, unless the research will include
protected health information about deceased individuals only, or is
solely for reviews that are preparatory to research.

While it is true that the first provision of the Nuremberg Code states
that Athe voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely
essential,@ it is important to understand the context of this important
document in the history of protecting human subjects research from harm.
The Nuremberg Code was developed for the Nuremberg Military Tribunal as
standards by which to judge the human experimentation conducted by the
Nazis, and was one of the first documents setting forth principles for
the ethical conduct of human subjects research. The acts of atrocious
cruelty that the Nuremberg Code was developed to address, focused on
preventing the violations to human rights and dignity that occurred in
the name of Amedical advancement.@ The Code, however, did not directly
address the ethical conduct of non-interventional research, such as
medical records research, where the risk of harm to participants can be
unlike those associated with clinical research.

We believe that the our proposed requirements for the use or disclosure
of protected health information for research are consistent with the
ethical principles of Arespect for persons,@ Abeneficence,@ and
Ajustice,@ which were established by the Belmont Report in 1978, and are
now accepted as the quintessential requirements for the ethical conduct
of research involving human subjects, including research using
individually identifiable health information. These ethical principles
formed the foundation for the requirements in the Common Rule, on which
our proposed requirements for research uses and disclosures were
modeled.

*Comment:* Many commenters recommended that the privacy rule permit
individuals to opt out of having their records used for the identified
Aimportant@ public policy purposes in \' 164.510, including for research
purposes. These commenters asserted that permitting the use and
disclosure of their protected health information without their consent,
or without an opportunity to Aopt out@ of having their information used
or disclosed, abridged individuals= right to decide who should be
permitted access to their medical records. In addition, one commenter
argued that although the research community has been sharply critical of
a Minnesota law that limits access to health records (Minnesota Statute
Section 144.335 (1998)), researchers have cited a lack of response to
mailed consent forms as the primary factor behind a decrease in the
percentage of medical records available for research. This commenter
argued that an opt-out provision would not be subject to this
Anonresponder@ problem.

*Response:* We believe that a meaningful right to Aopt out@ of a
research study requires that individuals be contacted and informed about
the study for which protected health information about themselves is
being requested by a researcher. We concluded, therefore, that an Aopt
out@ provision of this nature may suffer from the same decliner bias
that has been experienced by researchers who are subject to laws that
require patient consent for medical records research. Furthermore,
evidence on the effect of a mandatory Aopt out@ provision for medical
records research is only fragmentary at this time, but at least one
study has preliminarily suggested that those who refuse to consent for
research access to their medical records may differ in statistically
significant ways from those who consent with respect to variables such
as age and disease category (SJ Jacobsen et al. APotential Effect of
Authorization Bias on Medical Records Research.@ Mayo Clin Proc 74:
(1999) 330-338). For these reasons, we disagree with the commenters who
recommended that an Aopt out@ provision be included in the final rule.
In the final rule, we do require covered entities to include research
disclosures in their notice of information practices. Therefore,
individuals who do not wish for protected health information about
themselves to be disclosed for research purposes without their
authorization could select a health care provider or health plan on this
basis. In addition, the final rule also permits covered health care
providers or health plans to agree not to disclose protected health
information for research purposes, even if research disclosures would
otherwise be permitted under their notice of information practices. Such
an agreement between a covered health care provider or health plan and
an individual would not be enforceable under the final rule, but might
be enforceable under applicable state law.

*Comment:* Some commenters explicitly recommended that there should be
no provision permitting individuals to opt out of having their
information used for research purposes.

*Response:* We agree with these commenters for the reasons discussed
above.

*IRB and Privacy Board Review*

*Comments:* The NPRM imposed no requirements for the location or
sponsorship of the IRB or privacy board. One commenter supported the
proposed approach to permit covered entities to rely on documentation of
a waiver by a IRB or privacy board that was convened by the covered
entity, the researcher, or another entity.

In contrast, a few commenters recommended that the NPRM require that the
IRB or privacy board be outside of the entity conducting the research,
although the rationale for these recommendations was not provided.
Several industry and consumer groups alternatively recommended that the
regulation require that privacy boards be based at the covered entity.
These comments argued that Aif the privacy board is to be based at the
entity receiving data, and that entity is not a covered entity, there
will be little ability to enforce the regulation or study the
effectiveness of the standards.@

*Response:* We agree with the comment supporting the proposed rule=s
provision to impose no requirements for the location or sponsorship of
the IRB or privacy board that was convened to review a research proposal
for the alteration or waiver of authorization criteria. In the absence
of a rationale, we were not persuaded by the comments asserting that the
IRB or privacy board should be convened outside of the covered entity.
In addition, while we agree with the comments that asserted HHS would
have a greater ability to enforce the rule if a privacy board was
established at the covered entity rather than an uncovered entity, we
concluded that the additional burden that such a requirement would place
on covered entities was unwarranted. Furthermore, under the Common Rule
and FDA=s protection of human subjects regulations, IRB review often
occurs at the site of the recipient researchers= institution, and it was
not our intent to change this practice. Therefore, in the final rule, we
continue to impose no requirements for the location or sponsorship of
the IRB or privacy board.

*Privacy Board Membership*

*Comment:* Some commenters were concerned that the proposed composition
of the privacy board did not adequately address potential conflicts of
interest of the board members, particularly since the proposed rule
would have permitted the board=s Aunaffiliated@ member to be affiliated
with the entity disclosing the protected health information for research
purposes. To address this concern, some commenters recommended that the
required composition of privacy boards be modified to require A\...at
least one member who is not affiliated with the entity receiving or
disclosing protected health information.@ These commenters believed that
this addition would be more sound and more consistent with the Common
Rule=s requirements for the composition of IRBs. Furthermore, it was
argued that this requirement would prohibit covered entities from
creating a privacy board comprised entirely of its own employees.

*Response:* We agree with these comments. In the final rule we have
revised the proposed membership for privacy board to reduce potential
conflict of interest among board members. The final rule requires that
documentation of alteration or waiver from a privacy board, is only
valid under \' 164.512(i) if the privacy board includes at least one
member who is not affiliated with the covered entity, not affiliated
with any entity conducting or sponsoring the research, and not related
to a person who is affiliated which such entities.

*Comment:* One commenter recommended that privacy boards be required to
include more than one unaffiliated member to address concerns about
conflict of interest among members.

*Response:* We disagree that privacy boards should be required to
include more than one unaffiliated member. We believe that the revised
membership criterion for the unaffiliated member of the privacy board,
and the criterion that requires that the board have no member
participating in a review of any project in which the member has a
conflict of interest, are sufficient to ensure that no member of the
board has a conflict of interest in a research proposal under their
review.

*Comment:* Many commenters also recommended that the membership of
privacy boards be required to be more similar to that of IRBs. These
commenters were concerned that privacy boards, as described in the
proposed rule, would not have the needed expertise to adequately review
and oversee research involving the use of protected health information.
A few of these commenters also recommended that IRBs be required to have
at least one member trained in privacy or security matters.

*Response:* We disagree with the comments asserting that the membership
of privacy boards should be required be more similar to IRBs. Unlike
IRBs, privacy boards only have responsibility for reviewing research
proposals that involve the use or disclosure of protected health
information without authorization. We agree, however, that the proposed
rule may not have ensured that the a privacy board had the necessary
expertise to protect adequately individuals= privacy rights and
interests. Therefore, in the final rule, we have modified one of the
membership criteria for privacy board to require that the board has
members with varying backgrounds and appropriate professional competency
as necessary to review the effect of the research protocol on the
individual=s privacy rights and related interests.

*Comment:* Two commenters recommended that IRBs and privacy boards be
required to include patient advocates.

*Response:* The Secretary=s legal authority under HIPAA does not permit
HHS to modify the membership of IRBs. Moreover, we disagree with the
comments recommending that IRBs and privacy board should be required to
include patient advocates. We were not persuaded that patient advocates
are the only persons with the needed expertise to protect patients=
privacy rights and interests. Therefore, in the final rule, we do not
require that patient advocates be included as members of a privacy
board. However, under the final rule, IRBs and privacy board members
could include patient advocates provided they met the required
membership criteria in \' 164.512(i).

*Comment:* A few commenters requested clarification of the term
Aconflict of interest@ as it pertained to the proposed rule=s criteria
for IRB and privacy board membership. In particular, some commenters
recommended that the final rule clarify what degree of involvement in a
research project by a privacy board member would constitute a conflict,
thereby precluding that individual=s participation in a review. One
commenter specifically requested clarification about whether employment
by the covered entity constituted a conflict of interest, particularly
if the covered entity is receiving a financial gain from the conduct of
the research.

*Response:* We understand that determining what constitutes conflict of
interest can be complex. We do not believe that employees of covered
entities or employees of the research institution requesting protected
health information for research purposes are *necessarily* conflicted,
even if those employees may benefit financially from the research.
However, there are many factors that should be considered in assessing
whether a member of an IRB has a conflict of interest, including
financial and intellectual conflicts.

As part of a separate, but related effort to the final rule, during the
summer of 2000, HHS held a conference on human subject protection and
financial conflicts of interest. In addition, HHS solicited comments
from the public about financial conflicts of interest associated with
human subjects research for researchers, IRB members and staff, and
research sponsors. The findings from the conference and the public
comments received are forming the basis for guidance that HHS is now
developing on financial conflicts of interest.

*Privacy Training for IRB and Privacy Boards*

*Comment:* A few commenters expressed support for training IRB members
and chairs about privacy issues, recommending that such training either
be required or that it be encouraged in the final rule.

*Response:* We agree with these comments and thus encourage institutions
that administer IRBs and privacy boards to ensure that the members of
these boards are adequately trained to protect the privacy rights and
welfare of individuals about whom protected health information is used
for research purposes. In the final rule, we require that privacy board
members have varying backgrounds and appropriate professional competency
as necessary to review the effect of the research protocol on the
individual=s privacy rights and related interests. We believe that this
criterion for privacy board membership requires that members already
have the necessary knowledge or that they be trained to address privacy
issues that arise in the conduct of research that involves the use of
protected health information. In addition, we note that the Common Rule
(\' \_\_\_.107(a)) already imposes a general requirement that IRB
members posses adequate training and experience to adequately evaluate
the research which it reviews. IRBs are also authorized to obtain the
services of consultants (\' \_\_\_.107(f)) to provide expertise not
available on the IRB. We believe that these existing requirements in the
Common Rule already require that an IRB have the necessary privacy
expertise.

*Waiver Criteria*

*Comment:* A large number of comments supported the proposed rule=s
criteria for the waiver of authorization by an IRB or privacy board.

*Response:* While we agree that several of the waiver criteria should be
retained in the final rule, we have made changes to the waiver criteria
to address some of the comments we received on specific criteria. These
reason for these changes are discussed in the response to comments
below.

*Comment:* In addition to the proposed waiver criteria, several
commenters recommended that the final rule also instruct IRBs and
privacy boards to consider the type of protected health information and
the sensitivity of the information to be disclosed in determining
whether to grant a waiver, in whole or in part, of the authorization
requirements.

*Response:* We agree with these comments, but believe that the
requirement to consider the type and sensitivity of protected health
information was already encompassed by the proposed waiver criteria. We
encourage and expect that IRBs and privacy boards will take into
consideration the type and sensitivity of protected health information,
as appropriate, in considering the waiver criteria included in the final
rule.

*Comment:* Many commenters were concerned that the criteria were not
appropriate in the context of privacy risks and recommended that the
waiver criteria be rewritten to more precisely focus on the protection
of patient privacy. In addition, some commenters argued that the
proposed waiver criteria were redundant with the Common Rule and were
confusing because they mix elements of the Common Rule=s waiver
criteriaCsome of which they argued were relevant only to interventional
research. In particular, a number of commenters raised these concerns
about proposed criterion (ii). Some of these commenters suggested that
the word Aprivacy@ be inserted before Arights.@

*Response:* We agree with these comments. To focus all of the criterion
on individuals= privacy interests, in the final rule, we have modified
one of the proposed waiver criteria, eliminated one proposed criterion,
and added an additional criterion : (1) the proposed criterion which
stated, Athe waiver will not adversely affect the rights and welfare of
the subjects,@ has been revised in the final rule as follows: Athe
alteration or waiver will not adversely affect the privacy rights and
the welfare of the individuals;@ (2) the proposed criterion which
stated, Awhenever appropriate, the subjects will be provided with
additional pertinent information after participation,@ has been
eliminated; and (3) a criterion has been added in the final rule which
states, Athere are adequate written assurances that the protected health
information will not be re-used or disclosed to any other person or
entity, except as required by law, for authorized oversight of the
research project, or for other research for which the use or disclosure
of protected health information would be permitted by this subpart.@ In
addressing these criteria, we expect that IRBs and privacy boards will
not only consider the immediate privacy interests of the individual that
would arise from the proposed research study, but also the possible
implications from a loss of privacy, such as the loss of employment,
loss or change in cost of health insurance, and social stigma.

*Comment:* A number of commenters were concerned about the interaction
between the proposed rule and the Common Rule. One commenter opposed the
four proposed waiver criteria which differed from the Common Rule=s
criteria for the waiver of informed consent (\' \_\_\_.116(d)) on the
grounds that the four criteria proposed in addition to the Common Rule=s
waiver criteria would apply only to the research use and disclosure of
protected health information by covered entities. This commenter argued
that this would lead to different standards for the protection of other
kinds of individually identifiable health information used in research
that will fall outside of the scope of the final rule. This commenter
concluded that this inconsistency would be difficult for IRBs to
administer, difficult for IRB members to distinguish, and would be
ethically questionable. For these reasons, many commenters recommended
that the final rule should permit the waiver criteria of the Common
Rule, to be used in lieu of the waiver criteria identified in the
proposed rule.

*Response:* We disagree with the comments recommending that the waiver
criteria of the Common Rule should be permitted to be used in lieu of
the waiver criteria identified in the proposed rule. The Common Rule=s
waiver criteria were designed to protect research subjects from all
harms associated with research, not specifically to protect individuals=
privacy interests. We understand that the waiver criteria in the final
rule may initially cause confusion for IRBs and researchers that must
attend to both the final rule and the Common Rule, but we believe that
the additional waiver criteria adopted in the final rule are essential
to ensure that individuals= privacy rights and welfare are adequately
safeguarded when protected health information about themselves is used
for research without their authorization. We agree that ensuring that
the privacy rights and welfare of all human subjectsCinvolved in all
forms of researchCis ethically required, and the new Office of Human
Research Protection will immediately initiate plans to review the
confidentiality provisions of the Common Rule.

In addition, at the request of the President, the National Bioethics
Advisory Commission has begun an examination of the current federal
human system for the protection of human subjects in research. The
current scope of the federal regulatory protections for protecting human
subjects in research is just one of the issues that will be addressed in
the by the Commission=s report, and the Department looks forward to
receiving the Commission=s recommendations.

CONCERNS ABOUT SPECIFIC WAIVER CRITERIA

*Comment:* One commenter argued that the term Awelfare@ was vague and
recommended that it be deleted from the proposed waiver of authorization
criterion which stated, Athe waiver will not adversely affect the rights
and welfare of the subjects.@

*Response:* We disagree with the comment recommending that the final
rule eliminate the term Awelfare@ from this waiver criterion. As
discussed in the National Bioethics Advisory Commission=s 1999 report
entitled, AResearch Involving Human Biological Materials: Ethical Issues
and Policy Guidance,@ AFailure to obtain consent may adversely affect
the rights and welfare of subjects in two basic ways. First, the subject
may be improperly denied the opportunity to choose whether to assume the
risks that the research presents, and second, the subject may be harmed
or wronged as a result of his or her involvement in research to which he
or she has not consented\....Subjects= interest in controlling
information about themselves is tied to their interest in, for example,
not being stigmatized and not being discriminated against in employment
and insurance.@ Although this statement by the Commission was made in
the context of research involving human biological materials, we believe
research that involves the use of protected health information similarly
requires that social and psychological harms be considered when
assessing whether an alteration or waiver will adversely affect the
privacy rights and welfare of individuals. We believe it would be
insufficient to attend only to individuals= privacy Arights@ since some
of the harms that could result from a breach of privacy, such as
stigmatization, and discrimination in employment or insurance, may not
be tied directly to an individuals= Arights,@ but would have a
significant impact on their welfare. Therefore, in the final rule, we
have retained the term Awelfare@ in this criterion for the alteration or
waiver of authorization but modified the criterion as follows to focus
more specifically on privacy concerns and to clarify that it pertains to
alterations of authorization: Athe alteration or waiver will not
adversely affect the privacy rights and the welfare of the individual.@

*Comment:* A few commenters recommended that the proposed waiver
criteria that stated, Athe research could not practicably be conducted
without the waiver,@ be modified to eliminate the term Apracticably.@
These commenters believed that determining Apracticably@ was subjective
and that its elimination would facilitate IRBs= and privacy boards=
implementation of this criterion. In addition, one commenter was
concerned that this term could be construed to require authorization if
enough weight is given to a privacy interest, and little weight is given
to cost or administrative burden. This commenter recommended that the
criterion be changed to allow a waiver if the Adisclosure is necessary
to accomplish the research or statistical purpose for which the
disclosure is to be made.@

*Response:* We disagree with the comments recommending that the term
Apracticability@ be deleted from this waiver criterion. We believe that
an assessment of practicability is necessary to account for research
that may be *possible* to conduct with authorization but that would be
impracticable if authorization were required. For example, in research
study that involves thousands of records, it may be possible to track
down all potential subjects, but doing so may entail costs that would
make the research impracticable. In addition, IRBs have experience
implementing this criterion since it is nearly identical to a waiver
criterion in the Common Rule (\' \_\_\_.116(d)(3)).

We also disagree with the recommendation to change the criterion to
state, Adisclosure is necessary to accomplish the research or
statistical purpose for which the disclosure is to be made.@ We believe
it is essential that consideration be given as to whether it would be
practicable for research to be conducted with authorization in
determining whether a waiver of authorization is justified. If the
research could practicably be conducted with authorization, then
authorization must be sought. Authorization must not be waived simply
for convenience.

Therefore, in the final rule, we have retained this criterion and
clarified that it also applies to alterations of authorization. This
waiver criterion in the final rule states, Athe research could not
practicably be conducted without the alteration or waiver.@

*Comment:* Some commenters argued that the criterion which stated,
Awhenever appropriate, the subjects will be provided with additional
pertinent information after participation,@ should be deleted. Some
comments recommended that the criterion should be deleted for privacy
reasons, arguing that it would be inappropriate to create a reason for
the researcher to contact the individual whose data were analyzed,
without IRB review of the proposed contact as a patient intervention.
Other commenters argued for the deletion of the criterion on grounds
that requiring researchers to contact patients whose records were used
for archival research would be unduly burdensome, while adding little to
the patient=s base of information. Several commenters also argued that
the criterion was not pertinent to non-interventional retrospective
research requiring access to archived protected health information.

In addition, one commenter asserted that this criterion was inconsistent
with the Secretary=s rationale for prohibiting disclosures of Aresearch
information unrelated to treatment@ for purposes other than research.
This commenter argued that the privacy regulations should not mandate
that a covered entity provide information with unknown validity or
utility directly to patients. This commenter recommended that a
patient=s physician, not the researcher, should be the one to contact a
patient to discuss the significance of new research findings for that
individual patient=s care.

*Response:* Although we disagree with the arguments made by commenters
recommending that this criterion be eliminated in the final rule, we
concluded that the criterion was not directly related to ensuring the
privacy rights and welfare of individuals. Therefore, we eliminated this
criterion in the final rule.

*Comment:* A few commenters recommended that the criterion, which
required that Athe research would be impracticable to conduct without
access to and use of the protected health information,@ be deleted
because it would be too subjective to be meaningful.

*Response:* We disagree with comments asserting that this proposed
criterion would be too subjective. We believe that researchers should be
required to demonstrate to an IRB or privacy board why protected health
information is necessary for their research proposal. If a researcher
could practicably use de-identified health information for a research
study, protected health information should not be used or disclosed for
the study without individuals= authorization. Therefore, we retain this
criterion in the final rule. In considering this criterion, we expect
IRBs and privacy boards to consider the amount of information that is
needed for the study. To ensure the covered health care provider or
health plan is informed of what information the IRB or privacy board has
determined may be used or disclosed without authorization, the final
rule also requires that the documentation of IRB or privacy board
approval of the alteration or waiver describe the protected health
information for which use or access has been determined to be necessary.

*Comment:* A large number of comments objected to the proposed waiver
criterion, which stated that, Athe research is of sufficient importance
so as to outweigh the intrusion of the privacy of the individual whose
information is subject to the disclosure.@ The majority of these
commenters argued that the criterion was overly subjective, and that due
to its subjectivity, IRBs and privacy boards would inevitably apply it
inconsistently. Several commenters asserted that this criterion was
unsound in that it would impose on reviewing bodies the explicit
requirement to form and debate conflicting value judgments about the
relative weights of the research proposal versus an individual=s right
to privacy. Furthermore these commenters argued that this criterion was
also unnecessary because the Common Rule already has a requirement that
deals with this issue more appropriately. In addition, one commenter
argued that the rule eliminate this criterion because common purposes
should not override individual rights in a democratic society. Based on
these arguments, these commenters recommended that this criterion be
deleted.

*Response:* We disagree that it is inappropriate to ask IRBs and privacy
boards to ensure that there is a just balance between the expected
benefits and risks to individual participants from the research. As
noted by several commenters, IRBs currently conduct such a balancing of
risks and benefits because the Common Rule contains a similar criterion
for the approval of human subjects research (\' \_\_\_.111(a)(2)).
However, we disagree with the comments asserting that the proposed
criterion was unnecessary because the Common Rule already contains a
similar criterion. The Common Rule does not explicitly address the
privacy interests of research participants and does not apply to all
research that involves the use or disclosure of protected health
information. However, we agree that the relevant Common Rule criterion
for the approval of human subjects research provides better guidance to
IRBs and privacy boards for assessing the privacy risks and benefits of
a research proposal. Therefore, in the final rule, we modeled the
criterion on the relevant Common Rule requirement for the approval of
human subjects research, and revised the proposed criterion to state:
Athe privacy risks to individuals whose protected health information is
to be used or disclosed are reasonable in relation to the anticipated
benefits if any to the individuals, and the importance of the knowledge
that may reasonably be expected to result from the research.@

*Comment:* One commenter asserted that as long as the research
organization has adequate privacy protections in place to keep the
information from being further disclosed, it is unnecessary for the IRB
or privacy board to make a judgment on whether the value of the research
outweighs the privacy intrusion.

*Response:* The Department disagrees with the assertion that adequate
safeguards of protected health information are sufficient to ensure that
the privacy rights and welfare of individuals are adequately protected.
We believe it is imperative that there be an assessment of the privacy
risks and anticipated benefits of a research study that proposes to use
protected health information without authorization. For example, if a
research study was so scientifically flawed that it would provide no
useful knowledge, any risk to patient privacy that might result from the
use or disclosure of protected health information without individuals=
authorization would be too great.

*Comment:* A few commenters asserted that the proposed criterion
requiring Aan adequate plan to destroy the identifiers at the earliest
opportunity consistent with the conduct of the research, unless there is
a health or research justification for retaining identifiers,@
conflicted with the regulations of the FDA on clinical record keeping
(21 CFR 812.140(d)) and the International Standard Organization on
control of quality records (ISO 13483, 4.16), which require that
relevant data be kept for the life of a device.

In addition, one commenter asserted that this criterion could prevent
follow up care. Similarly, other commenters argued that the new waiver
criteria would be likely to confuse IRBs and may impair researchers=
ability to go back to IRBs to request extensions of time for which
samples or data can be stored if researchers are unable to anticipate
future uses of the data

*Response:* We do not agree with the comment that there is a conflict
between either the FDA or the ISO regulations and the proposed waiver
criteria in the rule. We believe that compliance with such recordkeeping
requirements would be Aconsistent with the conduct of research@ which is
subject to such requirements. Nonetheless, to avoid any confusion, in
the final rule we have added the phrase Aor such retention is otherwise
required by law@ to this waiver criterion.

We also disagree with the comments that this criterion would prevent
follow up care to individuals or unduly impair researchers from
retaining identifiers on data for future research. We believe that
patient care would qualify as a Ahealth\...justification for retaining
identifiers.@ In addition, we understand that researchers may not always
be able to anticipate that the protected health information they receive
from a covered health care provider or health plan for one research
project may be useful for the conduct of future research studies.
However, we believe that the concomitant risk to patient privacy of
permitting researchers to retain identifiers they obtained without
authorization would undermine patient trust, unless researchers could
identify a health or research justification for retaining the
identifiers. In the final rule, an IRB or privacy board is not required
to establish a time limit on a researcher=s retention of identifiers.

ADDITIONAL WAIVER CRITERIA

*Comment:* A few comments recommended that there be a additional waiver
criterion to safeguard or limit subsequent use or disclosure of
protected health information by the researcher.

*Response:* We agree with these comments. In the final rule, we include
a waiver criterion requiring Athere are adequate written assurances that
the protected health information will not be re-used or disclosed to any
other person or entity, except as required by law, for authorized
oversight of the research project, or for other research for which the
use or disclosure of protected health information would be permitted by
this subpart.@

*Waiving Authorization, in Whole or in Part*

*Comment:* A few commenters requested that the final rule clarify what
Ain whole or in part@ means if authorization is waived or altered.

*Response:* In the proposed rule, it was HHS= intent to permit IRBs and
privacy boards to either waive *all* of the elements for authorization,
or alternatively, waive only *some* of the elements of authorization.
Furthermore, we also intended to permit IRBs and privacy boards to alter
the authorization requirements. Therefore, in the final rule, we clarify
that the alteration to and waiver of authorization, in whole or in part,
are permitted as stipulated in \' 164.512(i).

*Expedited Review*

*Comment:* One commenter asserted that the proposed rule would prohibit
expedited review as permitted under the Common Rule. Many commenters
supported the proposal in the rule to incorporate the Common Rule=s
provision for expedited review, and strongly recommended that this
provision be retained in the final rule. Several of these commenters
argued that the expedited review mechanism provides IRBs with the
much-needed flexibility to focus volunteer-IRB members= limited
resources.

*Response:* We agree that expedited review should be available, and
included a provision permitting expedited review under specified
conditions. We understand that the National Bioethics Advisory
Commission is currently developing a report on the federal oversight of
human subjects research, which is expected to address the Common Rule=s
requirements for expedited review. HHS looks forward to receiving the
National Bioethics Advisory Commission=s report, and will modify the
provisions for expedited review in the privacy rule if changes are
warranted by the Commission=s findings and recommendations.

*Required Signature*

*Comment:* A few commenters asserted that the proposed requirement that
the written documentation of IRB or privacy board approval be signed by
the chair of the IRB or the privacy board was too restrictive. Some
commenters recommended that the final rule permit the documentation of
IRB or privacy board approval to be signed by persons other than the IRB
or privacy board chair, including: (1) any person authorized to exercise
executive authority under IRB=s or privacy board=s written procedures;
(2) the IRB=s or privacy board=s acting chair or vice chair in the
absence of the chair, if permitted by IRB procedures; and (3) the
covered entity=s privacy official.

*Response:* We agree with the commenters who argued that the final rule
should permit the documentation of IRB or privacy board approval to be
signed by someone other than the chair of the board. In the final rule,
we permit the documentation of alteration or waiver of authorization to
be signed by the chair or other member, as designated by the chair of
the IRB or privacy board, as applicable.

***Research Use and Disclosure with Authorization***

*Comment:* Some commenters, including several industry and consumer
groups, argued that the proposed rule would establish a two-tiered
system for public and private research. Privately funded research
conducted with an authorization for the use or disclosure of protected
health information would not require IRB or privacy board review, while
publically funded research conducted with authorization would require
IRB review as required by the Common Rule. Many of these commenters
argued that authorization is insufficient to protect patients involved
in research studies and recommended that IRB or privacy board review
should be required for all research regardless of sponsor. These
commenters asserted that it is not sufficient to obtain authorization,
and that IRBs and privacy boards should review the authorization
document, and assess the risks and benefits to individuals posed by the
research.

*Response:* For the reasons we rejected the recommendation that we
eliminate the option for privacy board review and require IRB review for
the waiver of authorization, we also decided against requiring
documentation of IRB or privacy board approval for research conducted
with authorization. HHS strongly agrees that IRB review is essential for
the adequate protection of human subjects involved in research,
regardless of whether informed consent and/or individuals= authorization
is obtained. In fact, IRB review may be even more important for research
conducted with subjects= informed consent and authorization since such
research may present greater than minimal risk to participants. However,
HHS= authority under HIPAA is limited to safeguarding the privacy of
protected health information, and does not extend to protecting human
subjects more broadly. Therefore, in the final rule we have not required
documentation of IRB or privacy board review for the research use or
disclosure of protected health information conducted with individuals=
authorization. As mentioned above, HHS looks forward to receiving the
recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, which is
currently examining the current scope of federal regulatory protections
for protecting human subjects in research as part of its overarching
report on the federal oversight of human subjects protections.

*Comment:* Due to concern about several of the elements of
authorization, many commenters recommended that the final rule stipulate
that Ainformed consent@ obtained pursuant to the Common Rule be deemed
to meet the requirements for Aauthorization.@ These commenters argued
that the NPRM=s additional authorization requirements offered no
additional protection to research participants but would be a
substantive impediment to research.

*Response:* We disagree with the comments asserting that the proposed
requirements for authorization for the use or disclosure of protected
health information would have offered research subjects no additional
privacy protection. Because the purposes of authorization and informed
consent differ, the proposed rule=s requirements for authorization
pursuant to a request from a researcher (\' 164.508) and the Common
Rule=s requirements for informed consent (Common Rule, \' \_\_\_.116)
contain important differences. For example, unlike the Common Rule, the
proposed rule would have required that the authorization include a
description of the information to be used or disclosed that identifies
the information in a specific and meaningful way, an expiration date,
and where, use of disclosure of the requested information will result in
financial gain to the entity, a statement that such gain will result. We
believe that the authorization requirements provide individuals with
information necessary to determine whether to authorize a specific use
or disclosure of protected health information about themselves, that are
not required by the Common Rule.

Therefore, in the final rule, we retain the requirement for
authorization for all uses and disclosures of protected health
information not otherwise permitted without authorization by the rule.
Some of the proposed requirements for authorization were modified in the
final rule as discussed in the preamble on \' 164.508. The comments
received on specific proposed elements of authorization as they would
have pertained to research are addressed below.

*Comment:* A number of commenters, including several from industry and
consumer groups, recommended that the final rule require patients=
informed consent as stipulated in the Common Rule. These commenters
asserted that the proposed authorization document was inadequate for
research uses and disclosures of protected health information since it
included fewer elements than required for informed consent under the
Common Rule, including for example, the Common Rule=s requirement that
the informed consent document include: (1) a description of any
reasonably foreseeable risks or discomforts to the subject; (2) a
description of any benefits to the subject or to others which may
reasonably be expected from the research (Common Rule, \'
\_\_\_.116(a)).

*Response:* While we agree that the ethical conduct of research requires
the voluntary informed consent of research subjects, as stipulated in
the Common Rule, as we have stated elsewhere, the privacy rule is
limited to protecting the confidentiality of individually identifiable
health information, and not protecting human subjects more broadly.
Therefore, we believe it would not be within the scope of the final rule
to require informed consent as stipulated by the Common Rule for
research uses and disclosures of protected health information.

*Comment:* Several commenters specifically objected to the authorization
requirement for a Aexpiration date.@ To remedy this concern, many of
these commenters proposed that the rule exempt research from the
requirement for an expiration date if an IRB has reviewed and approved
the research study. In particular, some commenters asserted that the
requirement for an expiration date would be impracticable in the context
of clinical trials, where the duration of the study depends on several
different factors that cannot be predicted in advance. These commenters
argued that determining an exact date would be impossible due to the
legal requirements that manufactures and the Food and Drug
Administration be able to retrospectively audit the source documents
when patient data are used in clinical trials. In addition, some
commenters asserted that a requirement for an expiration date would
force researchers to designate specific expiration dates so far into the
future as to render them meaningless.

*Response:* We agree with commenters that an expiration date is not
always possible or meaningful. In the final rule, we continue to require
an identifiable expiration, but permit it to be a specific date or an
event directly relevant to the individual or the purpose of the
authorization (e.g., for the duration of a specific research study) in
which the individual is a participant.

*Comment:* A number of commenters, including those from the
pharmaceutical industry, were concerned about the authorization
requirement that gave patients the right to revoke consent for
participation in clinical research. These commenters argued that such a
right to revoke authorization for the use of their protected health
information would require complete elimination of the information from
the record. Some stated that in the conduct of clinical trials, the
retrieval of individually identifiable health information that has
already been blinded and anonymized, is not only burdensome, but should
this become a widespread practice, would render the trial invalid. One
commenter suggested that the Secretary modify the proposed regulation to
allow IRBs or privacy boards to determine the duration of authorizations
and the circumstances under which a research participant should be
permitted to retroactively revoke his or her authorization to use data
already collected by the researcher.

*Response:* We agree with these concerns. In the final rule we have
clarified that an individual cannot revoke an authorization to the
extent that action has been taken in reliance on the authorization.
Therefore, if a covered entity has already used or disclosed protected
health information for a research study pursuant to an authorization
obtained as required by \' 164.508, the covered entity is not required
under the rule, unless it agreed otherwise, to destroy protected health
information that was collected, nor retrieve protected health
information that was disclosed under such an authorization. However,
once an individual has revoked an authorization, no additional protected
health information may be used or disclosed unless otherwise permitted
by this rule.

*Comment:* Some commenters were concerned that the authorization
requirement to disclose Afinancial gain@ would be problematic as it
would pertain to research. These commenters asserted that this
requirement could mislead patients and would make it more difficult to
attract volunteers to participate in research. One commenter recommended
that the statement be revised to state Athat the clinical investigator
will be compensated for the value of his/her services in administrating
this clinical trial.@ Another commenter recommended that the
authorization requirement for disclosure of financial gain be defined in
accordance with FDA=s financial disclosure rules.

*Response:* We strongly believe that a requirement for the disclosure of
financial gain is imperative to ensure that individuals are informed
about how and why protected health information about themselves will be
used or disclosed. We agree, however that the language of the proposed
requirement could cause confusion, because most activities involve some
type of financial gain. Therefore, in the final rule, we have modified
the language to provide that when the covered entity initiates the
authorization and the covered entity will receive direct or indirect
remuneration (rather than financial gain) from a third party in exchange
for using or disclosing the health information, the authorization must
include a statement that such remuneration will result.

*Comment:* A few commenters asserted that the requirement to include a
statement in which the patient acknowledged that information used or
disclosed to any entity other than a health plan or health care provider
may no longer be protected by federal privacy law would be inconsistent
with existing protections implemented by IRBs under the Common Rule. In
particular they stated that this inconsistency exists because IRBs are
required to consider the protections in place to protect patients=
confidential information and that IRBs are charged with ensuring that
researchers comply with the confidentiality provisions of the informed
consent document.

*Response:* We disagree that this proposed requirement would pose a
conflict with the Common Rule since the requirement was for a statement
that the Ainformation may no longer be protected by the federal privacy
law.@ This statement does not pertain to the protections provided under
the Common Rule. In addition, while we anticipate that IRBs and privacy
boards will most often waive all or none of the authorization
requirements, we clarify an IRB or privacy board could alter this
requirement, among others, if the documentation requirements of \'
164.512(i) have been met.

***Reviews Preparatory to Research***

*Comment:* Some industry groups expressed concern that the research
provision would prohibit physicians from using patient information to
recruit subjects into clinical trials. These commenters recommended that
researchers continue to have access to hospitals= and clinics= patient
information in order to recruit patients for studies.

*Response:* Under the proposed rule, even if the researcher only viewed
the medical record at the site of the covered entity and did not record
the protected health information in a manner that patients could be
identified, such an activity would have constituted a use or disclosure
that would have been subject to proposed \' 164.508 or proposed \'
164.510. Based on the comments received and the fact finding we
conducted with the research community, we concluded that documentation
of IRB or privacy board approval could halt the development of research
hypotheses that require access to protected health information before a
formal protocol can be developed and brought to an IRB or privacy board
for approval. To avoid this unintended result, the final rule permits
covered health care providers and health plans to use or disclose
protected health information for research if the covered entity obtains
from the researcher representations that: (1) use or disclosure is
sought solely to review protected health information as necessary to
prepare a research protocol or for similar purposes preparatory to
research; (2) no protected health information is to be removed from the
covered entity by the researcher in the course of the review; and (3)
the protected health information for which use or access is sought is
necessary for the research purposes.

*Comment:* A few commenters asserted that the final rule should
eliminate the possibility that research requiring access to protected
health information could be determined to be Aexempt@ from IRB review,
as provided by the Common Rule (\' \_\_\_.101(b)(4)).

*Response:* The rule did not propose nor intend to modify any aspect of
the Common Rule, including the provision that exempts from coverage,
Aresearch involving the collection or study of existing data, documents,
records, pathological specimens, or diagnostic specimens, if these
sources are publically available, or if the information is recorded by
the investigator in such a manner that subjects cannot be identified,
directly or indirectly through identifiers linked to the subjects@ (\'
\_\_\_.101(b)(4)). For the reasons discussed above, we have included a
provision in the final rule for reviews preparatory to research that was
modeled on this exemption to the Common Rule.

***Deceased Persons Exception for Research***

*Comment:* A few commenters expressed support for the proposal to allow
use and disclosure of protected health information about decedents for
research purposes without the protections afforded to the protected
health information of living individuals. One commenter, for example,
explained that it extensively uses such information in its research, and
any restrictions were likely to impede its efforts. Alternately, a
number of commenters provided arguments for eliminating the research
exception for deceased persons. They commented that the same concerns
regarding use and disclosure of genetic and hereditary information for
other purposes apply in the research context. They believed that in many
cases the risk of identification was greater in the research context
because researchers may attempt to identify genetic and hereditary
conditions of the deceased. Finally, they argued that while information
of the deceased does not necessarily identify living relatives by name,
living relatives could be identified and suffer the same harm as if
their own medical records were used or disclosed for research purposes.
Another commenter stated that the exception was unnecessary, and that
existing research could and should proceed under the requirements in
proposed \' 164.510 that dictated the IRB/privacy board approval process
or be conducted using de-identified information. This commenter further
stated that in this way, at least there would be some degree of
assurance that all reasonable steps are taken to protect deceased
persons= and their families= confidentiality.

*Response:* Although we understand the concerns raised by commenters, we
believe those concerns are outweighed by the need to keep the
research-related policies in this rule as consistent as possible with
standard research practice under the Common Rule, which does not
consider deceased persons to be Ahuman subjects.@ Thus, we retain the
exception in the final rule. With regard to the protected health
information about a deceased individual, therefore, a covered entity is
permitted to use or disclose such information for research purposes
without obtaining authorization from a personal representative and
absent approval by an IRB or privacy board as governed by \' 164.512(i).
We note that the National Bioethics Advisory Committee (NBAC) is
currently considering revising the Common Rule=s definition of Ahuman
subject@ with regard to coverage of the deceased. However, at this time,
NBAC=s deliberations on this issue are not yet completed and any
reliance on such discussions would be premature.

The final rule requires at \' 164.512(i)(1)(iii) that covered entities
obtain from the researcher (1) representation that the use or disclosure
is sought solely for research on the protected health information of
decedents; (2) documentation, at the request of the covered entity, of
the death of such individuals; and (3) representation that the protected
health information for which use or disclosure is sought is necessary
for the research purposes. It is our intention with this change to
reduce the burden and ambiguity on the part of the covered entity to
determine whether or not the request is for protected health information
of a deceased individual.

*Comment:* Some commenters, in their support of the research exception,
requested that HHS clarify in the final rule that protected health
information obtained during the donation process of eyes and eye tissue
could continue to be used or disclosed to or by eye banks for research
purposes without an authorization and without IRB approval. They
expressed concern over the impediments to this type of research these
approvals would impose, such as added administrative burden and
vulnerabilities to the time sensitive nature of the process.

Another commenter similarly expressed the position that, with regard to
uses and disclosures of protected health information for tissue, fluid,
or organ donation, the regulation should not present an obstacle to the
transfer of donations unsuitable for transplant to the research
community. However, they believed that consent can be obtained for such
purposes since the donor or donor=s family must generally consent to any
transplant purposes, it would seem to be a minimal additional obligation
to seek consent for research purposes at the same time, should the
material be unsuitable for transplant.

*Response:* Protected health information about a deceased individual,
including information related to eyes and eye tissue, can be used or
disclosed further for research purposes by a covered entity in
accordance with \' 164.512(i)(1)(iii) without authorization or IRB or
privacy board approval. This rule does not address whether organs
unsuitable for transplant may be transferred to researchers with or
without consent.

***Modification of the Common Rule***

*Comment*: We received a number of comments that interpreted the
proposed rule as having unnecessarily and inappropriately amended the
Common Rule. Assuming that the Common Rule was being modified, these
comments argued that the rule was legally deficient under the
Administrative Procedures Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and other
controlling Executive orders or laws.

In addition, one research organization expressed concern that, by
involving IRBs in the process of approving a waiver of authorization for
disclosure purposes and establishing new criteria for such waiver
approvals, the proposed rule would have subjected covered entities whose
IRBs failed to comply with the requirements for reviewing and approving
research to potential sanctions under HIPAA. The comment recommended
that the rule be changed to eliminate such a punitive result.
Specifically, the comment recommended that the existing Common Rule
structure be preserved for IRB‑approved research, and that the waiver of
authorization criteria for privacy purposes be kept separate from the
other the functions of the IRB.

*Response:* We disagree with the comments asserting the proposed rule
attempted to change the Common Rule. It was not our intent to modify or
amend the Common Rule or to regulate the activities of the IRBs with
respect to the underlying research. We therefore reject the comments
about legal deficiencies in the rule which are based on the mistaken
perception that the Common Rule was being amended. The proposed rule
established new requirements for covered entities before they could use
or disclose protected health information for research without
authorization. The proposed rule provided that one method by which a
covered entity could obtain the necessary documentation was to receive
it from an IRB. We did not mandate IRBs to perform such reviews, and we
expressly provided for means other than through IRBs for covered
entities to obtain the required documentation.

In the final rule, we also have clarified our intent not to interfere
with existing requirements for IRBs by amending the language in the
waiver criteria to make clear that these criteria relate to the privacy
interests of the individual and are separate from the criteria that
would be applied by an IRB to any evaluation of the underlying research.
Moreover, we have restructured the final rule to also make clear that we
are regulating only the content and conditions of the documentation upon
which a covered entity may rely in making a disclosure of protected
health information for research purposes.

We cannot and do not purport to regulate IRBs or modify the Common Rule
through this regulation. We cannot under this rule penalize an IRB for
failure to comply with the Common Rule, nor can we sanction an IRB based
on the documentation requirements in the rule. Health plans and covered
health care providers may rely on documentation from an IRB or privacy
board concerning the alteration or waiver of authorization for the
disclosure of protected health information for research purposes,
provided the documentation, on its face, meets the requirements in the
rule. Health plans and covered health care providers will not be
penalized for relying on facially adequate documentation from an IRB.
Health plans and covered health providers will only be penalized for
their own errors or omissions in following the requirements of the rule,
and not those of the IRB.

***Use Versus Disclosure***

*Comment:* Many of the comments supported the proposed rule=s provision
that would have imposed the same requirements for both research uses and
research disclosures of protected health information.

*Response:* We agree with these comments. In the final rule we retain
identical use and disclosure requirements for research uses and
disclosures of protected health information by covered entities.

*Comment:* In contrast, a few commenters recommended that there be fewer
requirements on covered entities for internal research uses of protected
health information.

*Response:* For the reasons discussed above in \' 164.501 on the
definition of Aresearch,@ we disagree that an individual=s privacy
interest is of less concern when covered entities use protected health
information for research purposes than when covered entities disclose
protected health information for research purposes. Therefore, in the
final rule, the research-related requirements of \' 164.512(i) apply to
both uses and disclosures of protected health information for research
purposes without authorization.

***Additional Resources for IRBs***

*Comment:* A few commenters recommended that HHS work to provide
additional resources to IRBs to assist them in meeting their new
responsibilities.

*Response:* This recommendation is beyond our statutory authority under
HIPAA, and therefore, cannot be addressed by the final rule. However, we
fully agree that steps should be taken to moderate the workload of IRBs
and to ensure adequate resources for their activities. Through the
Office for Human Research Protections, the Department is committed to
working with institutions and IRBs to identify efficient ways to
optimize utilization of resources, and is committed to developing
guidelines for appropriate staffing and workload levels for IRBs.

***Additional Suggested Requirements***

*Comment:* One commenter recommended that the documentation of IRB or
privacy board approval also be required to state that, Athe health
researcher has fully disclosed which of the protected health information
to be collected or created would be linked to other protected health
information, and that appropriate safeguards be employed to protect
information against re-identification or subsequent unauthorized
linkages.@

*Response:* The proposed provision for the use or disclosure of
protected health information for research purposes without authorization
only pertained to individually identifiable health information.
Therefore, since the information to be obtained would be individually
identifiable, we concluded that it was illogical to require IRBs and
privacy boards document that the researcher had Afully disclosed
that\...appropriate safeguards be employed to protect information
against re-identification or subsequent unauthorized linkages.@
Therefore, we did not incorporate this recommendation into the final
rule.

**Section 164.512(j)CUses and Disclosures to Avert a Serious Threat to
Health or Safety**

*Comment:* Several commenters generally stated support for proposed \'
164.510(k), which was titled AUses and Disclosures in Emergency
Circumstances.@ One commenter said that Anarrow exceptions to
confidentiality should be permitted for emergency situations such as
duty to warn, duty to protect, and urgent law enforcement needs.@
Another commented that the standard A\...based on a reasonable belief
that the disclosures are necessary to prevent or lessen a serious and
imminent threat to the health or safety of an individual@ would apply in
only narrow treatment circumstances. Some commenters suggested that the
provision be further narrowed, for example, with language specifically
identifying Aimminent threats@ and a Achain-of-command clearance
process,@ or by limiting permissible disclosures under this provision to
Apublic health emergencies,@ or Anational emergencies.@ Others proposed
procedural requirements, such as specifying that such determinations may
only be made by the patient=s treating physician, a licensed mental
health care professional, or as validated by three physicians. One
commenter recommended stating that the rule is not intended to create a
duty to warn or to disclose protected health information but rather
permits such disclosure in emergency circumstances, consistent with
other applicable legal or ethical standards.

*Response:* We agree with the commenters who noted that the proposed
provision would apply in rare circumstances. We clarify, however, that
we did not intend for the proposed provision to apply to emergency
*treatment* scenarios as discussed below. In the final rule, to avoid
confusion over the circumstances in which we intend this section to
apply, we retitle it AUses and Disclosures to Avert a Serious Threat to
Health or Safety.@

We do not believe it would be appropriate to narrow further the scope of
permissible disclosures under this section to respond to specifically
identified Aimminent threats,@ a Apublic health emergency,@ or a
Anational emergency.@ We believe it would be impossible to enumerate all
of the scenarios that may warrant disclosure of protected health
information pursuant to this section. Such cases may involve a small
number of people and may not necessarily involve a public health
emergency or a national emergency.

Furthermore, in response to comments arguing that the proposed provision
was too broad, we note that under both the NPRM and the final rule, we
allow but do not require disclosures in situations involving serious and
imminent threats to health or safety. Health plans and covered health
care providers may make the disclosures allowed under \' 164.512(j)
consistent with applicable law and standards of ethical conduct.

As indicated in the preamble to the NPRM, the proposed approach is
consistent with statutory and case law addressing this issue. The most
well-known case on the topic is *Tarasoff v. Regents of the University
of California,* 17 Cal. 3d 425 (1976), which established a duty to warn
those at risk of harm when a therapist=s patient made credible threats
against the physical safety of a specific person. The Supreme Court of
California found that the therapist involved in the case had an
obligation to use reasonable care to protect the intended victim of his
patient against danger, including warning the victim of the peril. Many
states have adopted, in statute or through case law, versions of the
*Tarasoff* duty to warn or protect. Although *Tarasoff* involved a
psychiatrist, this provision is not limited to disclosures by
psychiatrists or other mental health professionals. As stated in the
preamble of the NPRM, we clarify that \' 164.512(j) is not intended to
create a duty to warn or disclose protected health information.

*Comment:* Several comments addressed the portion of proposed \'
164.510(k) that would have provided a presumption of reasonable belief
to covered entities that disclosed protected health information pursuant
to this provision, when such disclosures were made in good faith, based
on credible representation by a person with apparent knowledge or
authority. Some commenters recommended that this standard be applied to
all permissible disclosures without consent or to such disclosures to
law enforcement officials.

Alternatively, a group representing health care provider management
firms believed that the proposed presumption of reasonable belief would
not have provided covered entities with sufficient protection from
liability exposure associated with improper uses or disclosures. This
commenter recommended that a general good-faith standard apply to
covered entities= decisions to disclose protected health information to
law enforcement officials. A health plan said that HHS should consider
applying the standard of reasonable belief to all uses and disclosures
that would have been allowed under proposed \' 164.510. Another
commenter questioned how the good-faith presumption would apply if the
information came from a confidential informant or from a person rather
than a doctor, law enforcement official, or government official. (The
NPRM listed doctors, law enforcement officials, and other government
officials as examples of persons who may make credible representations
pursuant to this section.)

*Response:* As discussed above, this provision is intended to apply in
rare circumstancesCcircumstances that occur much less frequently than
those described in other parts of the rule. Due to the importance of
averting serious and imminent threats to health and safety, we believe
it is appropriate to apply a presumption of good faith to covered
entities disclosing protected health information under this section. We
believe that the extremely time-sensitive and urgent conditions
surrounding the need to avert a serious and imminent threat to the
health or safety are fundamentally different from those involved in
disclosures that may be made pursuant to other sections of the rule.
Therefore, we do not believe it would be appropriate to apply to other
sections of the rule the presumption of good faith that applies in \'
164.512(j). We clarify that we intend for the presumption of good faith
to apply if the disclosure is made in good faith based upon a credible
representation by *any* person with apparent knowledge or authorityCnot
just by doctors, law enforcement or other government officials. Our
listing of these persons in the NPRM was illustrative only, and it was
not intended to limit the types of persons who could make such a
credible representation to a covered entity.

*Comment:* One commenter questioned under what circumstances proposed \'
164.510(k) would apply instead of proposed \' 164.510(f)(5), AUrgent
Circumstances,@ which permitted covered entities to disclose protected
health information to law enforcement officials about individuals who
are or are suspected to be victims of a crime, abuse, or other harm, if
the law enforcement official represents that the information is needed
to determine whether a violation of law by a person other than the
victim has occurred and immediate law enforcement activity that depends
upon obtaining such information may be necessary.

*Response*: First, we note that inclusion of this provision as \'
164.510(f)(5)(5) was a drafting error which subsequently was clarified
in technical corrections to the NPRM. In fact, proposed \' 164.510(f)(3)
addressed the identical circumstances, which in this subsection were
titled AInformation about a Victim of Crime or Abuse.@ The scenarios
described under \' 164.510(f)(3) may or may not involve serious and
imminent threats to health or safety.

Second, as discussed in the main section of the preamble to \'
164.512(j), we recognize that in some situations, more than one section
of this rule potentially could apply with respect to a covered entity=s
potential disclosure of protected health information. We clarify that if
a situation fits one section of the rule (e.g., \' 164.512(j) on serious
and imminent threats to health or safety), health plans and covered
health care providers may disclose protected health information pursuant
to that section, regardless of whether the disclosure also could be made
pursuant to another section (e.g., \'\' 164.512(f)(2) or 164.512(f)(3),
regarding disclosure of protected health information about suspects or
victims to law enforcement officials), except as otherwise stated in the
rule.

*Comment:* A state health department indicated that the disclosures
permitted under this section may be seen as conflicting with existing
law in many states.

*Response:* As indicated in the regulation text for \' 164.512(j), this
section allows disclosure consistent with applicable law and standards
of ethical conduct. We do not preempt any state law that would prohibit
disclosure of protected health information in the circumstances to which
this section applies. (See Part 160, Subpart B.)

*Comment:* Many commenters stated that the rule should require that any
disclosures should not modify Aduty to warn@ case law or statutes.

*Response:* The rule does not affect case law or statutes regarding
Aduty to warn.@ In \' 164.512(j), we specifically permit covered
entities to disclose protected health information without authorization
for the purpose of protecting individuals from imminent threats to
health and safety, consistent with state laws and ethical obligations.

**Section 164.512(k)CUses and Disclosures for Specialized Government
Functions**

***Military Purposes***

*Armed Forces Personnel and Veterans*

*Comment:* A few comments opposed the proposed rule=s provisions on the
military, believing that they were too broad. Although acknowledging
that the Armed Forces may have legitimate needs for access to protected
health data, the commenters believed that the rule failed to provide
adequate procedural protections to individuals. A few comments said
that, except in limited circumstances or emergencies, covered entities
should be required to obtain authorization before using or disclosing
protected health information. A few comments also expressed concern over
the proposed rule=s lack of specific safeguards to protect the health
information of victims of domestic violence and abuse. While the
commenters said they understood why the military needed access to health
information, they did not believe the rule would impede such access by
providing safeguards for victims of domestic violence or abuse.

*Response:* We note that the military comprises a unique society and
that members of the Armed Forces do not have the same freedoms as do
civilians. The Supreme Court held in *Goldman v. Weinberger*, 475 US 503
(1986), that the military must be able to command its members to
sacrifice a great many freedoms enjoyed by civilians and to endure
certain limits on the freedoms they do enjoy. The Supreme Court also
held in *Parker v. Levy*, 417 US 733 (1974), that the different
character of the military community and its mission required a different
application of Constitutional protections. What is permissible in the
civilian world may be impermissible in the military. We also note that
individuals entering military service are aware that they will not have,
and enjoy, the same rights as others.

The proposed rule would have authorized covered entities to use and
disclose protected health information about armed forces personnel only
for activities considered necessary by appropriate military command
authorities to assure the proper execution of the military mission. In
order for the military mission to be achieved and maintained, military
command authorities need protected health information to make
determinations regarding individuals= medical fitness to perform
assigned military duties.

The proposed rule required the Department of Defense (DoD) to publish a
notice in the *Federal Register* identifying its intended uses and
disclosures of protected health information, and we have retained this
approach in the final rule. This notice will serve to limit command
authorities= access to protected health information to circumstances in
which disclosure of protected health information is necessary to assure
proper execution of the military mission.

With respect to comments regarding the lack of procedural safeguards for
individuals, including those who are victims of domestic violence and
abuse, we note that the rule does not provide new authority for covered
entities providing health care to individuals who are Armed Forces
personnel to use and disclose protected health information. Rather, the
rule allows the Armed Forces to use and disclose such information only
for those military mission purposes which will be published separately
in the *Federal Register*. In addition, we note that the Privacy Act of
1974, as implemented by the DoD, provides numerous protections to
individuals.

We modify the proposal to publish privacy rules for the military in the
*Federal Register*. The NPRM would have required this notice to include
information on the activities for which use or disclosure of protected
health information would occur in order to assure proper execution of
the military mission. We believe that this proposed portion of the
notice is redundant and thus unnecessary in light the rule=s application
to military services. In the final rule, we eliminate this proposed
section of the notice, and we state that health plans and covered health
care providers may use and disclose protected health information of
Armed Forces personnel for activities considered necessary by
appropriate military command authorities to assure the proper execution
of a military mission, where the appropriate military authority has
published a *Federal Register* notice identifying: (1) the appropriate
military command authorities; and (2) the purposes for which protected
health information may be used or disclosed.

*Comment:* A few commenters, members of the affected beneficiary class,
which numbers approximately 2.6 million (active duty and reserve
military personnel), opposed proposed \' 164.510(m) because it would
have allowed a non-governmental covered entity to provide protected
health information without authorization to the military. These
commenters were concerned that military officials could use the
information as the basis for taking action against individuals.

*Response:* The Secretary does not have the authority under HIPAA to
regulate the military=s re-use or re-disclosure of protected health
information obtained from health plans and covered health care
providers. This provision=s primary intent is to ensure that proper
military command authorities can obtain needed medical information held
by covered entities so that they can make appropriate determinations
regarding the individual\'s medical fitness or suitability for military
service. Determination that an individual is not medically qualified for
military service would lead to his or her discharge from or rejection
for service in the military. Such actions are necessary in order for the
Armed Forces to have medically qualified personnel, ready to perform
assigned duties. Medically unqualified personnel not only jeopardize the
possible success of a mission, but also pose an unacceptable risk or
danger to others. We have allowed such uses and disclosures for military
activities because it is in the Nation=s interest.

*Separation or Discharge from Military Service*

*Comment:* The preamble to the NPRM solicited comments on the proposal
to permit the DoD to transfer, without authorization, a service
member\'s military medical record to the Department of Veterans Affairs
(DVA) when the individual completed his or her term of military service.
A few commenters opposed the proposal, believing that authorization
should be obtained. Both the DoD and the DVA supported the proposal,
noting that transfer allows the DVA to make timely determinations as to
whether a veteran is eligible for benefits under programs administered
by the DVA.

*Response:* We note that the transfer program was established based on
recommendations by Congress, veterans groups, and veterans; that it has
existed for many years; and that there has been no objection to, or
problems associated with, the program. We also note that the Department
of Transportation (DoT) and the Department of Veterans Affairs operate
an analogous transfer program with respect to United States Coast Guard
personnel, who comprise part of the U.S. Armed Forces. The protected
health information involved the DoD/DVA transfer program is being
disclosed and used for a limited purpose that directly benefits the
individual. This information is covered by, and thus subject to the
protections of, the Privacy Act. For these reasons, the final rule
retains the DoD/DVA transfer program proposed in the NPRM. In addition,
we expand the NPRM=s proposed provisions regarding the Department of
Veterans Affairs to include the DoT/DVA program, to authorize the
continued transfer of these records.

*Comment:* The Department of Veterans Affairs supported the NPRM=s
proposal to allow it to use and disclose protected health information
among components of the Department so that it could make determinations
on whether an individual was entitled to benefits under laws
administered by the Department. Some commenters said that the
permissible disclosure pursuant to this section appeared to be
sufficiently narrow in scope, to respond to an apparent need. Some
commenters also said that the DVA=s ability to make benefit
determinations would be hampered if an individual declined to authorize
release of his or her protected health information. A few commenters,
however, questioned whether such an exchange of information currently
occurs between the components. A few commenters also believed the
proposed rule should be expanded to permit sharing of information with
other agencies that administer benefit programs.

*Response:* The final rule retains the NPRM=s approach regarding use and
disclosure of protected health information without authorization among
components of the DVA for the purpose of making eligibility
determinations based on commenters= assessment that the provision was
narrow in scope and that an alternative approach could negatively affect
benefit determinations for veterans. We modify the NPRM language
slightly, to clarify that it refers to a health plan or covered health
care provider that is a component of the DVA. These component entities
may use or disclose protected health information without authorization
among various components of the Department to determine eligibility for
or entitlement to veterans= benefits. The final rule does not expand the
scope of permissible disclosures under this provision to allow the DVA
to share such information with other agencies. Other agencies may obtain
this information only with authorization, subject to the requirements of
\' 164.508.

*Foreign Military Personnel*

*Comments:* A few comments opposed the exclusion of foreign diplomatic
and military personnel from coverage under the rule. These commenters
said that the mechanisms that would be necessary to identify these
personnel for the purpose of exempting them from the rule=s standards
would create significant administrative difficulties. In addition, they
believed that this provision would have prohibited covered entities from
making disclosures allowed under the rule. Some commenters were
concerned that implementation of the proposed provision would result in
disparate treatment of foreign military and diplomatic personnel with
regard to other laws, and that it would allow exploitation of these
individuals= health information. These commenters believed that the
proposed rule=s exclusion of foreign military and diplomatic personnel
was unnecessarily broad and that it should be narrowed to meet a
perceived need. Finally, they noted that the proposed exclusion could be
affected by the European Union\'s Data Protection Directive.

*Response:* We agree with the commenters= statement that the NPRM=s
exclusion of foreign military and diplomatic personnel from the rule=s
provisions was overly broad. Thus, the final rule=s protections apply to
these personnel. The rule covers foreign military personnel under the
same provisions that apply to all other members of the U.S. Armed
Forces, as described above. Foreign military authorities need access to
protected health information for the same reason as must United States
military authorities: to ensure that members of the armed services are
medically qualified to perform their assigned duties. Under the final
rule, foreign diplomatic personnel have the same protections as other
individuals.

*Intelligence Community*

*Comments:* A few commenters opposed the NPRM=s provisions regarding
protected health information of intelligence community employees and
their dependents being considered for postings overseas, on the grounds
that the scope of permissible disclosure without authorization was too
broad. While acknowledging that the intelligence community may have
legitimate needs for its employees= protected health information, the
commenters believed that the NPRM failed to provide adequate procedural
protections for the employees= information. A few comments also said
that the intelligence community should be able to obtain their
employees= health information only with authorization. In addition,
commenters said that the intelligence community should make disclosure
of protected health information a condition of employment.

*Response:* Again, we agree that the NPRM=s provision allowing
disclosure of the protected health information of intelligence community
employees without authorization was overly broad. Thus we eliminate it
in the final rule. The intelligence community can obtain this
information with authorization (pursuant to \' 164.508), for example,
when employees or their family members are being considered for an
oversees assignment and when individuals are applying for employment
with or seeking a contract from an intelligence community agency.

***National Security and Intelligence Activities and Protective Services
for the President and Others***

*Comment:* A number of comments opposed the proposed \"intelligence and
national security activities\" provision of the law enforcement section
(\' 164.510(f)(4)), suggesting that it was overly broad. These
commenters were concerned that the provision lacked sufficient
procedural safeguards to prevent abuse of protected health information.
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Department of Defense
(DoD) also expressed concern over the provision=s scope. The agencies
said that if implemented as written, the provision would have failed to
accomplish fully its intended purpose of allowing the disclosure of
protected health information to officials carrying out intelligence and
national security activities other than law enforcement activities. The
CIA and DoD believed that the provision should be moved to another
section of the rule, possibly to proposed \' 164.510(m) on specialized
classes, so that authorized intelligence and national security officials
could obtain individuals= protected health information without
authorization when lawfully engaged in intelligence and national
security activities.

*Response:* In the final rule, we clarify that this provision does not
provide new authority for intelligence and national security officials
to acquire health information that they otherwise would not be able to
obtain. Furthermore, the rule does not confer new authority for
intelligence, national security, or Presidential protective service
activities. Rather, the activities permissible under this section are
limited to those authorized under current law and regulation (e.g., for
intelligence activities, 50 U.S.C. 401, *et seq.*, Executive Order
12333, and agency implementing regulatory authorities). For example, the
provision regarding national security activities pertains only to
foreign persons that are the subjects of legitimate and lawful
intelligence, counterintelligence, or other national security
activities. In addition, the provision regarding protective services
pertains only to those persons who are the subjects of legitimate
investigations for threatening or otherwise exhibiting an inappropriate
direction of interest toward U.S. Secret Service protectees pursuant to
18 U.S.C. 871, 879, and 3056. Finally, the rule leaves intact the
existing State Department regulations that strictly limit the disclosure
of health information pertaining to employees (e.g., Privacy Issuances
at State-24 Medical Records).

We believe that because intelligence/national security activities and
Presidential/other protective service activities are discrete functions
serving different purposes, they should be treated consistently but
separately under the rule. For example, medical information is used as a
complement to other investigative data that are pertinent to conducting
comprehensive threat assessment and risk prevention activities pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 3056. In addition, information on the health of world
leaders is important for the provision of protective services and other
functions. Thus, \' 164.512(k) of the final rule includes separate
subsections for national security/intelligence activities and for
disclosures related to protective services to the President and others.

We note that the rule does not require or compel a health plan or
covered health care provider to disclose protected health information.
Rather, two subsections of \' 164.512(k) allow covered entities to
disclose information for intelligence and national security activities
and for protective services to the President and others only to
authorized federal officials conducting these activities, when such
officials are performing functions authorized by law.

We agree with DoD and CIA that the NPRM, by including these provisions
in the law enforcement section (proposed \' 164.510(f)), would have
allowed covered entities to disclose protected health information for
national security, intelligence, and Presidential protective activities
only to law enforcement officials. We recognize that many officials
authorized by law to carry out intelligence, national security, and
Presidential protective functions are not law enforcement officials.
Therefore, the final rule allows covered entities to disclose protected
health information pursuant to this provision not only to law
enforcement officials, but to all federal officials authorized by law to
carry out the relevant activities. In addition, we remove this provision
from the law enforcement section and include it in \' 164.512(k) on uses
and disclosures for specialized government functions

***Medical Suitability Determinations***

*Comment:* A few comments opposed the NPRM=s provision allowing the
Department of State to use protected health information for medical
clearance determinations. These commenters believed that the scope of
permissible disclosures under the proposed provision was too broad.
While acknowledging that the Department may have legitimate needs for
access to protected health data, the commenters believed that
implementation of the proposed provision would not have provided
adequate procedural safeguards for the affected State Department
employees. A few comments said that the State Department should be able
to obtain protected health information for medical clearance
determinations only with authorization. A few comments also said that
the Department should be able to disclose such information only when
required for national security purposes. Some commenters believed that
the State Department should be subject to the *Federal Register* notice
requirement that the NPRM would have applied to the Department of
Defense. A few comments also opposed the proposed provision on the basis
that it would conflict with the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or that it
appeared to represent an invitation to discriminate against individuals
with mental disorders.

*Response*: We agree with commenters who believed that the NPRM=s
provision regarding the State Department=s use of protected health
information without authorization was unnecessarily broad. Therefore, in
the final rule, we restrict significantly the scope of protected health
information that the State Department may use and disclose without
authorization. First, we allow health plans and covered health care
providers that are a component of the State Department to use and
disclose protected health information without authorization when making
medical suitability determinations for security clearance purposes. For
the purposes of a security investigation, these components may disclose
to authorized State Department officials whether or not the individual
was determined to be medically suitable. Furthermore, we note that the
rule does not confer authority on the Department to disclose such
information that it did not previously possess. The Department remains
subject to applicable law regarding such disclosures, including the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

The preamble to the NPRM solicited comment on whether there was a need
to add national security determinations under Executive Order 10450 to
the rule=s provision on State Department uses and disclosures of
protected health information for security determinations. While we did
not receive comment on this issue, we believe that a limited addition is
warranted and appropriate. Executive Orders 10450 and 12968 direct
Executive branch agencies to make certain determinations regarding
whether their employees= access to classified information is consistent
with the national security interests of the United States. Specifically,
the Executive Orders state that access to classified information shall
be granted only to those individuals whose personal and professional
history affirmatively indicates, *inter alia*, strength of character,
trustworthiness, reliability, and sound judgment. In reviewing the
personal history of an individual, Executive branch agencies may
investigate and consider any matter, including a mental health issue or
other medical condition, that relates directly to any of the enumerated
factors.

In the vast majority of cases, Executive agencies require their security
clearance investigators to obtain the individual=s express consent in
the form of a medical release, pursuant to which the agency can conduct
its background investigation and obtain any necessary health
information. This rule does not interfere with agencies= ability to
require medical releases for purposes of security clearances under these
Executive Orders.

In the case of the Department of State, however, it may be impracticable
or infeasible to obtain an employee=s authorization when exigent
circumstances arise overseas. For example, when a Foreign Service
Officer is serving at an overseas post and he or she develops a critical
medical problem which may or may not require a medical evacuation or
other equally severe response, the Department=s medical staff have
access to the employee=s medical records for the purpose of making a
medical suitability determination under Executive Orders 10450 and
12968. To restrict the Department=s access to information at such a
crucial time due to a lack of employee authorization leaves the
Department no option but to suspend the employee=s security clearance.
This action automatically would result in an immediate forced departure
from post, which negatively would affect both the Department, due to the
unexpected loss of personnel, and the individual, due to the fact that a
forced departure can have a long-term impact on his or her career in the
Foreign Service.

For this reason, the rule contains a limited security clearance
exemption for the Department of State. The exemption allows the
Department=s own medical staff to continue to have access to an
employee=s medical file for the purpose of making a medical suitability
determination for security purposes. The medical staff can convey a
simple Ayes@ or Ano@ response to those individuals conducting the
security investigation within the Department. In this way, the
Department is able to make security determinations in exigent
circumstances without disclosing any specific medical information to any
employees other than the medical personnel who otherwise have routine
access to these same medical records in an everyday non-security
context.

Second, and similarly, the final rule establishes a similar system for
disclosures of protected health information necessary to determine
worldwide availability or availability for mandatory service abroad
under Sections 101(a)(4) and 504 of the Foreign Service Act. The Act
requires that Foreign Service members be suitable for posting throughout
the world and for certain specific assignments. For this reason, we
permit a limited exemption to serve the purposes of the statute. Again,
the medical staff can convey availability determinations to State
Department officials who need to know if certain Foreign Service members
are available to serve at post.

Third, and finally, the final rule recognizes the special statutory
obligations that the State Department has regarding family members of
Foreign Service members under Sections 101(b)(5) and 904 of the Foreign
Service Act. Section 101(b)(5) of the Foreign Service Act requires the
Department of State to mitigate the impact of hardships, disruptions,
and other unusual conditions on families of Foreign Service Officers.
Section 904 requires the Department to establish a health care program
to promote and maintain the physical and mental health of Foreign
Service member family members. The final rule permits disclosure of
protected health information to officials who need protected health
information to determine whether a family member can accompany a Foreign
Service member abroad.

Given the limited applicability of the rule, we believe it is not
necessary for the State Department to publish a notice in the *Federal
Register* to identify the purposes for which the information may be used
or disclosed. The final rule identifies these purposes, as described
above.

***Correctional Institutions***

Comments about the rule=s application to correctional institutions are
addressed in \' 164.501, under the definition of Aindividual.@

**Section 164.512(l)CDisclosures for Workers= Compensation**

*Comment*: Several commenters stated that workers= compensation carriers
are excepted under the HIPAA definition of group health plan and
therefore we have no authority to regulate them in this rule. These
commenters suggested clarifying that the provisions of the proposed rule
did not apply to certain types of insurance entities, such as workers=
compensation carriers, and that such non-covered entities should have
full access to protected health information without meeting the
requirements of the rule. Other commenters argued that a complete
exemption for workers= compensation carriers was inappropriate.

*Response*: We agree with commenters that the proposed rule did not
intend to regulate workers= compensation carriers. In the final rule we
have incorporated a provision that clarifies that the term Ahealth plan@
excludes Aany policy, plan, or program to the extent that it provides,
or pays for the cost of, excepted benefits as defined in section
2791(c)(1) of the PHS Act.@ See discussion above under the definition of
Ahealth plan@ in \' 164.501.

*Comment*: Some commenters argued that the privacy rule should defer to
other laws that regulate the disclosure of information to employers and
workers= compensation carriers. They commented that many states have
laws that require sharing of information - without consent - between
providers and employers or workers= compensation carriers.

*Response*: We agree that the privacy rule should permit disclosures
necessary for the administration of state and other workers=
compensation systems. To assure that workers= compensations systems are
not disrupted, we have added a new provisions to the final rule. The new
\' 164.512(l) permits covered entities to disclose protected health
information as authorized by and to the extent necessary to comply with
workers= compensation or other similar programs established by law that
provide benefits for work-related injuries or illnesses without regard
to fault. We also note that where a state or other law requires a use or
disclosure of protected health information under a workers= compensation
or similar scheme, the disclosure would be permitted under \'
164.512(a).

*Comment*: Several commenters stated that if workers= compensation
carriers are to receive protected health information, they should only
receive the minimum necessary as required in \' 164.514. The commenters
argued that employers and workers= compensation carriers should not have
access to the entire medical history or portions of the medical history
that have nothing to do with the injury in question. Further, the
covered provider and not the employer or carrier should determine
minimum necessary since the provider is a covered entity and only
covered entities are subject to sanctions for violations of the rule.
These commenters stated that the rule should clearly indicate the
ability of covered entities to refuse to disclose protected health
information if it went beyond the scope of the injury. Workers=
compensation carriers, on the other hand, argued that permitting
providers to determine the minimum necessary was inappropriate because
determining eligibility for benefits is an insurance function, not a
medical function. They stated that workers= compensation carriers need
access to the full range of information regarding treatment for the
injury underlying the claim, the claimants= current condition, and any
preexisting conditions that can either mitigate the claim or aggravate
the impact of the injury.

*Response*: Under the final rule, covered entities must comply with the
minimum necessary provisions unless the disclosure is required by law.
Our review of state workers= compensation laws suggests that many of
these laws address the issue of the scope of information that is
available to carriers and employers. The rule permits a provider to
disclose information that is authorized by such a law to the extent
necessary to comply with such law. Where the law is silent, the workers=
compensation carrier and covered health care provider will need to
discuss what information is necessary for the carrier to administer the
claim, and the health care provider may disclose that information. We
note that if the workers= compensation insurer has secured an
authorization from the individual for the release of protected health
information, the covered entity may release the protected health
information described in the authorization.

**SECTION 164.514 REQUIREMENTS FOR USES AND DISCLOSURES**

**Section 164.514(a)-(c)CDe-identification**

***General Approach***

*Comments:* The comments on this topic almost unanimously supported the
concept of de-identification and efforts to expand its use. Although a
few comments suggested deleting one of the proposed methods or the
other, most appeared to support the two method approach for entities
with differing levels of statistical expertise.

Many of the comments argued that the standard for creation of
de-identified information should be whether there is a \"reasonable
basis to believe\" that the information has been de-identified. Others
suggested that the Areasonable basis@ standard was too vague.

A few commenters suggested that we consider information to be
de-identified if all personal identifiers that directly reveal the
identity of the individual or provide a direct means of identifying
individuals have been removed, encrypted or replaced with a code.
Essentially, this recommendation would require only removal of Adirect@
identifiers (e.g., name, address, and ID numbers) and allow retention of
all \"indirect\" identifiers (e.g., zip code and birth date) in
Ade-identified@ information. These comments did not suggest a list or
further definition of what identifiers should be considered \"direct\"
identifiers.

Some commenters suggested that the standard be modified to reflect a
single standard that applies to all covered entities in the interest of
reducing uncertainty and complexity. According to these comments, the
standard for covered entities to meet for de-identification of protected
health information should be generally accepted standards in the
scientific and statistical community, rather than focusing on a
specified list of identifiers that must be removed.

A few commenters believed that no record of information about an
individual can be truly de-identified and that all such information
should be treated and protected as identifiable because more and more
information about individuals is being made available to the public,
such as voter registration lists and motor vehicle and driver\'s license
lists, that would enable someone to match (and identify) records that
otherwise appear to be not identifiable.

*Response:* In the final rule, we reformulate the method for
de-identification to more explicitly use the statutory standard of \"a
reasonable basis to believe that the information can be used to identify
the individual\"B just as information is Aindividually identifiable@ if
there is a reasonable basis to believe that it can be used to identify
the individual, it is Ade-identified@ if there is no reasonable basis to
believe it can be so used. We also define more precisely how the
standard should be applied.

We did not accept comments that suggested that we allow only one method
of de-identifying information. We find support for both methods in the
comments but find no compelling logic for how the competing interests
could be met cost-effectively with only one method.

We also disagree with the comments that advocated using a standard which
required removing only the direct identifiers. Although such an approach
may be more convenient for covered entities, we judged that the
resulting information would often remain identifiable, and its
dissemination could result in significant violations of privacy. While
we encourage covered entities to remove direct identifiers whenever
possible as a method of enhancing privacy, we do not believe that the
resulting information is sufficiently blinded as to permit its general
dissemination without the protections provided by this rule.

We agree with the comments that said that records of information about
individuals cannot be truly de-identified, if that means that the
probability of attribution to an individual must be absolutely zero.
However, the statutory standard does not allow us to take such a
position, but envisions a reasonable balance between risk of
identification and usefulness of the information.

We disagree with those comments that advocated releasing only truly
anonymous information (which has been changed sufficiently so that it no
longer represents actual information about real individuals) and those
that supported using only sophisticated statistical analysis before
allowing uncontrolled disclosures. Although these approaches would
provide a marginally higher level of privacy protection, they would
preclude many of the laudable and valuable uses discussed in the NPRM
(in \' 164.506(d)) and would impose too great a burden on less
sophisticated covered entities to be justified by the small decrease in
an already small risk of identification.

We conclude that compared to the alternatives advanced by the comments,
the approach

proposed in the NPRM, as refined and modified below in response to the
comments, most closely meets the intent of the statute.

*Comments:* A few comments complained that the proposed standards were
so strict that they would expose covered entities to liability because
arguably no information could ever be de-identified.

*Response:* In the final rule we have modified the mechanisms by which a
covered entity may demonstrate that it has complied with the standard in
ways that provide greater certainty. In the standard method for
de-identification, we have clarified the professional standard to be
used, and anticipate issuing further guidance for covered entities to
use in applying the standard. In the safe harbor method, we reduced the
amount of judgment that a covered entity must apply. We believe that
these mechanisms for de-identification are sufficiently well-defined to
protect covered entities that follow them from undue liability.

*Comments:* Several comments suggested that the rule prohibit any
linking of de-identified data, regardless of the probability of
identification.

*Response:* Since our methods of de-identification include consideration
of how the information might be used in combination with other
information, we believe that linking de-identified information does not
pose a significantly increased risk of privacy violations. In addition,
since our authority extends only to the regulation of individually
identifiable health information, we cannot regulate de-identified
information because it no longer meets the definition of individually
identifiable health information. We also have no authority to regulate
entities that might receive and desire to link such information yet that
are not covered entities; thus such a prohibition would have little
protective effect.

*Comments:* Several commenters suggested that we create incentives for
covered entities to use de-identified information. One commenter
suggested that we mandate an assessment to see if de-identified
information could be used before the use or disclosure of identified
information would be allowed.

*Response*: We believe that this final rule establishes a reasonable
mechanism for the creation of de-identified information and the fact
that this de-identified information can be used without having to follow
the policies, procedures, and documentation required to use individually
identifiable health information should provide an incentive to encourage
its use where appropriate. We disagree with the comment suggesting that
we require an assessment of whether de-identified information could be
used for each use or disclosure. We believe that such a requirement
would be too burdensome on covered entities, particularly with respect
to internal uses, where entire records are often used by medical and
other personnel. For disclosures, we believe that such an assessment
would add little to the protection provided by the minimum necessary
requirements in this final rule.

*Comments:* One commenter asked if de-identification was equivalent to
destruction of the protected health information (as required under
several of the provisions of this final rule).

*Response*: The process of de-identification creates a new dataset in
addition to the source dataset containing the protected health
information. This process does not substitute for actual destruction of
the source data.

***Modifications to the Proposed Standard for De-identification***

*Comments:* Several commenters called for clarification of proposed
language in the NPRM that would have permitted a covered entity to treat
information as de-identified, even if specified identifiers were
retained, as long as the probability of identifying subject individuals
would be very low. Commenters expressed concern that the Avery low@
standard was vague. These comments expressed concern that covered
entities would not have a clear and easy way to know when information
meets this part of the standard.

*Response*: We agree with the comments that covered entities may need
additional guidance on the types of analyses that they should perform in
determining when the probability of re-identification of information is
very low. We note that in the final rule, we reformulate the standard
somewhat to require that a person with appropriate knowledge and
experience apply generally accepted statistical and scientific methods
relevant to the task to make a determination that the risk of
re-identification is very small. In this context, we do not view the
difference between a very low probability and a very small risk to be
substantive. After consulting representatives of the federal agencies
that routinely de-identify and anonymize information for public
release[^16], we attempt here to provide some guidance for the method of
de-identification.

As requested by some commenters, we include in the final rule a
requirement that covered entities (not following the safe harbor
approach) apply generally accepted statistical and scientific principles
and methods for rendering information not individually identifiable when
determining if information is de-identified. Although such guidance will
change over time to keep up with technology and the current availability
of public information from other sources, as a starting point the
Secretary approves the use of the following as guidance to such
generally accepted statistical and scientific principles and methods:

\(1\) *Statistical Policy Working Paper 22 ‑ Report on Statistical
Disclosure Limitation Methodology*
([http://www.fcsm.gov/working‑papers/wp22.html]{.underline}) (prepared
by the Subcommittee on Disclosure Limitation Methodology, Federal
Committee on Statistical Methodology, Office of Management and Budget)
and

\(2\) the *Checklist on Disclosure Potential of Proposed Data Releases*
([http://www.fcsm.gov/docs/checklist_799.doc]{.underline}) (prepared by
the Confidentiality and Data Access Committee, Federal Committee on
Statistical Methodology, Office of Management and Budget).

We agree with commenters that such guidance will need to be updated over
time and we will provide such guidance in the future.

According to the *Statistical Policy Working Paper 22*, the two main
sources of disclosure risk for de-identified records about individuals
are the existence of records with very unique characteristics (e.g.,
unusual occupation or very high salary or age) and the existence of
external sources of records with matching data elements which can be
used to link with the de-identified information and identify individuals
(e.g., voter registration records or driver\'s license records). The
risk of disclosure increases as the number of variables common to both
types of records increases, as the accuracy or resolution of the data
increases, and as the number of external sources increases. As outlined
in *Statistical Policy Working Paper 22*, an expert disclosure analysis
would also consider the probability that an individual who is the target
of an attempt at re-identification is represented on both files, the
probability that the matching variables are recorded identically on the
two types of records, the probability that the target individual is
unique in the population for the matching variables, and the degree of
confidence that a match would correctly identify a unique person.

*Statistical Policy Working Paper 22* also describes many techniques
that can be used to reduce the risk of disclosure that should be
considered by an expert when de-identifying health information. In
addition to removing all direct identifiers, these include the obvious
choices based on the above causes of the risk; namely, reducing the
number of variables on which a match might be made and limiting the
distribution of the records through a \"data use agreement\" or
\"restricted access agreement\" in which the recipient agrees to limits
on who can use/receive the data. The techniques also include more
sophisticated manipulations: recoding variables into fewer categories to
provide less precise detail (including rounding of continuous
variables); setting top-codes and bottom-codes to limit details for
extreme values; disturbing the data by adding noise by swapping certain
variables between records, replacing some variables in random records
with mathematically imputed values or averages across small random
groups of records, or randomly deleting or duplicating a small sample of
records; and replacing actual records with synthetic records that
preserve certain statistical properties of the original data.

***Modifications to the ASafe Harbor@***

*Comments:* Many commenters argued that stripping all 19 identifiers is
unnecessary for purposes of de-identification. They felt that such items
as zip code, city (or county), and birth date, for example, do not
identify the individual and only such identifiers as name, street
address, phone numbers, fax numbers, email, Social Security number,
driver=s license number, voter registration number, motor vehicle
registration, identifiable photographs, finger prints, voice prints, web
universal resource locator, and Internet protocol address number need to
be removed to reasonably believe that data has been de-identified.

Other commenters felt that removing the full list of identifiers would
significantly reduce the usefulness of the data. Many of these comments
focused on research and, to a lesser extent, marketing and undefined
Astatistical analysis.@ Commenters who represented various industries
and research institutions expressed concern that they would not be able
to continue current activities such as development of service provider
networks, conducting Aanalysis@ on behalf of the plan, studying use of
medication and medical devices, community studies, marketing and
strategic planning, childhood immunization initiatives, patient
satisfaction surveys, and solicitation of contributions. The
requirements in the NPRM to strip off zip code and date of birth were of
particular concern. These commenters stated that their ability to do
research and quality analysis with this data would be compromised
without access to some level of information about patient age and/or
geographic location.

*Response:* While we understand that removing the specified identifiers
may reduce the usefulness of the resulting data to third parties, we
remain convinced by the evidence found in the MIT study that we referred
to in the preamble to the proposed rule[^17] and the analyses discussed
below that there remains a significant risk of identification of the
subjects of health information from the inclusion of indirect
identifiers such as birth date and zip code and that in many cases there
will be a reasonable basis to believe that such information remains
identifiable. We note that a covered entity not relying on the safe
harbor may determine that information from which sufficient other
identifiers have been removed but which retains birth date or zip code
is not reasonably identifiable. As discussed above, such a determination
must be made by a person with appropriate knowledge and expertise
applying generally accepted statistical and scientific methods for
rendering information not identifiable.

Although we have determined that all of the specified identifiers must
be removed before a covered entity meets the safe harbor requirements,
we made modifications in the final rule to the specified identifiers on
the list to permit some information about age and geographic area to be
retained in de-identified information.

For age, we specify that, in most cases, year of birth may be retained,
which can be combined with the age of the subject to provide sufficient
information about age for most uses. After considering current and
evolving practices and consulting with federal experts on this topic,
including members of the Confidentiality and Data Access Committee of
the Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology, Office of Management
and Budget, we concluded that in general, age is sufficiently broad to
be allowed in de-identified information, although all dates that might
be directly related to the subject of the information must be removed or
aggregated to the level of year to prevent deduction of birth dates.
Extreme ages \-- 90 and over \-- must be aggregated further (to a
category of 90+, for example) to avoid identification of very old
individuals (because they are relatively rare). This reflects the
minimum requirement of the current recommendations of the Bureau of the
Census.[^18] For research or other studies relating to young children or
infants, we note that the rule would not prohibit age of an individual
from being expressed as an age in months, days, or hours.

For geographic area, we specify that the initial three digits of zip
codes may be retained for any three-digit zip code that contains more
than 20,000 people as determined by the Bureau of the Census. As
discussed more below, there are currently only 18 three-digit zip codes
containing fewer than 20,000 people. We note that this number may change
when information from the 2000 Decennial Census is analyzed.

In response to concerns expressed in the comments about the need for
information on geographic area, we investigated the potential of
allowing 5-digit zip codes or 3-digit zip codes to remain in the
de-identified information. According to 1990 Census data, the
populations in geographical areas delineated by 3-digit zip codes vary a
great deal, from a low of 394 to a high of 3,006,997, with an average
size of 282,304. There are two 3-digit zip codes containing fewer than
500 people and six 3-digit zip codes containing fewer than 10,000 people
each.[^19] Of the total of 881 3-digit zip codes, there are 18 with
fewer than 20,000 people, 71 with fewer than 50,000 people, and 215
containing fewer than 100,000 population. We also looked at two-digit
zip codes (the first 2 digits of the 5-digit zip code) and found that
the smallest of the 98 2-digit zip codes contains 188,638 people.

We also investigated the practices of several other federal agencies
which are mandated by Congress to release data from national surveys
while preserving confidentiality and which have been dealing with these
issues for decades. The problems and solutions being used by these
agencies are laid out in detail in the *Statistical Policy Working Paper
22* cited earlier.

To protect the privacy of individuals providing information to the
Bureau of Census, the Bureau has determined that a geographical region
must contain at least 100,000 people.[^20] This standard has been used
by the Bureau of the Census for many years and is supported by
simulation studies using Census data.[^21] These studies showed that
after a certain point, increasing the size of a geographic area does not
significantly decrease the percentage of unique records (i.e., those
that could be identified if sampled), but that the point of diminishing
returns is dependent on the number and type of demographic variables on
which matching might occur. For a small number of demographic variables
(6), this point was quite low (about 20,000 population), but it rose
quickly to about 50,000 for 10 variables and to about 80,000 for 15
variables. The Bureau of the Census releases sets of data to the public
that it considers safe from re-identification because it limits
geographical areas to those containing at least 100,000 people and
limits the number and detail of the demographic variables in the data.
At the point of approximately 100,000 population, 7.3% of records were
unique (and therefore potentially identifiable) on 6 demographic
variables from the 1990 Census Short Form: age in years (90 categories),
race (up to 180 categories), sex (2 categories), relationship to
householder (14 categories), Hispanic (2 categories), and tenure (owner
vs. renter in 5 categories). Using 6 variables derived from the Long
Form data, age (10 categories), race (6 categories), sex (2 categories),
marital status (5 categories), occupation (54 categories), and personal
income (10 categories), raised the percentage to 9.8%.

We also examined the results of an NCHS simulation study using national
survey data[^22] to see if some scientific support could be found for a
compromise. The study took random samples from populations of different
sizes and then compared the samples to the whole population to see how
many records were identifiable, that is, matched uniquely to a unique
person in the whole population on the basis of 9 demographic variables:
age (85 categories), race (4 categories), gender (2 categories),
ethnicity (2 categories), marital status (3 categories), income (3
categories), employment status (2 categories), working class (4
categories), and occupation (42 categories). Even when some of the
variables are aggregated or coded, from the perspective of a large
statistical agency desiring to release data to the public, the study
concluded that a population size of 500,000 was not sufficient to
provide a reasonable guarantee that certain individuals could not be
identified. About 2.5 % of the sample from the population of 500,000 was
uniquely identifiable, regardless of sample size. This percentage rose
as the size of the population decreased, to about 14% for a population
of 100,000 and to about 25% for a population of 25,000. Eliminating the
occupation variable (which is less likely to be found in health data)
reduced this percentage significantly to about 0.4 %, 3%, and 10%
respectively. These percentages of unique records (and thus the
potentials for re-identification) are highly dependent on the number of
variables (which must also be available in other databases which are
identified to be considered in a disclosure risk analysis), the
categorical breakdowns of those variables, and the level of geographic
detail included.

With respect to how we might clarify the requirement to achieve a \"low
probability\" that information could be identified, the *Statistical
Policy Working Paper 22* referenced above discusses the attempts of
several researchers to define mathematical measures of disclosure risk
only to conclude that \"more research into defining a computable measure
of risk is necessary.\" When we considered whether we could specify a
maximum level of risk of disclosure with some precision (such as a
probability or risk of identification of \< 0.01), we concluded that it
is premature to assign mathematical precision to the \"art\" of
de-identification.

After evaluating current practices and recognizing the expressed need
for some geographic indicators in otherwise de-identified databases, we
concluded that permitting geographic identifiers that define populations
of greater than 20,000 individuals is an appropriate standard that
balances privacy interests against desirable uses of de-identified data.
In making this determination, we focused on the studies by the Bureau of
Census cited above which seemed to indicate that a population size of
20,000 was an appropriate cut off if there were relatively few (6)
demographic variables in the database. Our belief is that, after
removing the required identifiers to meet the safe harbor standards, the
number of demographic variables retained in the databases will be
relatively small, so that it is appropriate to accept a relatively low
number as a minimum geographic size.

In applying this provision, covered entities must replace the (currently
18) forbidden 3-digit zip codes with zeros and thus treat them as a
single geographic area (with \> 20,000 population). The list of the
forbidden 3-digit zip codes will be maintained as part of the updated
Secretarial guidance referred to above. Currently, they are: 022, 036,
059, 102, 203, 555, 556, 692, 821, 823, 830, 831, 878, 879, 884, 893,
987, and 994. This will result in an average 3-digit zip code area
population of 287,858 which should result in an average of about 4%
unique records using the 6 variables described above from the Census
Short Form. Although this level of unique records will be much higher in
the smaller geographic areas, the actual risk of identification will be
much lower because of the limited availability of comparable data in
publically available, identified databases, and will be further reduced
by the low probability that someone will expend the resources to try to
identify records when the chance of success is so small and uncertain.
We think this compromise will meet the current need for an easy method
to identify geographic area while providing adequate protection from
re-identification. If a greater level of geographical detail is required
for a particular use, the information will have to be obtained through
another permitted mechanism or be subjected to a specific
de-identification determination as described above. We will monitor the
availability of identified public data and the concomitant
re-identification risks, both theoretical and actual, and adjust this
safe harbor in the future as necessary.

As we stated above, we understand that many commenters would prefer a
looser standard for determining when information is de-identified, both
generally and with respect to the standards for identifying geographic
area. However, because public databases (such as voter records or
driver=s license records) that include demographic information about a
geographically defined population are available, a surprisingly large
percentage of records of health information that contain similar
demographic information can be identified. Although the number of these
databases seems to be increasing, the number of demographic variables
within them still appears to be fairly limited. The number of cases of
privacy violation from health records which have been identified in this
way is small to date. However, the risk of identification increases with
decreasing population size, with increasing amounts of demographic
information (both in level of detail and number of variables), and with
the uniqueness of the combination of such information in the population.
That is, an 18 year old single white male student is not at risk of
identification in a database from a large city such as New York.
However, if the database were about a small town where most of the
inhabitants were older, retired people of a specific minority race or
ethnic group, that same person might be unique in that community and
easily identified. We believe that the policy that we have articulated
reaches the appropriate balance between reasonably protecting privacy
and providing a sufficient level of information to make de-identified
databases useful.

*Comments:* Some comments noted that identifiers that accompany
photographic images are often needed to interpret the image and that it
would be difficult to use the image alone to identify the individual.

*Response:* We agree that our proposed requirement to remove all
photographic images was more than necessary. Many photographs of
lesions, for example, which cannot usually be used alone to identify an
individual, are included in health records . In this final rule, the
only absolute requirement is the removal of full-face photographs, and
we depend on the Acatch-all@ of Aany other unique \... characteristic
\...@ to pick up the unusual case where another type of photographic
image might be used to identify an individual.

*Comments:* A number of commenters felt that the proposed bar for
removal had been set too high; that the removal of these 19 identifiers
created a difficult standard, since some identifiers may be buried in
lengthy text fields.

*Response:* We understand that some of the identifiers on our list for
removal may be buried in text fields, but we see no alternative that
protects privacy. In addition, we believe that such unstructured text
fields have little or no value in a de-identified information set and
would be removed in any case. With time, we expect that such identifiers
will be kept out of places where they are hard to locate and expunge.

*Comments:* Some commenters asserted that this requirement creates a
disincentive for covered entities to de-identify data and would
compromise the Secretary=s desire to see de-identified data used for a
multitude of purposes. Others stated that the \>no reason to believe=
test creates an unreasonable burden on covered entities, and would
actually chill the release of de-identified information, and set an
impossible standard.

*Response:* We recognize that the proposed standards might have imposed
a burden that could have prevented the widespread use of de-identified
information. We believe that our modifications to the final rule
discussed above will make the process less burdensome and remove some of
the disincentive. However, we could not loosen the standards as far as
many commenters wanted without seriously jeopardizing the privacy of the
subjects of the information. As discussed above, we modify the Ano
reason to know@ standard that was part of the safe harbor provision and
replace it in the final rule with an Aactual knowledge@ standard. We
believe that this change provides additional certainty to covered
entities using the safe harbor and should eliminate any chilling effect.

*Comments:* Although most commenters wanted to see data elements taken
off the list, there were a small number of commenters that wanted to see
data items added to the list. They believed that it is also necessary to
remove clinical trial record numbers, device model serial numbers, and
all proper nouns from the records.

*Response:* In response to these requests, we have slightly revised the
list of identifiers that must be removed under the safe harbor
provision. Clinical trial record numbers are included in the general
category of \"any other unique identifying number, characteristic, or
code.\" These record numbers cannot be included with de-identified
information because, although the availability of clinical trial numbers
may be limited, they are used for other purposes besides
de-identification/re-identification, such as identifying clinical trial
records, and may be disclosed under certain circumstances. Thus, they do
not meet the criteria in the rule for use as a unique record identifier
for de-identified records. Device model serial numbers are included in
\"any device identifier or serial number\" and must be removed. We
considered the request to remove all proper nouns to be very burdensome
to implement for very little increase in privacy and likely to be
arbitrary in operation, and so it is not included in the final rule.

***Re-identification***

*Comments:* One commenter wanted to know if the rule requires that
covered entities retain the ability to re-identify de-identified
information.

*Response:* The rule does not require covered entities to retain the
ability to re-identify de-identified information, but it does allow them
to retain this ability.

*Comments:* A few commenters asked us to prohibit anyone from
re-identifying de-identified health information.

*Response:* We do not have the authority to regulate persons other than
covered entities, so we cannot affect attempts by entities outside of
this rule to re-identify information. Under the rule, we permit the
covered entity that created the de-identified information to re-identify
it. However, we include a requirement that, when a unique record
identifier is included in the de-identified information, such identifier
must not be such that someone other than the covered entity could use it
to identify the individual (such as when a derivative of the
individual=s name is used as the unique record identifier).

**Section 164.514(d)CMinimum Necessary**

*Comment:* A large number of commenters objected to the application of
the proposed Aminimum necessary@ standard for uses and disclosures of
protected health information to uses and disclosures for treatment
purposes. Some suggested that the final regulation should establish a
good faith exception or safe harbor for disclosures made for treatment.

The overwhelming majority of commenters, generally from the medical
community, argued that application of the proposed standard would be
contrary to sound medical practice, increase medical errors, and lead to
an increase in liability. Some likened the standard to a \>gag clause=
in that it limited the exchange of information critical for quality
patient care. They found the standard unworkable in daily treatment
situations. They argued that this standard would be potentially
dangerous in that it could cause practitioners to withhold information
that could be essential for later care. Commenters asserted that
caregivers need to be able to give and receive a complete picture of the
patient\'s health to make a diagnosis and develop a treatment plan.

Other commenters noted that the complexity of medicine is such that it
is unreasonable to think that anyone will know the exact parameters of
the information another caregiver will need for proper diagnosis and
treatment or that a plan will need to support quality assurance and
improvement activities. They therefore suggested that the minimum
necessary standard be applied instead as an administrative requirement.

Providers also emphasized that they already have an ethical duty to
limit the sharing of unnecessary medical information, and most already
have well-developed guidelines and practice standards in place. Concerns
were also voiced that attempts to provide the minimum necessary
information in the treatment setting would lead to multiple editions of
a record or creation of summaries that turn out to omit crucial
information resulting in confusion and error.

*Response:* In response to these concerns, we substantially revise the
minimum necessary requirements. As suggested by certain commenters, we
provide, in \' 164.502(b), that disclosures of protected health
information to or requests by health care providers for treatment are
not subject to the minimum necessary standard. We also modify the
requirements for uses of protected health information. This final rule
requires covered entities to make determinations of minimum necessary
use, including use for treatment purposes, based on the role of the
person or class of workforce members rather than at the level of
specific uses. A covered entity must establish policies and procedures
that identify the types of persons who are to have access to designated
categories of information and the conditions, if any, of that access. We
establish no requirements specific to a particular use of information.
Covered entities are responsible for establishing and documenting these
policies and procedures. This approach is consistent with the argument
of many commenters that guidelines and practice standards are
appropriate means for protecting the privacy of patient information.

*Comment:* Some commenters argued that the standard should be retained
in the treatment setting for uses and disclosures pertaining to mental
health information. Some of these commenters asserted that other
providers do not need to know the mental status of a patient for
treatment purposes.

*Response:* We agree that the standard should be retained for uses of
mental health information in the treatment setting. However, we believe
that the arguments for excepting disclosures of protected health
information for treatment purposes from application of the minimum
necessary standard are also persuasive with respect to mental health
information. An individual=s mental health can interact with proper
treatment for other conditions in many ways. Psychoactive medications
may have harmful interactions with drugs routinely prescribed for other
purposes; an individual=s mental health history may help another health
care provider understand the individual=s ability to abide by a
complicated treatment regimen. For these reasons, it is also not
reasonable to presume that, in every case, a health care provider will
not need to know an individual=s mental health status to provide
appropriate treatment.

Providers= comments noted existing ethical duties to limit the sharing
of unnecessary medical information, and well-developed guidelines and
practice standards for this purpose. Under this rule, providers may use
these tools to guide their discretion in disclosing health information
for treatment.

*Comment:* Several commenters urged that covered entities should be
required to conspicuously label records to show that they are not
complete. They argued that absent such labeling, patient care could be
compromised.

*Response:* We believe that the final policy to except disclosures of
protected health information for treatment purposes from application of
the minimum necessary standard addresses these commenters= concerns.

*Comment:* Some commenters argued that the audit exception to the
minimum necessary requirements needs to be clarified or expanded,
because Aaudit@ and Apayment@ are essentially the same thing.

*Response:* We eliminate this exception. The proposed exclusion of
disclosures to health plans for audit purposes is replaced with a
general requirement that covered entities must limit requests to other
covered entities for individually identifiable health information to
what is reasonably necessary for the purpose intended.

*Comment:* Many commenters argued that the proposed standard was
unworkable as applied to \"uses\" by a covered entity\'s employees,
because the proposal appeared not to allow providers to create general
policy as to the types of records that particular employees may have
access to but instead required that each decision be made
\"individually,\" which providers interpret as Acase-by-case.@
Commenters argued that the standard with regard to \"uses\" would be
impossible to implement and prohibitively expensive, requiring both
medical and legal input to each disclosure decision.

Some commenters recommended deletion of the minimum necessary standard
with regard to Auses.@ Other commenters specifically recommended
deletion of the requirement that the standard be applied on an
individual, case-by-case basis. Rather, they suggested that the covered
entity be allowed to establish general policies to meet the requirement.
Another commenter similarly urged that the standard not apply to
internal disclosures or for internal health care operations such as
quality improvement/assurance activities. The commenter recommended that
medical groups be allowed to develop their own standards to ensure that
these activities are carried out in a manner that best helps the group
and its patients.

Other commenters expressed confusion and requested clarification as to
how the standard as proposed would actually work in day-to-day
operations within an entity.

*Response:* Commenters= arguments regarding the workability of this
standard as proposed were persuasive, and we therefore make significant
modification to address these comments and improve the workability of
the standard. For all uses and many disclosures, we require covered
entities to include in their policies and procedures (see \' 164.530),
which may be standard protocols, for \>minimum necessary= uses and
disclosures. We require implementation of such policies in lieu of
making the \>minimum necessary= determination for each separate use and
disclosure.

For uses, covered entities must implement policies and procedures that
restrict access to and use of protected health information based on the
specific professional roles of members of the covered entity=s
workforce. The policies and procedures must identify the persons or
classes of persons in the entity=s workforce who need access to
protected health information to carry out their duties and the category
or categories of protected health information to which such persons or
classes need access. These role-based access rules must also identify
the conditions, as appropriate, that would apply to such access. For
example, an institutional health care provider could allow physicians
access to all records under the condition that the viewing of medical
records of patients not under their care is recorded and reviewed. Other
health professionals= access could be limited to time periods when they
are on duty. Information available to staff who are responsible for
scheduling surgical procedures could be limited to certain data. In many
instances, use of order forms or selective copying of relevant portions
of a record may be appropriate policies to meet this requirement.

Routine disclosures also are not subject to individual review; instead,
covered entities must implement policies and procedures (which may be
standard protocols) to limit the protected health information in routine
disclosures to the minimum information reasonably necessary to achieve
the purpose of that type of disclosure. For non-routine disclosures, a
covered entity must develop reasonable criteria to limit the protected
health information disclosed to the minimum necessary to accomplish the
purpose for which disclosure is sought, and to implement procedures for
review of disclosures on an individual basis.

We modify the proposed standard to require the covered entity to make
Areasonable efforts@ to meet the minimum necessary standard (not
Aall@reasonable efforts, as proposed). What is reasonable will vary with
the circumstances. When it is practical to use order forms or selective
copying of relevant portions of the record, the covered entity is
required to do so. Similarly, this flexibility in the standard takes
into account the ability of the covered entity to configure its record
system to allow selective access to only certain fields, and the
practicality of organizing systems to allow this capacity. It might be
reasonable for a covered entity with a highly computerized information
system to implement a system under which employees with certain
functions have access to only limited fields in a patient records, while
other employees have access to the complete records. Such a system might
not be reasonable for a covered entity with a largely paper records
system.

Covered entities= policies and procedures must provide that disclosure
of an entire medical record will not be made except pursuant to policies
which specifically justify why the entire medical record is needed.

We believe that these modifications significantly improve the
workability of this standard. At the same time, we believe that asking
covered entities to assess their practices and establish rules for
themselves will lead to significant improvements in the privacy of
health information. See the preamble for \' 164.514 for a more detailed
discussion.

*Comment:* The minimum necessary standard should not be applied to uses
and disclosures for payment or health care operations.

*Response:* Commenter=s arguments for exempting these uses and
disclosures from the minimum necessary standard were not compelling. We
believe that our modifications to application of the minimum necessary
standard to internal uses of protected health information, and to
routine disclosures, address many of the concerns raised, particularly
the concerns about administrative burdens and the concerns about having
the information necessary for day-to-day operations. We do not eliminate
this standard in part because we also remain concerned that covered
entities may be tempted to disclose an entire medical record when only a
few items of information are necessary, to avoid the administrative step
of extracting the necessary information (or redacting the unnecessary
information). We also believe this standard will cause covered entities
to assess their privacy practices, give the privacy interests of their
patients and enrollees greater attention, and make improvements that
might otherwise not have been made. For this reason, the privacy
benefits of retaining the minimum necessary standard for these purposes
outweigh the burdens involved. We note that the minimum necessary
standard is tied to the purpose of the disclosure; thus, providers may
disclose protected health information as necessary to obtain payment.

*Comment*: Other commenters urged us to apply a Agood faith@ provision
to all disclosures subject to the minimum necessary standard. Commenters
presented a range of options to modify the proposed provisions which, in
their view, would have mitigated their liability if they failed to
comply with minimum necessary standard.

*Response:* We believe that the modifications to this standard,
described above, substantially address these commenters= concerns. In
addition to allowing the covered entity to use standard protocols for
routine disclosures, we modify the standard to require a covered entity
to make Areasonable efforts,@ not Aall@ reasonable efforts as proposed,
in making the Aminimum necessary@ disclosure.

*Comments:* Some commenters complained that language in the proposed
rule was vague and provided little guidance, and should be abandoned.

*Response:* In the preamble for \' 164.504 and these responses to
comments, we provide further guidance on how a covered entity can
develop its policies for the minimum necessary use and disclosure of
protected health information. We do not abandon this standard for the
reasons described above. We remain concerned about the number of persons
who have access to identifiable health information, and believe that
causing covered entities to examine their practices will have
significant privacy benefits.

*Comment:* Some commenters asked that the minimum necessary standard
should not be applied to disclosures to business partners. Many of these
commenters articulated the burdens they would bear if every disclosure
to a business partner was required to meet the minimum necessary
standard.

*Response:* We do not agree. In this final rule, we minimize the burden
on covered entities in the following ways: in circumstances where
disclosures are made on a routine, recurring basis, such as in on-going
relationships between covered entities and their business associates,
individual review of each routine disclosure has been eliminated;
covered entities are required only to develop standard protocols to
apply to such routine disclosures made to business associates (or types
of business associates). In addition, we allow covered entities to rely
on the representation of a professional hired to provide professional
services as to what information is the minimum necessary for that
purpose.

*Comment:* Some commenters were concerned that applying the standard in
research settings will result in providers declining to participate in
research protocols.

*Response:* We have modified the proposal to reduce the burden on
covered entities that wish to disclose protected health information for
research purposes. The final rule requires covered entities to obtain
documentation or statements from persons requesting protected health
information for research that, among other things, describe the
information necessary for the research. We allow covered entities to
reasonably rely on the documentation or statements as describing the
minimum necessary disclosure.

*Comment:* Some commenters argued that government requests should not be
subject to the minimum necessary standard, whether or not they are
Aauthorized by law.@

*Response:* We found no compelling reason to exempt government requests
from this standard, other than when a disclosure is required by law.
(See preamble to \' 164.512(a) for the rationale behind this policy).
When a disclosure is required by law, the minimum necessary standard
does not apply, whether the recipient of the information is a government
official or a private individual.

At the same time, we understand that when certain government officials
make requests for protected health information, some covered entities
might feel pressure to comply that might not be present when the request
is from a private individuals. For this reason, we allow (but do not
require) covered entities to reasonably rely on the representations of
public officials as to the minimum necessary information for the
purpose.

*Comment:* Some commenters argued that requests under proposed \'
164.510 should not be subject to the minimum necessary standard, whether
or not they are Aauthorized by law.@ Others argued that for disclosures
made for administrative proceedings pursuant to proposed \' 164.510, the
minimum necessary standard should apply unless they are subject to a
court order.

*Response:* We found no compelling reason to exempt disclosures for
purposes listed in the regulation from this standard, other than for
disclosures required by law. When there is no such legal mandate, the
disclosure is voluntary on the part of the covered entity, and it is
therefore reasonable to expect the covered entity to make some effort to
protect privacy before making such a disclosure. If the covered entity
finds that redacting unnecessary information, or extracting the
requested information, prior to making the disclosure, is too
burdensome, it need not make the disclosure. Where there is ambiguity
regarding what information is needed, some effort on the part of the
covered entity can be expected in these circumstances.

We also found no compelling reason to limit the exemption for
disclosures Arequired by law@ to those made pursuant to a court order.
The judgment of a state legislature or regulatory body that a disclosure
is required is entitled to no less deference than the same decision made
by a court. For further rationale for this policy, see the preamble to
\' 164.512(a).

*Comment:* Some commenters argued that, in cases where a request for
disclosure is not required by law, covered entities should be permitted
to rely on the representations by public officials, that they have
requested no more than the minimum amount necessary.

*Response:* We agree, and retain the proposed provision which allows
reasonable reliance on the representations of public officials.

*Comment*: Some commenters argued that it is inappropriate to require
covered entities to distinguish between disclosures that are Arequired
by law@ and those that are merely Aauthorized by law,@ for the purposes
of determining when the standard applies.

*Response:* We do not agree. Covered entities have an independent duty
to be aware of their legal obligations to federal, state, local and
territorial or tribal authorities. In addition, \' 164.514(h) allows
covered entities to reasonably rely on the oral or written
representation of public officials that a disclosure is required by law.

*Comment:* The minimum necessary standard should not be applied to
pharmacists, or to emergency services.

*Response:* We believe that the final rule=s exemption of disclosures of
protected health information to health care providers for treatment
purposes from the minimum necessary standard addresses these commenters
concerns about emergency services. Together with the other changes we
make to the proposed standard, we believe we have also addressed most of
the commenters= concerns about pharmacists. With respect to pharmacists,
the comments offered no persuasive reasons to treat pharmacists
differently from other health care providers. Our reasons for retaining
this standard for other uses and disclosures of protected health
information are explained above.

*Comment*: A number of commenters argued that the standard should not
apply to disclosures to attorneys, because it would interfere with the
professional duties and judgment of attorneys in their representation of
covered entities. Commenters stated that if a layperson within a covered
entity makes an improper decision as to what the minimum necessary
information is in regard to a request by the entity\'s attorney, the
attorney may end up lacking information that is vital to representation.
These commenters stated that attorneys are usually going to be in a
better position to determine what information is truly the minimum
necessary for effective counsel and representation of the client.

*Response:* We found no compelling reason to treat attorneys differently
from other business associates. However, to ensure that this rule does
not inadvertently cause covered entities to second-guess the
professional judgment of the attorneys and other professionals they
hire, we modify the proposed policies to explicitly allow covered
entities to rely on the representation of a professional hired to
provide professional services as to what information is the minimum
necessary for that purpose.

*Comment:* Commenters from the law enforcement community expressed
concern that providers may attempt to misuse the minimum necessary
standard as a means to restrict access to information, particularly with
regard to disclosures for health oversight or to law enforcement
officials.

*Response:* The minimum necessary standard does not apply to disclosures
required by law. Since the disclosures to law enforcement officials to
which this standard applies are all voluntary, there would be no need
for a covered entity to Amanipulate@ the standard; it could decline to
make the disclosure.

*Comment:* Some commenters argued that the only exception to the
application of the standard should be when an individual requests access
to his or her own information. Many of these commenters expressed
specific concerns about victims of domestic violence and other forms of
abuse.

*Response:* We do not agree with the general assertion that disclosure
to the individual is the only appropriate exception to the minimum
necessary standard. There are other, limited, circumstances in which
application of the minimum necessary standard could cause significant
harm. For reasons described above, disclosures of protected health
information for treatment purposes are not subject to this standard.
Similarly, as described in detail in the preamble to \' 164.512(a),
where another public body has mandated the disclosure of health
information, upsetting that judgment in this regulation would not be
appropriate.

The more specific concerns expressed about victims of domestic violence
and other forms of abuse are addressed in a new provision regarding
disclosure of protected health information related to domestic violence
and abuse (see \' 164.512(c)), and in new limitations on disclosures to
persons involved in the individual=s care (see \' 164.510(b)). We
believe that the limitations we place on disclosure of health
information in those circumstances address the concerns of these
commenters.

*Comment:* Some commenters argued that disclosures to next of kin should
be restricted to minimum necessary protected health information, and to
protected health information about only the current medical condition.

*Response:* In the final regulation, we change the proposed provision
regarding Anext of kin@ to more clearly focus on the disclosures we
intended to target: disclosures to persons involved in the individual=s
care. We allow such disclosure only with the agreement of the
individual, or where the covered entity has offered the individual the
opportunity to object to the disclosure and the individual did not
object. If the opportunity to object cannot practicably be provided
because of the incapacity of the individual or other emergency, we
require covered entities to exercise professional judgment in the best
interest of the patient in deciding whether to disclose information. In
such cases, we permit disclosure only of that information directly
relevant to the person=s involvement with the individual=s health care.
(This provision also includes limited disclosure to certain persons
seeking to identify or locate an individual.) See \' 164.510(b).

Some additional concerns expressed about victims of domestic violence
and other forms of abuse are also addressed in a new section on
disclosure of protected health information related to domestic violence
and abuse. See \' 164.512(c). We believe that the limitations we place
on disclosure of health information in these provisions address the
concerns of these commenters.

*Comment:* Some commenters argued that covered entities should be
required to determine whether de-identified information could be used
before disclosing information under the minimum necessary standard.

*Response:* We believe that requiring covered entities= policies and
procedures for minimum necessary disclosures to address whether
de-identified information could be used in all instances would impose
burdens on some covered entities that could outweigh the benefits of
such a requirement. There is significant variation in the sophistication
of covered entities= information systems. Some covered entities can
reasonably implement policies and procedures that make significant use
of de-identified information; other covered entities would find such a
requirement excessively burdensome. For this reason, we chose instead to
require Areasonable efforts,@ which can vary according to the situation
of each covered entity.

In addition, we believe that the fact that we allow de-identified
information to be disclosed without regard to the policies, procedures,
and documentation required for disclosure of identifiable health
information will provide an incentive to encourage its use where
appropriate.

*Comment:* Several commenters argued that standard transactions should
not be subject to the standard.

*Response:* We agree that data elements that are required or
situationally required in the standard transactions should not be, and
are not, subject to this standard. However, in many cases, covered
entities have significant discretion as to the information included in
these transactions. Therefore, this standard does apply to those
optional data elements.

*Comment*: Some commenters asked for clarification to understand how the
minimum necessary standard is intended to interact with the security
NPRM.

*Response:* The proposed Security Rule included requirements for
electronic health information systems to include access management
controls. Under this regulation, the covered entity=s privacy policies
will determine who has access to what protected health information. We
will make every effort to ensure consistency prior to publishing the
final Security Rule.

*Comment*: Many commenters, representing health care providers, argued
that if the request was being made by a health plan, the health plan
should be required to request only the minimum protected health
information necessary. Some of these commenters stated that the
requestor is in a better position to know the minimum amount of
information needed for their purposes. Some of these commenters argued
that the minimum necessary standard should be imposed only on the
requesting entity. A few of these commenters argued that both the
disclosing and the requesting entity should be subject to the minimum
necessary standard, to create Ainternal tension@ to assure the standard
is honored.

*Response:* We agree, and in the final rule we require that a request
for protected health information made by one covered entity to another
covered entity must be limited to the minimum amount necessary for the
purpose. As with uses and disclosures of protected health information,
covered entities may have standard protocols for routine requests.
Similarly, this requirement does not apply to requests made to health
care providers for treatment purposes. We modify the rule to balance
this provision; that is, it now applies both to disclosure of and
requests for protected health information. We also allow, but do not
require, the covered entity releasing the information to reasonably rely
on the assertion of a requesting covered entity that it is requesting
only the minimum protected health information necessary.

*Comment*: A few commenters suggested that there should be a process for
resolving disputes between covered entities over what constitutes the
\>minimum necessary= information.

*Response:* We do not intend that this rule change the way covered
entities currently handle their differences regarding the disclosure of
health information. We understand that the scope of information
requested from providers by health plans is a source of tension in the
industry today, and we believe it would not be appropriate to use this
regulation to affect that debate. As discussed above, we require both
the requesting and the disclosing covered entity to take privacy
concerns into account, but do not inject additional tension into the
on-going discussions.

**Section 164.514(e)CMarketing**

*Comment*: Many commenters requested clarification of the boundaries
between treatment, payment, health care operations, and marketing. Some
of these commenters requested clarification of the apparent
inconsistency between language in proposed \' 164.506(a)(1)(i) (a
covered entity is permitted to use or disclose protected health
information without authorization Ato carry out@ treatment, payment, or
health care operations) and proposed \' 164.508(a)(2)(A) (a covered
entity must obtain an authorization for all uses and disclosures that
are not Acompatible with or directly related to@ treatment, payment, and
health care operations). They suggested retaining the language in
proposed \' 164.508(a)(2)(A), which would permit a broader range of uses
and disclosures without authorization, in order to engage in health
promotion activities that might otherwise be considered marketing.

*Response:* In the final rule, we make several changes to the
definitions of treatment, payment, and health care operations that are
intended to clarify the uses and disclosures of protected health
information that may be made for each purpose. See \' 164.501 and the
corresponding preamble discussion regarding the definitions of these
terms. We also have added a definition of the term Amarketing@ to help
establish the boundary between marketing and treatment, payment, and
health care operations. See \' 164.501. We also clarify the conditions
under which authorization is or is not required for uses and disclosures
of protected health information for marketing purposes. See \'
164.514(e). Due to these changes, we believe it is appropriate to retain
the wording from proposed \' 164.506(a)(1)(i).

*Comment:* We received a wide variety of suggestions with respect to
authorization for uses and disclosures of protected health information
for marketing purposes. Some commenters supported requiring
authorization for all such uses and disclosures. Other commenters
suggested permitting all such uses and disclosures without
authorization.

Some commenters suggested we distinguish between marketing to benefit
the covered entity and marketing to benefit a third party. For example,
a few commenters suggested we should prohibit covered entities from
seeking authorization for any use or disclosure for marketing purposes
that benefit a third party. These commenters argued that the third
parties should be required to obtain the individual=s authorization
directly from the individual, not through a covered entity, due to the
potential for conflicts of interest.

While a few commenters suggested that we require covered entities to
obtain authorization to use or disclose protected health information for
the purpose of marketing its own products and services, the majority
argued these types of marketing activities are vital to covered entities
and their customers and should therefore be permitted to occur without
authorization. For example, commenters suggested covered entities should
be able to use and disclose protected health information without
authorization in order to provide appointment reminders, newsletters,
information about new initiatives, and program bulletins.

Finally, many commenters argued we should not require authorization for
the use or disclosure of protected health information to market any
health-related goods and services, even if those goods and services are
offered by a third party. Some of these commenters suggested that
individuals should have an opportunity to opt out of these types of
marketing activities rather than requiring authorization.

*Response:* We have modified the final rule in ways that address a
number of the issues raised in the comments. First, the final rule
defines the term marketing, and excepts certain communications from the
definition. See \' 164.501. These exceptions include communications made
by covered entities for the purpose of describing network providers or
other available products, services, or benefits and communications made
by covered entities for certain treatment-related purposes. These
exceptions only apply to oral communications or to written
communications for which the covered entity receives no third-party
remuneration. The exceptions to the definition of marketing fall within
the definitions of treatment and/or health care operations, and
therefore uses, or disclosures to a business associate, of protected
health information for these purposes are permissible under the rule
without authorization.

The final rule also permits covered entities to use protected health
information to market health-related products and services, whether they
are the products and services of the covered entity or of a third party,
subject to a number of limitations. See \' 164.514(e). We permit these
uses to allow entities in the health sector to inform their patients and
enrollees about products that may benefit them. The final rule contains
significant restrictions, including requirements that the covered entity
disclose itself as the source of a marketing communication, that it
disclose any direct or indirect remuneration from third parties for
making the disclosure, and that, except in the cases of general
communications such as a newsletter, the communication disclose how the
individual can opt-out of receiving additional marketing communications.
Additional requirements are imposed if the communication is targeted
based on the health status or condition of the proposed recipients.

We believe that these modifications address many of the issues raised by
commenters and provide a substantial amount of flexibility as to when a
covered entity may communicate about a health-related product or service
to a patient or enrollee. These communications may include appointment
reminders, newsletters, and information about new health products. These
changes, however, do not permit a covered entity to disclose protected
health information to third parties for marketing (other than to a
business associate to make a marketing communication on behalf of the
covered entity) without authorization under \' 164.508.

*Comment:* A few commenters suggested we prohibit health care
clearinghouses from seeking authorization for the use or disclosure of
protected health information for marketing purposes.

*Response:* We do not prohibit clearinghouses from seeking
authorizations for these purposes. We believe, however, that health care
clearinghouses will almost always create or obtain protected health
information in a business associate capacity. Business associates may
only engage in activities involving the use or disclosure of protected
health information, including seeking or acting on an authorization, to
the extent their contracts allow them to do so. When a clearinghouse
creates or receives protected health information other than as a
business associate of a covered entity, it is permitted and required to
obtain authorizations to the same extent as any other covered entity.

*Comment:* A few commenters suggested we require covered entities to
publicly disclose, on the covered entity=s website or upon request, all
of their marketing arrangements.

*Response:* While we agree that such a requirement would provide
individuals with additional information about how their information
would be used, we do not feel that such a significant intrusion into the
business practices of the covered entity is warranted.

*Comment*: Some commenters argued that if an activity falls within the
scope of payment, it should not be considered marketing. Commenters
strongly supported an approach which would bar an activity from being
construed as Amarketing@ even if performing that activity would result
in financial gain to the covered entity. In a similar vein, we were
urged to adopt the position that if an activity was considered payment,
treatment or health care operations, it could not be further evaluated
to determine whether it should be excluded as marketing.

*Response:* We considered the approach offered by commenters but decided
against it. Some activities, such as the marketing of a covered entity=s
own health-related products or services, are now included in the
definition of health care operations, provided certain requirements are
met. Other types of activities, such as the sale of a patient list to a
marketing firm, would not be permitted under this rule without
authorization from the individual. We do not believe that we can
envision every possible disclosure of health information that would
violate the privacy of an individual, so any list would be incomplete.
Therefore, whether or not a particular activity is considered marketing,
payment, treatment or health care operations will be a fact-based
determination based on the activity=s congruence with the particular
definition.

*Comment:* Some industry groups stated that if an activity involves
selling products, it is not disease management. They suggested we adopt
a definition of disease management that differentiates use of
information for the best interests of patient from uses undertaken for
\"ulterior purposes\" such as advertising, marketing, or promoting
separate products.

*Response:* We agree in general that the sale of unrelated products to
individuals is not a population-based activity that supports treatment
and payment. However, in certain circumstances marketing activities are
permitted as a health care operation; see the definition of Ahealth care
operations@ in \' 164.501 and the related marketing requirements of \'
164.514.

*Comment:* Some commenters complained that the absence of a definition
for disease management created uncertainty, in view of the proposed
rule=s requirement to get authorization for marketing. They expressed
concern that the effect would be to require patient consent for many
activities that are desirable, not practicably done if authorization is
required, and otherwise classifiable as treatment, payment, or health
care operations. Examples provided include reminders for appointments,
reminders to get preventive services like mammograms, and information
about home management of chronic illnesses. They also stated that the
proposed rule would prevent many disease management and preventive
health activities.

*Response:* We agree that the distinction in the NPRM between disease
management and marketing was unclear. Rather than provide a definition
of disease management, this final rule defines marketing. We note that
overlap between disease management and marketing exists today in
practice and they cannot be distinguished easily with a definitional
label. However, for purposes of this rule, the revised language makes
clear for what activities an authorization is required. We note that
under this rule many of the activities mentioned by commenters will not
require authorizations under most circumstances. See the discussion of
disease management under the definition of Atreatment@ in \' 164.501.

**Section 164.514(f)CFundraising**

*Comment*: Many comments objected to the requirement that an
authorization from the individual be obtained for use and disclosure of
protected health information for fundraising purposes. They argued that,
in the case of not-for-profit health care providers, having to obtain
authorization would be time consuming and costly, and that such a
requirement would lead to a decrease in charitable giving. The
commenters also urged that fundraising be included within the definition
of health care operations. Numerous commenters suggested that they did
not need unfettered access to patient information in order to carry out
their fundraising campaigns. They stated that a limited data set
restricted to name, address, and telephone number would be sufficient to
meet their needs. Several commenters suggested that we create a
voluntary opt-out provision so people can avoid solicitations.

*Response:* We agree with commenters that our proposal could have
adversely effected charitable giving, and accordingly make several
modifications to the proposal. First, the final rule allows a covered
entity to use or disclose to a business associate protected health
information without authorization to identify individuals for
fundraising for its own benefit. Permissible fundraising activities
include appeals for money, sponsorship of events, etc. They do not
include royalties or remittances for the sale of products of third
parties (except auctions, rummage sales, etc).

Second, the final rule allows a covered entity to disclose protected
health information without authorization to an institutionally related
foundation that has as its mission to benefit the covered entity. This
special provision is necessary to accommodate tax code provisions which
may not allow such foundations to be business associates of their
associated covered entity.

We also agree that broad access to protected health information is
unnecessary for fundraising and unnecessarily intrudes on individual
privacy. The final rule limits protected health information to be used
or disclosed for fundraising to demographic information and the date
that treatment occurred. Demographic information is not defined in the
rule, but will generally include in this context name, address and other
contact information, age, gender, and insurance status. The term does
not include any information about the illness or treatment.

We also agree that a voluntary opt-out is an appropriate protection, and
require in \' 164.520 that covered entities provide information on their
fundraising activities in their ANotice of Information Practices.@ As
part of the notice and in any fundraising materials, covered entities
must provide information explaining how individuals may opt out of
fundraising communications.

*Comment:* Some commenters stated that use and disclosure of protected
health information for fundraising, without authorization should be
limited to not-for-profit entities. They suggested that not-for-profit
entities were in greater need of charitable contributions and as such,
they should be exempt from the authorization requirement while
for-profit organizations should have to comply with the requirement.

*Response:* We do not agree that the profit status of a covered entity
should determine its allowable use of protected health information for
fundraising. Many for-profit entities provide the same services and have
similar missions to not-for-profit entities. Therefore, the final rule
does not make this distinction.

*Comment:* Several commenters suggested that the final rule should allow
the internal use of protected health information for fundraising,
without authorization, but not disclosure for fundraising. These
commenters suggested that by limiting access of protected health
information to only internal development offices concerns about misuse
would be reduced.

*Response:* We do not agree. A number of commenters noted that they have
related charitable foundations that raise funds for the covered entity,
and we permit disclosures to such foundations to ensure that this rule
does not interfere with charitable giving.

*Comment*: Several commenters asked us to address the content of
fundraising letters. They pointed out that disease or condition-specific
letters requesting contributions, if opened by the wrong person, could
reveal personal information about the intended recipient.

*Response*: We agree that such communications raise privacy concerns. In
the final rule, we limit the information that can be used or disclosed
for fundraising, and exclude information about diagnosis, nature of
services, or treatment.

**Section 164.514(g)CVerification**

*Comment:* A few commenters suggested that verification guidelines may
need to be different as they apply to emergency clinical situations as
opposed to routine data collection where delays do not threaten health.

*Response:* We agree, and make special provisions in \'\' 164.510 and
164.512 for disclosures of protected health information by a covered
entity without authorization where the individual is unable to agree or
object to disclosure due to incapacity or other emergency circumstance.

For example, a health care provider may need to make disclosures to
family members, close personal friends, and others involved in the
individual=s care in emergency situations. Similarly, a health care
provider may need to respond to a request from a hospital seeking
protected health information in a circumstance described as an
emergency. In each case, we require only that the covered entity
exercise professional judgment, in the best interest of the patient, in
deciding whether to make a disclosure. Based on the comments and our
fact finding, this reflects current practice.

*Comment:* A few commenters stated the rules should include provisions
for electronic verification of identity (such as Public Key
Infrastructure (PKI)) as established in the regulations on Security and
Electronic Signatures. One commenter suggested that some kind of PKI
credentialing certificate should be required.

*Response:* This regulation does not address specific technical
protocols utilized to meet the verification requirements. If the
requirements of the rule are otherwise met, the mechanism for meeting
them can be determined by the covered entity.

*Comment:* A few commenters wanted more clarification on the
verification procedures. One commenter wanted to know if contract number
is enough for verification. A few commenters wanted to know if a
callback or authorization on a letterhead is acceptable. A few
commenters wanted to know if plans are considered to Aroutinely do
business@ with all of their members.

*Response:* In the final rule, we modify the proposed provision and
require covered entities to have policies and procedures reasonably
designed to verify the identify and authority of persons requesting
protected health information. Whether knowledge of a contract number is
reasonable evidence of authority and identity will depend on the
circumstances. Call-backs and letterhead are typically used today for
verification, and are acceptable under this rule if reasonable under the
circumstances. For communications with health plan members, the covered
entity will already have information about each individual, collected
during enrollment, that can be used to establish identity, especially
for verbal or electronic inquiries. For example, today many health plans
ask for the social security or policy number of individuals seeking
information or assistance by telephone. How this verification is done is
left up to the covered entity.

*Comment:* One commenter expressed the need for consistency on
verification requirements between this rule and the Security regulation.

*Response:* We will make every effort to ensure consistency prior to
publishing the final Security Rule.

*Comment:* One commenter stated that the verification language in
proposed \' 164.518(c)(2)(ii)(B)(1) would have created a presumption
that Aa request for disclosure made by official legal process issued by
a\[n\] administrative body@ is reasonable legal authority to disclose
the protected health information. The commenter was concerned that this
provision could be interpreted to permit a state agency to demand the
disclosure of protected health information merely on the basis of a
letter signed by an agency representative. The commenter believed that
the rule specifically should defer to state or federal law on the
disclosure of protected health information pursuant to legal process.

*Response:* The verification provisions in this rule are minimum
requirements that covered entities must meet before disclosing protected
health information under this regulation. They do not mandate
disclosure, nor do they preempt state laws which impose additional
restrictions on disclosure. Where state law regarding disclosures is
more stringent, the covered entity must adhere to state law.

*Comment:* A few commenters wanted the verification requirements to
apply to disclosures of protected health information for treatment,
payment and operations purposes.

*Response:* We agree. This verification requirement applies to all
disclosures of protected health information permitted by this rule,
including for treatment, payment and operations, where the identity of
the recipient is not known to the covered entity. Routine communications
between providers, where existing relationships have been established,
do not require special verification procedures.

*Comment*: A few commenters were concerned that a verbal inquiry for
next of kin verification is not consistent with the verification
guidelines of this verification subsection and that verbal inquiry would
create problems because anyone who purports to be a next of kin could
easily obtain information under false pretenses.

*Response:* In the final rule in \' 164.514, we require the covered
entity to verify the identity and authority of persons requesting
protected health information, where the identity and authority of such
person is not known to the covered entity. This applies to next of kin
situations. Procedures for disclosures to next of kin, other family
members and persons assisting in an individual=s care are also discussed
in \' 164.510(b), which allows the covered entity to exercise
professional judgment as to whether the disclosure is in the
individual=s best interest when the individual is not available to agree
to the disclosure or is incapacitated. Requiring written proof of
identity in many of these situations, such as when a family member is
seeking to locate a relative in an emergency or disaster situation,
would create enormous burden without a corresponding enhancement of
privacy, and could cause unnecessary delays in these situations. We
therefore believe that reliance on professional judgment provides a
better framework for balancing the need for privacy with the need to
locate and identify individuals.

*Comment:* A few commenters stated that the verification requirements
will provide great uncertainty to providers who receive authorizations
from life, disability income and long-term care insurers in the course
of underwriting and claims investigation. They are unaware of any
breaches of confidentiality associated with these circumstances and
believe the rule creates a solution to a non-existent problem. Another
commenter stated that it is too burdensome for health care providers to
verify requests that are normally received verbally or via fax.

*Response:* This rule requires covered health care providers to adhere
to current best practices for verification. That is, when the requester
is not known to the covered provider, the provider makes a reasonable
effort to determine that the protected health information is being sent
to the entity authorized to receive it. Our fact finding reveals that
this is often done by sending the information to a recognizable
organizational address or if being transmitted by fax or phone by
calling the requester back through the main organization switchboard
rather than through a direct phone number. We agree that these
procedures seem to work reasonably well in current practice and are
sufficient to meet the relevant requirements in the final rule.

*Comments:* One comment suggested requiring a form of photo
identification such as a driver\'s license or certain personal
information such as date of birth to verify the identity of the
individual.

*Response:* These are exactly the types of standard procedures for
verifying the identity of individuals that are envisioned by the final
rule. Most health care entities already conduct such procedures
successfully. However, it is unwise to prescribe specific means of
verification for all situations. Instead, we require policies and
procedures reasonably designed for purposes of verification.

*Comment:* One professional association said that the example procedure
described in the NPRM for asking questions to verify that an adult
acting for a young child had the requisite relationship to the child
would be quite complex and difficult in practice. The comment asked for
specific guidance as to what questions would constitute an adequate
attempt to verify such a relationship.

*Response:* The final rule requires the covered entity to implement
policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to comply with the
verification requirement in \' 164.514. It would not be possible to
create the requested specific guidance which could deal with the
infinite variety of situations that providers must face, especially the
complex ones such as that described by the commenter. As with many of
the requirements of this final rule, health care providers are given
latitude and expected to make decisions regarding disclosures, based on
their professional judgment and experience with common practice, in the
best interest of the individual.

*Comment:* One commenter asserted that ascertaining whether a requestor
has the appropriate legal authority is beyond the scope of the training
or expertise of most employees in a physician=s office. They believe
that health care providers must be able to reasonably rely on the
authority of the requestor.

*Response:* In the final regulation we require covered entities to have
policies and procedures reasonably designed to verify the identify and
authority of persons requesting health information. Where the requester
is a public official and legal authority is at issue, we provide
detailed descriptions of the acceptable methods for such verification in
the final rule. For others, the covered entity must implement policies
and procedures that are reasonably designed to comply with the
requirement to verify the identity and authority of a requestor, but
only if the requestor is unknown to the covered entity. As described
above, we expect these policies and procedures to document currently
used best practices and reliance on professional judgment in the best
interest of the individual.

*Comment:* One commenter expressed concern that the
verification/identification procedures may eliminate or significantly
reduce their ability to utilize medical records copy services. As
written, they believe the NPRM provides the latitude to set up copy
service arrangements, but any change that would add restrictions would
adversely affect their ability to process an individual=s disability
claim.

*Response:* The covered entity can establish reasonable policies and
procedures to address verification in routine disclosures under business
associate agreements, with, for example, medical records copy services.
Nothing in the verification provisions would preclude those activities,
nor have we significantly modified the NPRM provision on this issue.

**SECTION 164.520CNOTICE OF PRIVACY PRACTICES FOR PROTECTED HEALTH
INFORMATION**

*Comment*: Many commenters supported the proposal to require covered
entities to produce a notice of information practices. They stated that
such notice would improve individuals= understanding of how their
information may be used and disclosed and would help to build trust
between individuals and covered entities. A few comments, however,
argued that the notice requirement would be administratively burdensome
and expensive without providing significant benefit to individuals.

*Response:* We retain the requirement for covered health care providers
and health plans to produce a notice of information practices. We
additionally require health care clearinghouses that create or receive
protected health information other than as a business associate of
another covered entity to produce a notice. We believe the notice will
provide individuals with a clearer understanding of how their
information may be used and disclosed and is essential to inform
individuals of their privacy rights. The notice will focus individuals
on privacy issues, and prompt individuals to have discussions about
privacy issues with their health plans, health care providers, and other
persons.

The importance of providing individuals with notice of the uses and
disclosures of their information and of their rights with respect to
that information is well supported by industry groups, and is recognized
in current state and federal law. The July 1977 Report of the Privacy
Protection Study Commission recommended that Aeach medical-care provider
be required to notify an individual on whom it maintains a medical
record of the disclosures that may be made of information in the record
without the individual=s express authorization.@[^23] The Commission
also recommended that Aan insurance institution\... notify \[an
applicant or principal insured\] as to: \... the types of parties to
whom and circumstances under which information about the individual may
be disclosed without his authorization, and the types of information
that may be disclosed; \[and\] \... the procedures whereby the
individual may correct, amend, delete, or dispute any resulting record
about himself.@[^24] The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) requires government
agencies to provide notice of the routine uses of information the agency
collects and the rights individuals have with respect to that
information. In its report ABest Principles for Health Privacy,@ the
Health Privacy Working Group stated, AIndividuals should be given notice
about the use and disclosure of their health information and their
rights with regard to that information.@[^25] The National Association
of Insurance Commissioners= Health Information Privacy Model Act
requires carriers to provide a written notice of health information
policies, standards, and procedures, including a description of the uses
and disclosures prohibited and permitted by the Act, the procedures for
authorizing and limiting disclosures and for revoking authorizations,
and the procedures for accessing and amending protected health
information.

Some states require additional notice. For example, Hawaii requires
health care providers and health plans, among others, to produce a
notice of confidentiality practices, including a description of the
individual=s privacy rights and a description of the uses and
disclosures of protected health information permitted under state law
without the individual=s authorization. (HRS section 323C-13)

Today, health plan hand books and evidences of coverage include some of
what is required to be in the notice. Industry and standard-setting
organizations have also developed notice requirements. The National
Committee for Quality Assurance accreditation guidelines state that an
accredited managed care organization Acommunicates to prospective
members its policies and practices regarding the collection, use, and
disclosure of medical information \[and\]\... informs members\... of its
policies and procedures on\... allowing members access to their medical
records.@[^26] Standards of the American Society for Testing and
Materials state, AOrganizations and individuals who collect, process,
handle, or maintain health information should provide individuals and
the public with a notice of information practices.@ They recommend that
the notice include, among other elements, Aa description of the rights
of individuals, including the right to inspect and copy information and
the right to seek amendments \[and\] a description of the types of uses
and disclosures that are permitted or required by law without the
individual=s authorization.@[^27] We build on this well-established
principle in this final rule.

*Comment*: We received many comments on the model notice provided in the
proposed rule. Some commenters argued that patients seeing similar
documents would be less likely to become disoriented when examining a
new notice. Other commenters, however, opposed the inclusion of a model
notice or expressed concern about particular language included in the
model. They maintained that a uniform model notice would never capture
the varying practices of covered entities. Many commenters opposed
requirements for a particular format or specific language in the notice.
They stated that covered entities should be afforded maximum flexibility
in fashioning their notices. Other commenters requested inclusion of
specific language as a header to indicate the importance of the notice.
A few commenters recommended specific formatting requirements, such as
font size or type.

*Response:* On the whole, we found commenters= arguments for flexibility
in the regulation more persuasive than those arguing for more
standardization. We agree that a uniform notice would not capture the
wide variation in information practices across covered entities. We
therefore do not include a model notice in the final rule, and do not
require inclusion of specific language in the notice (except for a
standard header). We also do not require particular formatting. We do,
however, require the notice to be written in plain language. (See above
for guidance on writing documents in plain language.) We also agree with
commenters that the notice should contain a standard header to draw the
individual=s attention to the notice and facilitate the individual=s
ability to recognize the notice across covered entities.

We believe that post-publication guidance will be a more effective
mechanism for helping covered entities design their notices than the
regulation itself. After the rule is published, we can provide guidance
on notice content and format tailored to different types of health plans
and providers. We believe such specially designed guidance will be more
useful that a one-size-fits-all model notice we might publish with this
regulation.

*Comment:* Commenters suggested that the rule should require that the
notice regarding privacy practices include specific provisions related
to health information of unemancipated minors.

*Response:* Although we agree that minors and their parents should be
made aware of practices related to confidentiality of protected health
information of unemancipated minors, we do not require covered entities
that treat minors or use their protected health information to include
provisions in their notice that are not required of other covered
entities. In general, the content of notice requirements in \'
164.520(b) do not vary based on the status of the individual being
served. We have decided to maintain consistency by declining to
prescribe specific notice requirements for minors. The rule does permit
a covered entity to provide individuals with notice of its policies and
procedures with respect to anticipated uses and disclosures of protected
health information (\' 164.520(b)(2)), and providers are encouraged to
do so.

*Comment:* Some commenters argued that covered entities should not be
required to distinguish between those uses and disclosures that are
required by law and those that are permitted by law without
authorization, because these distinctions may not always be clear and
will vary across jurisdictions. Some commenters maintained that simply
stating that the covered entity would make all disclosures required by
law would be sufficient. Other comments suggested that covered entities
should be able to produce very broadly stated notices so that repeated
revisions and mailings of those revisions would not be necessary.

*Response*: While we believe that covered entities have an independent
duty to understand the laws to which they are subject, we also recognize
that it could be difficult to convey such legal distinctions clearly and
concisely in a notice. We therefore eliminate the proposed requirement
for covered entities to distinguish between those uses and disclosures
that are required by and those that are permitted by law. We instead
require that covered entities describe each purpose for which they are
permitted or required to use or disclose protected health information
under this rule and other applicable law without individual consent or
authorization. Specifically, covered entities must describe the types of
uses and disclosures they are permitted to make for treatment, payment,
and health care operations. They must also describe each of the purposes
for which the covered entity is permitted or required by this subpart to
use or disclose protected health information without the individual=s
written consent or authorization (even if they do not plan to make a
permissive use or disclosure). We believe this requirement provides
individuals with sufficient information to understand how information
about them can be used and disclosed and to prompt them to ask for
additional information to obtain a clearer understanding, while
minimizing covered entities= burden.

A notice that stated only that the covered entity would make all
disclosures required by law, as suggested by some of these commenters,
would fail to inform individuals of the uses and disclosures of
information about them that are permitted, but not required, by law. We
clarify that each and every disclosure required by law need not be
listed on the notice. Rather, the covered entity can include a general
statement that disclosures required by law will be made.

*Comment:* Some comments argued that the covered entity should not have
to provide notice about uses and disclosures that are permitted under
the rule without authorization. Other comments suggested that the notice
should inform individuals about all of the uses and disclosures that may
be made, with or without the individual=s authorization.

*Response:* When the individual=s permission is not required for uses
and disclosures of information, we believe providing the required notice
is the most effective means of ensuring that individuals are aware of
how information about them may be shared. The notice need not describe
uses and disclosures for which the individual=s permission is required,
because the individual will be informed of these at the time permission
to use or disclose the information is requested.

We additionally require covered entities, even those required to obtain
the individual=s consent for use and disclosure of protected health
information for treatment, payment, and health care operations, to
describe those uses and disclosures in their notice. (See \' 164.506 and
the corresponding preamble discussion regarding consent requirements.)
We require these uses and disclosures to be described in the notice in
part in order to reduce the administrative burden on covered providers
that are required to obtain consent. Rather than obtaining a new consent
each time the covered provider=s information policies and procedures are
materially revised, covered providers may revise and redistribute their
notice. We also expect that the description of how information may be
used to carry out treatment, payment, and health care operations in the
notice will be more detailed than in the more general consent document.

*Comment:* Some commenters argued that covered entities should not be
required to provide notice of the right to request restrictions, because
doing so would be burdensome to the covered entity and distracting to
the individual; because individuals have the right whether they are
informed of such right or not; and because the requirement would be
unlikely to improve patient care.

*Response:* We disagree. We believe that the ability of an individual to
request restrictions is an important privacy right and that informing
people of their rights improves their ability to exercise those rights.
We do not believe that adding a sentence to the notice is burdensome to
covered entities.

*Comment:* We received comments supporting inclusion of a contact point
in the notice, so that individuals will not be forced to make multiple
calls to find someone who can assist them with the issues in the notice.

*Response:* We retain the requirement, but clarify that the title of the
contact person is sufficient. A person=s name is not required.

C*omment:* Some commenters argued that we could facilitate compliance by
requiring the notice to include the proposed requirement that covered
entities use and disclose only the minimum necessary protected health
information.

*Response:* We do not agree that adding such a requirement would
strengthen the notice. The purpose of the notice is to inform
individuals of their privacy rights, and of the purposes for which
protected health information about them may be used or disclosed.
Informing individuals that covered entities may use and disclose only
the minimum necessary protected health information for a purpose would
not increase individuals= understanding of their rights or the purposes
for which information may be used or disclosed.

*Comment:* A few commenters supported allowing covered entities to apply
changes in their information practices to protected health information
obtained prior to the change. They argued that requiring different
protections for information obtained at different times would be
inefficient and extremely difficult to administer. Some comments
supported requiring covered entities to state in the notice that the
information policies and procedures are subject to change.

*Response:* We agree. In the final rule, we provide a mechanism by which
covered entities may revise their privacy practices and apply those
revisions to protected health information they already maintain. We
permit, but do not require, covered entities to reserve the right to
change their practices and apply the revised practices to information
previously created or obtained. If a covered entity wishes to reserve
this right, it must make a statement to that effect in its notice. If it
does not make such a statement, the covered entity may still revise its
privacy practices, but it may apply the revised practices only to
protected health information created or obtained after the effective
date of the notice in which the revised practices are reflected. See \'
164.530(i) and the corresponding preamble discussion of requirements
regarding changes to information policies and procedures.

*Comment:* Some commenters requested clarification of the term Amaterial
changes@ so that entities will be comfortable that they act properly
after making changes to their information practices. Some comments
stated that entities should notify individuals whenever a new category
of disclosures to be made without authorization is created.

*Response:* The concept of Amaterial change@ appears in other notice
laws, such as the ERISA requirements for summary plan descriptions. We
therefore retain the Amateriality@ condition for revision of notices,
and encourage covered entities to draw on the concept as it has
developed through those other laws. We agree that the addition of a new
category of use or disclosure of health information that may be made
without authorization would likely qualify as a material change.

*Comment:* We proposed to permit covered entities to implement revised
policies and procedures without first revising the notice if a
compelling reason existed to do so. Some commenters objected to this
proposal because they were concerned that the Acompelling reason@
exception would give covered entities broad discretion to engage in post
hoc violations of its own information practices.

*Response:* We agree and eliminate this provision. Covered entities may
not implement revised information policies and procedures before
properly documenting the revisions and updating their notice. See \'
164.530(i). Because in the final rule we require the notice to include
all disclosures that may be made, not only those the covered entity
intends to make, we no longer need this provision to accommodate
emergencies.

*Comment:* Some comments suggested that we require covered entities to
maintain a log of all past notices, with changes from the previous
notice highlighted. They further suggested we require covered entities
to post this log on their web sites.

*Response:* In accordance with \' 164.530(j)(2), a covered entity must
retain for six years a copy of each notice it issues. We do not require
highlighting of changes to the notice or posting of prior notices, due
to the associated administrative burdens and the complexity such a
requirement would build into the notice over time. We encourage covered
entities, however, to make such materials available upon request.

*Comment*: Several commenters requested clarification about when,
relative to the compliance date, covered entities are required to
produce their notice. One commenter suggested that covered entities be
allowed a period not less than 180 days after adoption of the final rule
to develop and distribute the notice. Other comments requested that the
notice compliance date be consistent with other HIPAA regulations.

*Response:* We require covered entities to have a notice available upon
request as of the compliance date of this rule (or the compliance date
of the covered entity if such date is later). See \' 164.534 and the
corresponding preamble discussion of the compliance date.

*Comment:* Some commenters suggested that covered entities, particularly
covered health care providers, should be required to discuss the notice
with individuals. They argued that posting a notice or otherwise
providing the notice in writing may not achieve the goal of informing
individuals of how their information will be handled, because some
individuals may not be literate or able to function at the reading level
used in the notice. Others argued that entities should have the
flexibility to choose alternative modes of communicating the information
in the notice, including voice disclosure. In contrast, some commenters
were concerned that requirements to provide the notice in plain language
or in languages other than English would be overly burdensome.

*Response:* We require covered entities to write the notice in plain
language so that the average reader will be able to understand the
notice. We encourage, but do not require, covered entities to consider
alternative means of communicating with certain populations. We note
that any covered entity that is a recipient of federal financial
assistance is generally obligated under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 to provide material ordinarily distributed to the public in the
primary languages of persons with limited English proficiency in the
recipients= service areas. While we believe the notice will prompt
individuals to initiate discussions with their health plans and health
care providers about the use and disclosure of health information, we
believe this should be a matter left to each individual and that
requiring covered entities to initiate discussions with each individual
would be overly burdensome.

*Comment:* Some commenters suggested that covered entities, particularly
health plans, should be permitted to distribute their notice in a
newsletter or other communication with individuals.

*Response:* We agree, so long as the notice is sufficiently separate
from other important documents. We therefore prohibit covered entities
from combining the notice in a single document with either a consent (\'
164.506) or an authorization (\' 164.508), but do not otherwise prohibit
covered entities from including the notice in or with other documents
the covered entity shares with individuals.

*Comment:* Some comments suggested that covered entities should not be
required to respond to requests for the notice from the general public.
These comments indicated that the requirement would place an undue
burden on covered entities without benefitting individuals.

*Response:* We proposed that the notice be publicly available so that
individuals may use the notice to compare covered entities= privacy
practices and to select a health plan or health care provider
accordingly. We therefore retain the proposed requirement for covered
entities to provide the notice to any person who requests a copy,
including members of the general public.

*Comment:* Many commenters argued that the distribution requirements for
health plans should be less burdensome. Some suggested requiring
distribution upon material revision, but not every three years. Some
suggested that health plans should only be required to distribute their
notice annually or upon re-enrollment. Some suggested that health plans
should only have to distribute their notice upon initial enrollment, not
re-enrollment. Other commenters supported the proposed approach.

*Response:* We agree that the notice distribution requirements for
health plans can be less burdensome than in the NPRM while still being
effective. In the final rule, we reduce health plans= distribution
burden in several ways. First, we require health plans to remind
individuals every three years of the availability of the notice and of
how to obtain a copy of the notice, rather than requiring the notice to
be distributed every three years as proposed. Second, we clarify that
health plans only have to distribute the notice to new enrollees on
enrollment, not to current members of the health plan upon
re-enrollment. Third, we specifically allow all covered entities to
distribute the notice electronically in accordance with \'
164.520(c)(3).

We retain the requirement for health plans to distribute the notice
within 60 days of a material revision. We believe the revised
distribution requirements will ensure that individuals are adequately
informed of health plans= information practices and any changes to those
procedures, without unduly burdening health plans.

*Comment:* Many commenters argued that health plans should not be
required to distribute their notice to every person covered by the plan.
They argued that distributing the notice to every family member would be
unnecessarily duplicative, costly, and difficult to administer. They
suggested that health plans only be required to distribute the notice to
the primary participant or to each household with one or more insured
individuals.

*Response:* We agree, and clarify in the final rule that a health plan
may satisfy the distribution requirement by providing the notice to the
named insured on behalf of the dependents of that named insured. For
example, a group health plan may satisfy its notice requirement by
providing a single notice to each covered employee of the plan sponsor.
We do not require the group health plan to distribute the notice to each
covered employee and to each covered dependent of those employees.

*Comment:* Many comments requested clarification about health plans=
ability to distribute the notice via other entities. Some commenters
suggested that group health plans should be able to satisfy the
distribution requirement by providing copies of the notice to plan
sponsors for delivery to employees. Others requested clarification that
covered health care providers are only required to distribute their own
notice and that health plans should be prohibited from using their
affiliated providers to distribute the health plan=s notice.

*Response:* We require health plans to distribute their notice to
individuals covered by the health plan. Health plans may elect to hire
or otherwise arrange for others, including group health plan sponsors
and health care providers affiliated with the health plan, to carry out
this distribution. We require covered providers to distribute only their
own notices, and neither require nor prohibit health plans and health
care providers from devising whatever arrangements they find suitable to
meet the requirements of this rule. However, if a covered entity
arranges for another person or entity to distribute the covered entity=s
notice on its behalf and individuals do not receive such notice, the
covered entity would be in violation of the rule.

*Comment:* Some comments stated that covered providers without direct
patient contact, such as clinical laboratories, might not have
sufficient patient contact information to be able to mail the notice.
They suggested we require or allow such providers to form agreements
with referring providers or other entities to distribute notices on
their behalf or to include their practices in the referring entity=s own
notice.

*Response:* We agree with commenters= concerns about the potential
administrative and financial burdens of requiring covered providers that
have indirect treatment relationships with individuals, such as clinical
laboratories, to distribute the notice. Therefore, we require these
covered providers to provide the notice only upon request. In addition,
these covered providers may elect to reach agreements with other
entities distribute their notice on their behalf, or to participate in
an organized health care arrangement that produces a joint notice. See
\' 164.520(d) and the corresponding preamble discussion of joint notice
requirements.

*Comment:* Some commenters requested that covered health care providers
be permitted to distribute their notice prior to an individual=s initial
visit so that patients could review the information in advance of the
visit. They suggested that distribution in advance would reduce the
amount of time covered health care providers= staff would have to spend
explaining the notice to patients in the office. Other comments argued
that providers should distribute their notice to patients at the time
the individual visits the provider, because providers lack the
administrative infrastructure necessary to develop and distribute mass
communications and generally have difficulty identifying active
patients.

*Response:* In the final rule, we clarify that covered providers with
direct treatment relationships must provide the notice to patients no
later than the first service delivery to the patient after the
compliance date. For the reasons identified by these commenters, we do
not require covered providers to send their notice to the patient in
advance of the patient=s visit. We do not prohibit distribution in
advance, but only require distribution to the patient as of the time of
the visit. We believe this flexibility will allow each covered provider
to develop procedures that best meet its and its patients= needs.

*Comment:* Some comments suggested that covered providers should be
required to distribute the notice as of the compliance date. They noted
that if the covered provider waited to distribute the notice until first
service delivery, it would be possible (pursuant to the rule) for a use
or disclosure to be made without the individual=s authorization, but
before the individual receives the notice.

*Response:* Because health care providers generally lack the
administrative infrastructure necessary to develop and distribute mass
communications and generally have difficulty identifying active
patients, we do not require covered providers to distribute the notice
until the first service delivery after the compliance date. We
acknowledge that this policy allows uses and disclosure of health
information without individuals= consent or authorization before the
individual receives the notice. We require covered entities, including
covered providers, to have the notice available upon request as of the
compliance date of the rule. Individuals may request a copy of the
notice from their provider at any time.

*Comment:* Many commenters were concerned with the requirement that
covered providers post their notice. Some commenters suggested that
covered hospital-based providers should be able to satisfy the
distribution requirements by posting their notice in multiple locations
at the hospital, rather than handing the notice to patients -
particularly with respect to distribution after material revisions have
been made. Some additionally suggested that these covered providers
should have copies of the notice available on site. Some commenters
emphasized that the notice must be clear and conspicuous to give
individuals meaningful and effective notice of their rights. Other
commenters noted that posting the notice will not inform former patients
who no longer see the provider.

*Response:* We clarify in the final rule that the requirement to post a
notice does not substitute for the requirement to give individuals a
notice or make notices available upon request. Covered providers with
direct treatment relationships, including covered hospitals, must give a
copy of the notice to the individual as of first service delivery after
the compliance date. After giving the individual a copy of the notice as
of that first visit, the covered provider has no other obligation to
actively distribute the notice. We believe it is unnecessarily
burdensome to require covered providers to mail the notice to all
current and former patients each time the notice is revised, because
unlike health plans, providers may have a difficult time identifying
active patients. All individuals, including those who no longer see the
covered provider, have the right to receive a copy of the notice on
request.

If the covered provider maintains a physical delivery site, it must also
post the notice (including revisions to the notice) in a clear and
prominent location where it is reasonable to expect individuals seeking
service from the covered provider to be able to read the notice. The
covered provider must also have the notice available on site for
individuals to be able to request and take with them.

*Comment:* Some comments requested clarification about the distribution
requirements for a covered entity that is a health plan and a covered
health care provider.

*Response:* Under \' 164.504(g), discussed above, covered entities that
conduct multiple types of covered functions, such as the kind of
entities described in the above comments, are required to comply with
the provisions applicable to a particular type of health care function
when acting in that capacity. Thus, in the example described above, the
covered entity is required by \' 164.504(g) to follow the requirements
for health plans with respect to its actions as a health plan and to
follow the requirements for health care providers with respect to its
actions as a health care provider.

*Comment:* We received many comments about the ability of covered
entities to distribute their notices electronically. Many commenters
suggested that we permit covered entities to distribute the notice
electronically, either via a web site or e-mail. They argued that
covered entities are increasingly using electronic technology to
communicate with patients and otherwise administer benefits. They also
noted that other regulations permit similar documents, such as
ERISA-required summary plan descriptions, to be delivered
electronically. Some commenters suggested that electronic distribution
should be permitted unless the individual specifically requests a hard
copy or lacks electronic access. Some argued that entities should be
able to choose a least-cost alternative that allows for periodic changes
without excessive mailing costs. A few commenters suggested requiring
covered entities to distribute notices electronically.

*Response:* We clarify in the final rule that covered entities may elect
to distribute their notice electronically, provided the individual
agrees to receiving the notice electronically and has not withdrawn such
agreement. We do not require any particular form of agreement. For
example, a covered provider could ask an individual at the time the
individual requests a copy of the notice whether she prefers to receive
it in hard copy or electronic form. A health plan could ask an
individual applying for coverage to provide an e-mail address where the
health plan can send the individual information. If the individual
provides an e-mail address, the health plan can infer agreement to
obtain information electronically.

An individual who has agreed to receive the notice electronically,
however, retains the right to request a hard copy of the notice. This
right must be described in the notice. In addition, if the covered
entity knows that electronic transmission of the notice has failed, the
covered entity must produce a hard copy of the notice. We believe this
provision allows covered entities flexibility to provide the notice in
the form that best meets their needs without compromising individuals=
right to adequate notice of covered entities= information practices.

We note that covered entities may also be subject to the Electronic
Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act. This rule is not
intended to alter covered entities= requirements under that Act.

*Comment:* Some commenters were concerned that covered providers with
Aface-to-face@ patient contact would have a competitive disadvantage
against covered internet-based providers, because the face-to-face
providers would be required to distribute the notice in hard copy while
internet-based providers could satisfy the requirement by requiring
review of the notice on the web site before processing an order. They
suggested allowing face-to-face covered providers to satisfy the
distribution requirement by asking patients to review the notice posted
on site.

*Response:* We clarify in the final rule that covered health care
providers that provide services to individuals over the internet have
direct treatment relationships with those individuals. Covered
internet-based providers, therefore, must distribute the notice at the
first service delivery after the compliance date by automatically and
contemporaneously providing the notice electronically in response to the
individual=s first request for service, provided the individual agrees
to receiving the notice electronically.

Even though we require all covered entity web sites to post the entity=s
notice prominently, we note that such posting is not sufficient to meet
the distribution requirements. A covered internet-based provider must
send the notice electronically at the individual=s first request for
service, just as other covered providers with direct treatment
relationships must give individuals a copy of the notice as of the first
service delivery after the compliance date.

We do not intend to create competitive advantages among covered
providers. A web-based and a non-web-based covered provider each have
the same alternatives available for distribution of the notice. Both
types of covered providers may provide either a paper copy or an
electronic copy of the notice.

*Comment:* We received several comments suggesting that some covered
entities should be exempted from the notice requirement or permitted to
combine notices with other covered entities. Many comments argued that
the notice requirement would be burdensome for hospital-based physicians
and result in numerous, duplicative notices that would be meaningless or
confusing to patients. Other comments suggested that multiple health
plans offered through the same employer should be permitted to produce a
single notice.

*Response:* We retain the requirement for all covered health care
providers and health plans to produce a notice of information practices.
Health care clearinghouses are required to produce a notice of
information practices only to the extent the clearinghouse creates or
receives protected health information other than as a business associate
of a covered entity. See \' 164.500(b)(2). Two other types of covered
entities are not required to produce a notice: a correctional
institution that is a covered entity and a group health plan that
provides benefits only through one or more contracts of insurance with
health insurance issuers or HMOs.

We clarify in \' 164.504(d), however, that affiliated covered entities
under common ownership or control may designate themselves as a single
covered entity for purposes of this rule. An affiliated covered entity
is only required to produce a single notice.

In addition, covered entities that participate in an organized health
care arrangement - which could include hospitals and their associated
physicians - may choose to produce a single, joint notice, if certain
requirements are met. See \' 164.501 and the corresponding preamble
discussion of organized health care arrangements.

We clarify that each covered entity included in a joint notice must meet
the applicable distribution requirements. If any one of the covered
entities, however, provides the notice to a given individual, the
distribution requirement with respect to that individual is met for all
of the covered entities included in the joint notice. For example, a
covered hospital and its attending physicians may elect to produce a
joint notice. When an individual is first seen at the hospital, the
hospital must provide the individual with a copy of the joint notice.
Once the hospital has done so, the notice distribution requirement for
all of the attending physicians that provide treatment to the individual
at the hospital and that are included in the joint notice is satisfied.

*Comment:* We solicited and received comments on whether to require
covered entities to obtain the individual=s signature on the notice.
Some commenters suggested that requiring a signature would convey the
importance of the notice, would make it more likely that individuals
read the notice, and could have some of the same benefits of a consent.
They noted that at least one state already requires entities to make a
reasonable effort to obtain a signed notice. Other comments noted that
the signature would be useful for compliance and risk management
purposes because it would document that the individual had received the
notice.

The majority of commenters on this topic, however, argued that a signed
acknowledgment would be administratively burdensome, inconsistent with
the intent of the Administrative Simplification requirements of HIPAA,
impossible to achieve for incapacitated individuals, difficult to
achieve for covered entities that do not have direct contact with
patients, inconsistent with other notice requirements under other laws,
misleading to individuals who might interpret their signature as an
agreement, inimical to the concept of permitting uses and disclosures
without authorization, and an insufficient substitute for authorization.

*Response*: We agree with the majority of commenters and do not require
covered entities to obtain the individual=s signed acknowledgment of
receipt of the notice. We believe that we satisfied most of the
arguments in support of requiring a signature with the new policy
requiring covered health care providers with direct treatment
relationships to obtain a consent for uses and disclosures of protected
health information to carry out treatment, payment, and health care
operations. See \' 164.506 and the corresponding preamble discussion of
consent requirements. We note that this rule does not preempt other
applicable laws that require a signed notice and does not prohibit a
covered entity from requesting an individual to sign the notice.

*Comment:* Some commenters supported requiring covered entities to
adhere to their privacy practices, as described in their notice. They
argued that the notice is meaningless if a covered entity does not
actually have to follow the practices contained in its notice. Other
commenters were concerned that the rule would prevent a covered entity
from using or disclosing protected health information in otherwise
lawful and legitimate ways because of an intentional or inadvertent
omission from its published notice. Some of these commenters suggested
requiring the notice to include a description of some or all disclosures
that are required or permitted by law. Some commenters stated that the
adherence requirement should be eliminated because it would generally
inhibit covered entities= ability to innovate and would be burdensome.

*Response*: We agree that the value of the notice would be significantly
diminished absent a requirement that covered entities adhere to the
statements they make in their notices. We therefore retain the
requirement for covered entities to adhere to the terms of the notice.
See \' 164.502(i).

Many of these commenters= concerns regarding a covered entity=s
inability to use or disclose protected health information due to an
intentional or inadvertent omission from the notice are addressed in our
revisions to the proposed content requirements for the notice. Rather
than require covered entities to describe only those uses and
disclosures they anticipate making, as proposed, we require covered
entities to describe all uses and disclosures they are required or
permitted to make under the rule without the individual=s consent or
authorization. We permit a covered entity to provide a statement that it
will disclose protected health information that is otherwise required by
law, as permitted in \' 164.512(a), without requiring them to list all
state laws that may require disclosure. Because the notice must describe
all legally permissible uses and disclosures, the notice will not
generally preclude covered entities from making any uses or disclosures
they could otherwise make without individual consent or authorization.
This change will also ensure that individuals are aware of all possible
uses and disclosures that may occur without their consent or
authorization, regardless of the covered entity=s current practices.

We encourage covered entities, however, to additionally describe the
more limited uses and disclosures they actually anticipate making in
order to give individuals a more accurate understanding of how
information about them will be shared. We expect that certain covered
entities will want to distinguish themselves on the basis of their
privacy protections. We note that a covered entity that chooses to
exercise this option must clearly state that, at a minimum, the covered
entity may make disclosures that are required by law and that are
necessary to avert a serious and imminent threat to health or safety.

**SECTION 164.522CRIGHTS TO REQUEST PRIVACY PROTECTION FOR PROTECTED
HEALTH INFORMATION**

**Section 164.522(a)CRight of an Individual to Request Restriction of
Uses and Disclosures**

*Comment:* Several commenters supported the language in the NPRM
regarding the right to request restrictions. One commenter specifically
stated that this is a balanced approach that addresses the needs of the
few who would have reason to restrict disclosures without negatively
affecting the majority of individuals. At least one commenter explained
that if we required consent or authorization for use and disclosure of
protected health information for treatment, payment, and health care
operations that we must also have a right to request restrictions of
such disclosure in order to make the consent meaningful.

Many commenters requested that we delete this provision, claiming it
would interfere with patient care, payment, and data integrity. Most of
the commenters that presented this position asserted that the framework
of giving patients control over the use or disclosure of their
information is contrary to good patient care because incomplete medical
records may lead to medical errors, misdiagnoses, or inappropriate
treatment decisions. Other commenters asserted that covered entities
need complete data sets on the populations they serve to effectively
conduct research and quality improvement projects and that restrictions
would hinder research, skew findings, impede quality improvement, and
compromise accreditation and performance measurement.

*Response:* We acknowledge that widespread restrictions on the use and
disclosure of protected health information could result in some
difficulties related to payment, research, quality assurance, etc.
However, in our efforts to protect the privacy of health information
about individuals, we have sought a balance in determining the
appropriate level of individual control and the smooth operation of the
health care system. In the final rule, we require certain covered
providers and permit all covered entities to obtain consent from
individuals for use and disclosure of protected health information for
treatment, payment, and health care operations (see \' 164.506). In
order to give individuals some control over their health information for
uses and disclosures of protected health information for treatment,
payment, and health care operations, we provide individuals with the
opportunity to request restrictions of such uses and disclosures.

Because the right to request restrictions encourages discussions about
how protected health information may be used and disclosed and about an
individual=s concerns about such uses and disclosures, it may improve
communications between a provider and patient and thereby improve care.
According to a 1999 survey on the Confidentiality of Medical Records by
the California HealthCare Foundation, one out of every six people engage
in behavior to protect themselves from unwanted disclosures of health
information, such as lying to providers or avoiding seeking care. This
indicates that, without the ability to request restrictions, individuals
would have incentives to remain silent about important health
information that could have an effect on their health and health care,
rather than consulting a health care provider.

Further, this policy is not a dramatic change from the *status quo*.
Today, many state laws restrict disclosures for certain types of health
information without patient=s authorization. Even if there is no
mandated requirement to restrict disclosures of health information,
providers may agree to requests for restrictions of disclosures when a
patient expresses particular sensitivity and concern for the disclosure
of health information.

We agree that there may be instances in which a restriction could
negatively affect patient care. Therefore, we include protections
against this occurrence. First, the right to request restrictions is a
right of individuals to make the request. A covered entity may refuse to
restrict uses and disclosures or may agree only to certain aspects of
the individual=s request if there is concern for the quality of patient
care in the future. For example, if a covered provider believes that it
is not in the patient=s best medical interest to have such a
restriction, the provider may discuss the request for restriction with
the patient and give the patient the opportunity to explain the concern
for disclosure. Also, a covered provider who is concerned about the
implications on future treatment can agree to use and disclose sensitive
protected health information for treatment purposes only and agree not
to disclose information for payment and operation purposes. Second, a
covered provider need not comply with a restriction that has been agreed
to if the individual who requested the restriction is in need of
emergency treatment and the restricted protected health information is
needed to provide the emergency treatment. This exception should limit
the harm to health that may otherwise result from restricting the use or
disclosure of protected health information. We encourage covered
providers to discuss with individuals that the information may be used
or disclosed in emergencies. We require that the covered entity that
discloses restricted protected health information in an emergency
request that the health care provider that receives such information not
further use or re-disclose the information.

*Comment:* Some health plans stated that an institutionalized right to
restrict can interfere with proper payment and can make it easier for
unscrupulous providers or patients to commit fraud on insurance plans.
They were concerned that individuals could enter into restrictions with
providers to withhold information to insurance companies so that the
insurance company would not know about certain conditions when
underwriting a policy.

*Response:* This rule does not enhance the ability of unscrupulous
patients or health care providers to engage in deceptive or fraudulent
withholding of information. This rule grants a right to request a
restriction, not an absolute right to restrict. Individuals can make
such requests today. Other laws criminalize insurance fraud; this
regulation does not change those laws.

*Comment:* One commenter asserted that patients cannot anticipate the
significance that one aspect of their medical information will have on
treatment of other medical conditions, and therefore, allowing them to
restrict use or disclosure of some information is contrary to the
patient=s best interest.

*Response:* We agree that patients may find it difficult to make such a
calculus, and that it is incumbent on health care providers to help them
do so. Health care providers may deny requests for or limit the scope of
the restriction requested if they believe the restriction is not in the
patient=s best interest.

*Comment:* One commenter asked whether an individual=s restriction to
disclosure of information will be a bar to liability for misdiagnosis or
failure to diagnose by a covered entity who can trace its error back to
the lack of information resulting from such restriction.

*Response:* Decisions regarding liability and professional standards are
determined by state and other law. This rule does not establish or limit
liability for covered entities under those laws. We expect that the
individual=s request to restrict the disclosure of their protected
health information would be considered in the decision of whether or not
a covered entity is liable.

*Comment:* One commenter requested that we allow health plans to deny
coverage or reimbursement when a covered health care provider=s
agreement to restrict use or disclosure prevents the plan from getting
the information that is necessary to determine eligibility or coverage.

*Response:* In this rule, we do not modify insurers= rules regarding
information necessary for payment. We recognize that restricting the
disclosure of information may result in a denial of payment. We expect
covered providers to explain this possibility to individuals when
considering their requests for restrictions and to make alternative
payment arrangements with individuals if necessary.

*Comment:* Some commenters discussed the administrative burden and cost
of the requirement that individuals have the right to request
restrictions and that trying to segregate certain portions of
information for protection may be impossible. Others stated that the
administrative burden would make providers unable to accommodate
restrictions, and would therefore give patients false expectations that
their right to request restrictions may be acted upon. One commenter
expressed concern that large covered providers would have a particularly
difficult time establishing a policy whereby the covered entity could
agree to restrictions and would have an even more difficult time
implementing the restrictions since records may be kept in multiple
locations and accessed by multiple people within the organization. Still
other commenters believed that the right to request restrictions would
invite argument, delay, and litigation.

*Response:* We do not believe that this requirement is a significant
change from current practice. Providers already respond to requests by
patients regarding sensitive information, and are subject to state law
requirements not to disclose certain types of information without
authorization. This right to request is permissive so that covered
entities can balance the needs of particular individuals with the
entity=s ability to manage specific accommodations.

*Comment:* Some commenters were concerned that a covered entity would
agree to a restriction and then realize later that the information must
be disclosed to another caregiver for important medical care purposes.

*Response:* Some individuals seek treatment only on the condition that
information about that treatment will not be shared with others. We
believe it is necessary and appropriate, therefore, that when a covered
provider agrees to such a restriction, the individual must be able to
rely on that promise. We strongly encourage covered providers to
consider future treatment implications of agreeing to a restriction. We
encourage covered entities to inform others of the existence of a
restriction when appropriate, provided that such notice does not amount
to a *de facto* disclosure of the restricted information. If the covered
provider subject to the restriction believes that disclosing the
protected health information that was created or obtained subject to the
restriction is necessary to avert harm (and it is not for emergency
treatment), the provider must ask the individual for permission to
terminate or modify the restriction. If the individual agrees to the
termination of the restriction, the provider must document this
termination by noting this agreement in the medical record or by
obtaining a written agreement of termination from the individual and may
use or disclose the information for treatment. If the individual does
not agree to terminate or modify the restriction, however, the provider
must continue to honor the restriction with respect to protected health
information that was created or received subject to the restriction. We
note that if the restricted protected health information is needed to
provide emergency treatment to the individual who requested the
restriction, the covered entity may use or disclose such information for
such treatment.

*Comment:* Commenters asked that we require covered entities to keep an
accounting of the requests for restrictions and to report this
information to the Department in order for the Department to determine
whether covered entities are showing \"good faith\" in dealing with
these requests.

*Response:* We require that covered entities that agree to restrictions
with individuals document such restrictions. A covered entity must
retain such documentation for six years from the date of its creation or
the date when it last was in effect, whichever is later. We do not
require covered entities to keep a record of all requests made,
including those not agreed to, nor that they report such requests to the
Department. The decision to agree to restrictions is that of the covered
entity. Because there is no requirement to agree to a restriction, there
is no reason to impose the burden to document requests that are denied.
Any reporting requirement could undermine the purpose of this provision
by causing the sharing, or appearance of sharing, of information for
which individuals are seeking extra protection.

*Comment:* One commenter asserted that providers that currently allow
such restrictions will choose not to do so under the rule based on the
guidance of legal counsel and loss prevention managers, and suggested
that the Secretary promote competition among providers with respect to
privacy by developing a third-party ranking mechanism.

*Response:* We believe that providers will do what is best for their
patients, in accordance with their ethics codes, and will continue to
find ways to accommodate requested restrictions when they believe that
it is in the patients\' best interests. We anticipate that providers who
find such action to be of commercial benefit will notify consumers of
their willingness to be responsive to such requests. Involving third
parties could undermine the purpose of this provision, by causing the
sharing, or appearance of sharing, of information for which individuals
are seeking extra protection.

*Comment:* One commenter said that any agreement regarding
patient-requested restrictions should be in writing before a covered
provider would be held to standards for compliance.

*Response:* We agree that agreed to restrictions must be documented in
writing, and we require that covered entities that agree to restrictions
document those restrictions in accordance with \' 164.530(j). The
writing need not be formal; a notation in the medical record will
suffice. We disagree with the request that an agreed to restriction be
reduced to writing in order to be enforced. If we adopted the requested
policy, a covered entity could agree to a restriction with an
individual, but avoid being held to this agreed to restriction under the
rule by failing to document the restriction. This would give a covered
entity the opportunity to agree to a restriction and then, at its sole
discretion, determine if it is enforceable by deciding whether or not to
make a note of the restriction in the record about the individual.
Because the covered entity has the ability to agree or fail to agree to
a restriction, we believe that once the restriction is agreed to, the
covered entity must honor the agreement. Any other result would be
deceptive to the individual and could lead an individual to disclose
health information under the assumption that the uses and disclosures
will be restricted. Under \' 164.522, a covered entity could be found to
be in violation of the rule if it fails to put an agreed-upon
restriction in writing and also if it uses or discloses protected health
information inconsistent with the restriction.

*Comment:* Some commenters said that the right to request restrictions
should be extended to some of the uses and disclosures permitted without
authorization in \' 164.510 of the NPRM, such as disclosures to next of
kin, for judicial and administrative proceedings, for law enforcement,
and for governmental health data systems. Other commenters said that
these uses and disclosures should be preserved without an opportunity
for individuals to opt out.

*Response:* We have not extended the right to request restrictions under
this rule to disclosures permitted in \' 164.512 of the final rule.
However, we do not preempt other law that would enforce such agreed-upon
restrictions. As discussed in more detail, above, we have extended the
right to request restrictions to disclosures to persons assisting in the
individual=s care, such as next of kin, under \' 164.510(b). Any
restriction that a covered entity agrees to with respect to persons
assisting in the individual=s care in accordance with the rule will be
enforceable under the rule.

*Comment:* A few commenters raised the question of the effect of a
restriction agreed to by one covered entity that is part of a larger
covered entity, particularly a hospital. Commenters were also concerned
about who may speak on behalf of the covered entity.

*Response:* All covered entities are required to establish policies and
procedures for providing individuals the right to request restrictions,
including policies for who may agree to such restrictions on the covered
entity=s behalf. Hospitals and other large entities that are concerned
about employees agreeing to restrictions on behalf of the organization
will have to make sure that their policies are communicated
appropriately to those employees. The circumstances under which members
of a covered entity=s workforce can bind the covered entity are a
function of other law, not of this regulation.

*Comment:* Commenters expressed confusion about the intended effect of
any agreed-upon restrictions on downstream covered entities. They
asserted that it would be extremely difficult for a requested
restriction to be followed through the health care system and that it
would be unfair to hold covered entities to a restriction when they did
not agree to such restriction. Specifically, commenters asked whether a
covered provider that receives protected health information in
compliance with this rule from a physician or medical group that has
agreed to limit certain uses of the information must comply with the
original restriction. Other commenters expressed concern that not
applying a restriction to downstream covered entities is a loophole and
that all downstream covered providers and health plans should be bound
by the restrictions.

*Response:* Under the final rule, a restriction that is agreed to
between an individual and a covered entity is only binding on the
covered entity that agreed to the restriction and not on downstream
entities. It would also be binding on any business associate of the
covered entity since a business associate can not use or disclose
protected health information in any manner that a covered entity would
not be permitted to use or disclose such information. We realize that
this may limit the ability of an individual to successfully restrict a
use or disclosure under all circumstances, but we take this approach for
two reasons. First, we allow covered entities to refuse individuals=
requests for restrictions. Requiring downstream covered entities to
abide by a restriction would be tantamount to forcing them to agree to a
request to which they otherwise may not have agreed. Second, some
covered entities have information systems which will allow them to
accommodate such requests, while others do not. If the downstream
provider is in the latter category, the administrative burden of such a
requirement would be unmanageable.

We encourage covered entities to explain this limitation to individuals
when they agree to restrictions, so individuals will understand that
they need to ask all their health plans and providers for desired
restrictions. We also require that a covered entity that discloses
protected health information to a health care provider for emergency
treatment, in accordance with \' 164.522 (a)(iii), to request that the
recipient not further use or disclose the information.

*Comment:* One commenter requested that agreed-to restrictions of a
covered entity not be applied to business associates.

*Response:* As stated in \' 164.504(e)(2), business associates are
acting on behalf of, or performing services for, the covered entity and
may not, with two narrow exceptions, use or disclose protected health
information in a manner that would violate this rule if done by the
covered entity. Business associates are agents of the covered entity
with respect to protected health information they obtain through the
business relationship. If the covered entity agrees to a restriction
and, therefore, is bound to such restriction, the business associate
will also be required to comply with the restriction. If the covered
entity has agreed to a restriction, the satisfactory assurances from the
business associate, as required in \' 164.504(e), must include
assurances that protected health information will not be used or
disclosed in violation of an agreed to restriction.

*Comment:* One commenter requested clarification that the right to
request restrictions cannot be used to restrict the creation of
de-identified information.

*Response:* We found no reason to treat the use of protected health
information to create de-identified information different from other
uses of protected health information. The right to request restriction
applies to any use or disclosure of protected health information to
carry out treatment, payment, or health care operations. If the covered
entity uses protected health information to create de-identified
information, the covered entity need not agree to a restriction of this
use.

*Comment:* Some commenters stated that individuals should be given a
true right to restrict uses and disclosures of protected health
information in certain defined circumstances (such as for sensitive
information) rather than a right to request restrictions.

*Response:* We are concerned that a right to restrict could create
conflicts with the professional ethical obligations of providers and
others. We believe it is better policy to allow covered entities to
refuse to honor restrictions that they believe are not appropriate and
leave the individual with the option of seeking service from a different
covered entity. In addition, many covered entities have information
systems that would make it difficult or impossible to accommodate
certain restrictions.

*Comment:* Some commenters requested that self-pay patients have
additional rights to restrict protected health information. Others
believed that this policy would result in *de facto* discrimination
against those patients that could not afford to pay out-of-pocket.

*Response:* Under the final rule, the decision whether to tie an
agreement to restrict to the way the individual pays for services is
left to each covered entity. We have not provided self-pay patients with
any special rights under the rule.

*Comment:* Some commenters suggested that we require restrictions to be
clearly noted so that insurers and other providers would be aware that
they were not being provided with complete information.

*Response:* Under the final rule, we do not require or prohibit a
covered entity to note the existence of an omission of information. We
encourage covered entities to inform others of the existence of a
restriction, in accordance with professional practice and ethics, when
appropriate to do so. In deciding whether or not to disclose the
existence of a restriction, we encourage the covered entity to carefully
consider whether disclosing the existence is tantamount to disclosure of
the restricted protected health information so as to not violate the
agreed to restriction.

*Comment:* A few commenters said that covered entities should have the
right to modify or revoke an agreement to restrict use or disclosure of
protected health information.

*Response:* We agree that, as circumstances change, covered entities
should be able to revisit restrictions to which they had previously
agreed. At the same time, individuals should be able to rely on
agreements to restrict the use or disclosure of information that they
believe is particularly sensitive. If a covered entity would like to
revoke or modify an agreed-upon restriction, the covered entity must
renegotiate the agreement with the individual. If the individual agrees
to modify or terminate the restriction, the covered entity must get
written agreement from the individual or must document the oral
agreement. If the individual does not agree to terminate or modify the
restriction, the covered entity must inform the individual that it is
modifying or terminating its agreement to the restriction and any
modification or termination would apply only with respect to protected
health information created or received after the covered entity informed
the individual of the termination. Any protected health information
created or received during the time between when the restriction was
agreed to and when the covered entity informed the individual or such
modification or termination remains subject to the restriction.

*Comment:* Many commenters advocated for stronger rights to request
restrictions, particularly that victims of domestic violence should have
an absolute right to restrict disclosure of information.

*Response:* We address restrictions for disclosures in two different
ways, the right to request restrictions (\' 164.522(a)) and confidential
communications (\' 164.522(b)). We have provided all individuals with a
right to request restrictions on uses or disclosures of treatment,
payment, and health care operations. This is not an absolute right to
restrict. Covered entities are not required to agree to requested
restrictions; however, if they do, the rule would require them to act in
accordance with the restrictions. (See the preamble regarding \' 164.522
for a more comprehensive discussion of the right to request
restrictions.)

In the final rule, we create a new provision that provides individuals
with a right to confidential communications, in response to these
comments. This provision grants individuals with a right to restrict
disclosures of information related to communications made by a covered
entity to the individual, by allowing the individual to request that
such communications be made to the person at an alternative location or
by an alternative means. For example, a woman who lives with an abusive
man and is concerned that his knowledge of her health care treatment may
lead to additional abuse can request that any mail from the provider be
sent to a friend=s home or that telephone calls by a covered provider be
made to her at work. Other reasonable accommodations may be requested as
well, such as requesting that a covered provider never contact the
individual by a phone, but only contact her by electronic mail. A
provider must accommodate an individual=s request for confidential
communications, under this section, without requiring an explanation as
to the reason for the request as a condition of accommodating the
request. The individual does not need to be in an abusive situation to
make such requests of a covered provider. The only conditions that a
covered provider may place on an individual is that the request be
reasonable with respect to the administrative burden on the provider,
the request to be in writing, the request specify an alternative address
or other method of contact, and that (where relevant) the individual
provide information about how payment will be handled. What is
reasonable may vary by the size or type of covered entity; however,
additional modest cost to the provider would not be unreasonable.

An individual also has a right to restrict communications from a health
plan. The right is the same as with covered providers except it is
limited to cases where the disclosure of information could endanger the
individual. A health plan may require an individual to state this fact
as a condition of accommodating the individual=s request for
confidential communications. This would provide victims of domestic
violence the right to control such disclosures.

*Comment:* Commenters opposed the provision of the NPRM (\'
164.506(c)(1)(ii)(B)) stating that an individual\'s right to request
restrictions on use or disclosure of protected health information would
not apply in emergency situations as set forth in proposed \'
164.510(k). Commenters asserted that victims who have been harmed by
violence may first turn to emergency services for help and that, in such
situations, the victim should be able to request that the perpetrator
not be told of his or her condition or whereabouts.

*Response:* We agree with some of the commenters= concerns. In the final
rule, the right to request restrictions is available to all individuals
regardless of the circumstance or the setting in which the individual is
obtaining care. For example, an individual that seeks care in an
emergency room has the same right to request a restriction as an
individual seeking care in the office of a covered physician.

However, we continue to permit a covered entity to disclose protected
health information to a health care provider in an emergency treatment
situation if the restricted protected health information is needed to
provide the emergency treatment or if the disclosure is necessary to
avoid serious and imminent threats to public health and safety. Although
we understand the concern of the commenters, we believe that these
exceptions are limited and will not cause a covered entity to disclose
information to a perpetrator of a crime. We are concerned that a covered
provider would be required to delay necessary care if a covered entity
had to determine if a restriction exists at the time of such emergency.
Even if a covered entity knew that there was a restriction, we permitted
this limited exception for emergency situations because, as we had
stated in the preamble for \' 164.506 of the NPRM, an emergency
situation may not provide sufficient opportunity for a patient and
health care provider to discuss the potential implications of
restricting use and disclosure of protected health information on that
emergency. We also believe that the importance of avoiding serious and
imminent threats to health and safety and the ethical and legal
obligations of covered health care providers\' to make disclosures for
these purposes is so significant that it is not appropriate to apply the
right to request restrictions on such disclosures.

We note that we have included other provisions in the final rule
intended to avoid or minimize harm to victims of domestic violence.
Specifically, we include provisions in the final rule that allow
individuals to opt out of certain types of disclosures and require
covered entities to use professional judgment to determine whether
disclosure of protected health information is in a patient=s best
interest (see \' 164.510(a) on use and disclosure for facility
directories and \' 164.510(b) on uses and disclosures for assisting in
an individual=s care and notification purposes). Although an agreed to
restriction under \' 164.522 would apply to uses and disclosures for
assisting in an individual=s care, the opt out provision in \'
164.510(b) can be more helpful to a person who is a victim of domestic
violence because the individual can opt out of such disclosure without
obtaining the agreement of the covered provider. We permit a covered
entity to elect not to treat a person as a personal representative (see
\' 164.502(g)) or to deny access to a personal representative (see \'
164.524(a)(3)(iii)) where there are concerns related to abuse. We also
include a new \' 164.512(c) which recognizes the unique circumstances
surrounding disclosure of protected health information about victims of
abuse, neglect, and domestic violence.

**Section 164.522(b)CConfidential Communications Requirements**

*Comment:* Several commenters requested that we add a new section to
prevent disclosure of sensitive health care services to members of the
patient=s family through communications to the individual=s home, such
as appointment notices, confirmation or scheduling of appointments, or
mailing a bill or explanation of benefits, by requiring covered entities
to agree to correspond with the patient in another way. Some commenters
stated that this is necessary in order to protect inadvertent disclosure
of sensitive information and to protect victims of domestic violence
from disclosure to an abuser. A few commenters suggested that a covered
entity should be required to obtain an individual=s authorization prior
to communicating with the individual at the individual=s home with
respect to health care relating to sensitive subjects such as
reproductive health, sexually transmissible diseases, substance abuse or
mental health.

*Response:* We agree with commenters= concerns regarding covered
entities= communications with individuals. We created a new provision,
\' 164.522(b), to address confidential communications by covered
entities. This provision gives individuals the right to request that
they receive communications from covered entities at an alternative
address or by an alternative means, regardless of the nature of the
protected health information involved. Covered providers are required to
accommodate reasonable requests by individuals and may not require the
individual to explain the basis for the request as a condition of
accommodation. Health plans are required to accommodate reasonable
requests by individuals as well; however, they may require the
individual to provide a statement that disclosure of the information
could endanger the individual, and they may condition the accommodation
on the receipt of such statement.

Under the rule, we have required covered providers to accommodate
requests for communications to alternative addresses or by alternative
means, regardless of the reason, to limit risk of harm. Providers have
more frequent one-on-one communications with patients, making the safety
concerns from an inadvertent disclosure more substantial and the need
for confidential communications more compelling. We have made the
requirement for covered providers absolute and not contingent on the
reason for the request because we wanted to make it relatively easy for
victims of domestic violence, who face real safety concerns by
disclosures of health information, to limit the potential for such
disclosures.

The standard we created for health plans is different from the
requirement for covered providers, in that we only require health plans
to make requested accommodations for confidential communications when
the individual asserts that disclosure could be dangerous to the
individual. We address health plan requirements in this way because
health plans are often issued to a family member (the employee), rather
than to each individual member of a family, and therefore, health plans
tend to communicate with the named insured rather than with individual
family members. Requiring plans to accommodate a restriction for one
individual could be administratively more difficult than it is for
providers that regularly communicate with individuals. However, in the
case of domestic violence or potential abuse, the level of harm that can
result from a disclosure of protected health information tips the
balance in favor of requiring such restriction to prevent inadvertent
disclosure. We have adopted the policy recommended by the National
Association of Insurance Commissioners in the Health Information Policy
Model Act (1998) as this best reflects the balance of the appropriate
level of regulation of the industry compared with the need to protect
individuals from harm that may result from inadvertent disclosure of
information. This policy is also consistent with recommendations made in
the Family Violence Prevention Fund=s publication AHealth Privacy
Principles for Protecting Victims of Domestic Violence@ (October 2000).
Of course, health plans may accommodate requests for confidential
communications without requiring a statement that the individual would
be in danger from disclosure of protected health information.

*Comment:* One commenter requested that we create a standard that all
information from a health plan be sent to the patient and not the
policyholder or subscriber.

*Response:* We require health plans to accommodate certain requests that
information not be sent to a particular location or by particular means.
A health plan must accommodate reasonable requests by individuals that
protected health information about them be sent directly to them and not
to a policyholder or subscriber, if the individual states that he or she
may be in danger from disclosure of such information. We did not
generally require health plans to send information to the patient and
not the policyholder or subscriber because we believed it would be
administratively burdensome and because the named insured may have a
valid need for such information to manage payment and benefits.

**Sensitive Subjects**

*Comment:* Many commenters requested that additional protections be
placed on sensitive information, including information regarding
HIV/AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases, mental health, substance abuse,
reproductive health, and genetics. Many requested that we ensure the
regulation adequately protects victims of domestic violence. They
asserted that the concern for discrimination or stigma resulting from
disclosure of sensitive health information could dissuade a person from
seeking needed treatment. Some commenters noted that many state laws
provide additional protections for various types of information. They
requested that we develop federal standards to have consistent rules
regarding the protection of sensitive information to achieve the goals
of cost savings and patient protection. Others requested that we require
patient consent or special authorization before certain types of
sensitive information was disclosed, even for treatment, payment, and
health care operations, and some thought we should require a separate
request for each disclosure. Some commenters requested that the right to
request restrictions be replaced with a requirement for an authorization
for specific types of sensitive information. There were recommendations
that we require covered entities to develop internal policies to address
sensitive information.

Other commenters argued that sensitive information should not be
segregated from the record because it may limit a future provider=s
access to information necessary for treatment of the individual and it
could further stigmatize a patient by labeling him or her as someone
with sensitive health care issues. These commenters further maintained
that segregation of particular types of information could negatively
affect analysis of community needs, research, and would lead to higher
costs of health care delivery.

*Response:* We generally do not differentiate among types of protected
health information, because all health information is sensitive. The
level of sensitivity varies not only with the type of information, but
also with the individual and the particular situation faced by the
individual. This is demonstrated by the different types of information
that commenters singled out as meriting special protection, and in the
great variation among state laws in defining and protecting sensitive
information. Most states have a law providing heightened protection for
some type of health information. However, even though most states have
considered the issue of sensitive information, the variation among
states in the type of information that is specially protected and the
requirements for permissible disclosure of such information demonstrates
that there is no national consensus.

Where, as in this case, most states have acted and there is no
predominant rule that emerges from the state experience with this issue,
we have decided to let state law predominate. The final rule only
provides a floor of protection for health information and does not
preempt state laws that provider greater protection than the rule. Where
states have decided to treat certain information as more sensitive than
other information, we do not preempt those laws.

To address the variation in the sensitivity of protected health
information without defining specially sensitive information, we
incorporate opportunities for individuals and covered entities to
address specific sensitivities and concerns about uses and disclosures
of certain protected health information that the patient and provider
believe are particularly sensitive, as follows:

0.  Covered entities are required to provide individuals with notice of
    their privacy practices and give individuals the opportunity to
    request restrictions of the use and disclosure of protected health
    information by the covered entity. (See \' 164.522(a) regarding
    right to request restrictions.)

    Individuals have the right to request, and in some cases require,
    that communications from the covered entity to them be made to an
    alternative address or by an alternative means than the covered
    entity would otherwise use. (See \' 164.522(b) regarding
    confidential communications.)

    Covered entities have the opportunity to decide not to treat a
    person as a personal representative when the covered entity has a
    reasonable belief that an individual has been subjected to domestic
    violence, abuse, or neglect by such person or that treating such
    person as a personal representative could endanger the individual.
    (See \' 164.502(g)(5) regarding personal representatives.)

    Covered entities may deny access to protected health information
    when there are concerns that the access may result in varying levels
    of harm. (See \' 164.524(a)(3) regarding denial of access.)

    Covered health care providers may, in some circumstances and
    consistent with any known prior preferences of the individual,
    exercise professional judgment in the individual=s best interest to
    not disclose directory information. (See \' 164.510(a) regarding
    directory information.)

    Covered entities may, in some circumstances, exercise professional
    judgment in the individual=s best interest to limit disclosure to
    persons assisting in the individual=s care. (See \' 164.510(b)
    regarding persons assisting in the individual=s care.)

This approach allows for state law and personal variation in this area.

The only type of protected health information that we treat with
heightened protection is psychotherapy notes. We provide a different
level of protection because they are unique types of protected health
information that typically are not used or required for treatment,
payment, or health care operations other than by the mental health
professional that created the notes. (See \' 164.508(a)(2) regarding
psychotherapy notes.)

**SECTION 164.524CACCESS OF INDIVIDUALS TO PROTECTED HEALTH
INFORMATION**

*Comment*: Some commenters recommended that there be no access to
disease registries.

*Response*: Most entities that maintain disease registries are not
covered entities under this regulation; examples of such non-covered
entities are public health agencies and pharmaceutical companies. If,
however, a disease registry is maintained by a covered entity and is
used to make decisions about individuals, this rule requires the covered
entity to provide access to information about a requesting individual
unless one of the rule=s conditions for denial of access is met. We
found no persuasive reasons why disease registries should be given
special treatment compared with other information that may be used to
make decisions about an individual.

*Comment*: Some commenters stated that covered entities should be held
accountable for access to information held by business partners so that
individuals would not have the burden of tracking down their protected
health information from a business partner. Many commenters, including
insurers and academic medical centers, recommended that, to reduce
burden and duplication, only the provider who created the protected
health information should be required to provide individuals access to
the information. Commenters also asked that other entities, including
business associates, the Medicare program, and pharmacy benefit
managers, not be required to provide access, in part because they do not
know what information the covered entity already has and they may not
have all the information requested. A few commenters also argued that
billing companies should not have to provide access because they have a
fiduciary responsibility to their physician clients to maintain the
confidentiality of records.

*Response*: A general principle in responding to all of these points is
that a covered entity is required to provide access to protected health
information in accordance with the rule regardless of whether the
covered entity created such information or not. Thus, we agree with the
first point: in order to meet its requirements for providing access, a
covered entity must not only provide access to such protected health
information it holds, but must also provide access to such information
in a designated record set of its business associate, pursuant to its
business associate contract, unless the information is the same as
information maintained directly by the covered entity. We require this
because an individual may not be aware of business associate
relationships. Requiring an individual to track down protected health
information held by a business associate would significantly limit
access. In addition, we do not permit a covered entity to limit its duty
to provide access by giving protected health information to a business
associate.

We disagree with the second point: if the individual directs an access
request to a covered entity that has the protected health information
requested, the covered entity must provide access (unless it may deny
access in accordance with this rule). In order to assure that an
individual can exercise his or her access rights, we do not require the
individual to make a separate request to each originating provider. The
originating provider may no longer be in business or may no longer have
the information, or the non-originating provider may have the
information in a modified or enhanced form.

We disagree with the third point: other entities must provide access
only if they are covered entities or business associates of covered
entities, and they must provide access only to protected health
information that they maintain (or that their business associates
maintain). It would not be efficient to require a covered entity to
compare another entity=s information with that of the entity to which
the request was addressed. (See the discussion regarding covered
entities for information about whether a pharmacy benefit manager is a
covered entity.)

We disagree with the fourth point: a billing company will be required by
its business associate contract only to provide the requested protected
health information to its physician client. This action will not violate
any fiduciary responsibility. The physician client would in turn be
required by the rule to provide access to the individual.

*Comment:* Some commenters asked for clarification that the
clearinghouse function of turning non-standardized data into
standardized data does not create non-duplicative data and that
Aduplicate@ does not mean Aidentical.@ A few commenters suggested that
duplicated information in a covered entity=s designated record set be
supplied only once per request.

*Response:* We consider as duplicative information the same information
in different formats, media, or presentations, or which have been
standardized. Business associates who have materially altered protected
health information are obligated to provide individuals access to it.
Summary information and reports, including those of lab results, are not
the same as the underlying information on which the summaries or reports
were based. A clean document is not a duplicate of the same document
with notations. If the same information is kept in more than one
location, the covered entity has to produce the information only once
per request for access.

*Comment*: A few commenters suggested requiring covered entities to
disclose to third parties without exception at the requests of
individuals. It was argued that this would facilitate disability
determinations when third parties need information to evaluate
individuals= entitlement to benefits. Commenters argued that since
covered entities may deny access to individuals under certain
circumstances, individuals must have another method of providing third
parties with their protected health information.

*Response*: We allow covered entities to forward protected health
information about an individual to a third party, pursuant to the
individual=s authorization under \' 164.508. We do not require covered
entities to disclose information pursuant to such authorizations because
the focus of the rule is privacy of protected health information.
Requiring disclosures in all circumstances would be counter to this
goal. In addition, a requirement of disclosing protected health
information to a third party is not a necessary substitute for the right
of access to individuals, because we allow denial of access to
individuals under rare circumstances. However, if the third party is a
personal representative of the individual in accordance with \'
164.502(g) and there is no concern regarding abuse or harm to the
individual or another person, we require the covered entity to provide
access to that third party on the individual=s behalf, subject to
specific limitations. We note that a personal representative may obtain
access on the individual=s behalf in some cases where covered entity may
deny access to the individual. For example, an inmate may be denied a
copy of protected health information, but a personal representative may
be able to obtain a copy on the individual=s behalf. See \' 164.502(g)
and the corresponding preamble discussion regarding the ability of a
personal representative to act on an individual=s behalf.

*Comment*: The majority of commenters supported granting individuals the
right to access protected health information for as long as the covered
entity maintains the protected health information; commenters argued
that to do otherwise would interfere with existing record retention
laws. Some commenters advocated for limiting the right to information
that is less than one or two years old. A few commenters explained that
frequent changes in technology makes it more difficult to access stored
data. The commenters noted that the information obtained prior to the
effective date of the rule should not be required to be accessible.

*Response*: We agree with the majority of commenters and retain the
proposal to require covered entities to provide access for as long as
the entity maintains the protected health information. We do not agree
that information created prior to the effective date of the rule should
not be accessible. The reasons for granting individuals access to
information about them do not vary with the date the information was
created.

*Comment*: A few commenters argued that there should be no grounds for
denying access, stating that individuals should always have the right to
inspect and copy their protected health information.

*Response*: While we agree that in the vast majority of instances
individuals should have access to information about them, we cannot
agree that a blanket rule would be appropriate. For example, where a
professional familiar with the particular circumstances believes that
providing such access is likely to endanger a person=s life or physical
safety, or where granting such access would violate the privacy of other
individuals, the benefits of allowing access may not outweigh the harm.
Similarly, we allow denial of access where disclosure would reveal the
source of confidential information because we do not want to interfere
with a covered entity=s ability to maintain implicit or explicit
promises of confidence.

We create narrow exceptions to the rule of open access, and we expect
covered entities to employ these exceptions rarely, if at all. Moreover,
we require covered entities to provide access to any protected health
information requested after excluding only the information that is
subject to a denial. The categories of permissible denials are not
mandatory, but are a means of preserving the flexibility and judgment of
covered entities under appropriate circumstances.

*Comment*: Many commenters supported our proposal to allow covered
entities to deny an individual access to protected health information if
a professional determines either that such access is likely to endanger
the life or physical safety of a person or, if the information is about
another person, access is reasonably likely to cause substantial harm to
such person.

Some commenters requested that the rule also permit covered entities to
deny a request if access might be reasonably likely to cause
psychological or mental harm, or emotional distress. Other commenters,
however, were particularly concerned about access to mental health
information, stating that the lack of access creates resentment and
distrust in patients.

*Response*: We disagree with the comments suggesting that we expand the
grounds for denial of access to an individual to include a likelihood of
psychological or mental harm of the individual. We did not find
persuasive evidence that this is a problem sufficient to outweigh the
reasons for providing open access. We do allow a denial for access based
on a likelihood of substantial psychological or mental harm, but only if
the protected health information includes information about another
person and the harm may be inflicted on such other person or if the
person requesting the access is a personal representative of the
individual and the harm may be inflicted on the individual or another
person.

We generally agree with the commenters concerns that denying access
specifically to mental health records could create distrust. To balance
this concern with other commenters= concerns about the potential for
psychological harm, however, we exclude psychotherapy notes from the
right of access. This is the only distinction we make between mental
health information and other types of protected health information in
the access provisions of this rule. Unlike other types of protected
health information, these notes are not widely disseminated through the
health care system. We believe that the individual=s privacy interests
in having access to these notes, therefore, are outweighed by the
potential harm caused by such access. We encourage covered entities that
maintain psychotherapy notes, however, to provide individuals access to
these notes when they believe it is appropriate to do so.

*Comment*: Some commenters believed that there is a potential for abuse
of the provision allowing denial of access because of likely harm to
self. They questioned whether there is any experience from the Privacy
Act of 1974 to suggest that patients who requested and received their
records have ever endangered themselves as a result.

*Response*: We are unaware of such problems from access to records that
have been provided under the Privacy Act but, since these are private
matters, such problems might not come to our attention. We believe it is
more prudent to preserve the flexibility and judgment of health care
professionals familiar with the individuals and facts surrounding a
request for records than to impose the blanket rule suggested by these
commenters.

*Comment:* Commenters asserted that the NPRM did not adequately protect
vulnerable individuals who depend on others to exercise their rights
under the rule. They requested that the rule permit a covered entity to
deny access when the information is requested by someone other than the
subject of the information and, in the opinion of a licensed health care
professional, access to the information could harm the individual or
another person.

*Response*: We agree with the commenters that such protection is
warranted and add a provision in \' 164.524(a)(3), which permits a
covered health care provider to deny access if a personal representative
of the individual is making the request for access and a licensed health
care professional has determined, in the exercise of professional
judgment, that providing access to such personal representative could
result in substantial harm to the individual or another person. Access
can be denied even if the potential harm may be inflicted by someone
other than the personal representative.

This provision is designed to strike a balance between the competing
interests of ensuring access to protected health information and
protecting the individual or others from harm. The Asubstantial harm@
standard will ensure that a covered entity cannot deny access in cases
where the harm is de minimus.

The amount of discretion that a covered entity has to deny access to a
personal representative is generally greater than the amount of
discretion that a covered entity has to deny access to an individual.
Under the final rule, a covered entity may deny access to an individual
if a licensed health care professional determines that the access
requested is reasonably likely to endanger the life or physical safety
of the individual or another person. In this case, concerns about
psychological or emotional harm would not be sufficient to justify
denial of access. We establish a relatively high threshold because we
want to assure that individuals have broad access to health information
about them, and due to the potential harm that comes from denial of
access, we believe denials should be permitted only in limited
circumstances.

The final rule grants covered entities greater discretion to deny access
to a personal representative than to an individual in order to provide
protection to those vulnerable people who depend on others to exercise
their rights under the rule and who may be subjected to abuse or
neglect. This provision applies to personal representatives of minors as
well as other individuals. The same standard for denial of access on the
basis of potential harm that applies to personal representatives also
applies when an individual is seeking access to his or her protected
health information, and the information makes reference to another
person. Under these circumstances, a covered entity may deny a request
for access if such access is reasonably likely to cause substantial harm
to such other person. The standard for this provision and for the
provision regarding access by personal representatives is the same
because both circumstances involve one person obtaining information
about another person, and in both cases the covered entity is balancing
the right of access of one person against the right of a second person
not to be harmed by the disclosure.

Under any of these grounds for denial of access to protected health
information, the covered entity is not required to deny access to a
personal representative under these circumstances, but has the
discretion to do so.

In addition to denial of access rights, we also address the concerns
raised by abusive or potentially abusive situations in the section
regarding personal representatives by giving covered entities discretion
to not recognize a person as a personal representative of an individual
if the covered entity has a reasonable belief that the individual has
been subjected to domestic violence, abuse, or neglect by or would be in
danger from a person seeking to act as the personal representative. (See
\' 164.502(g))

*Comment*: A number of commenters were concerned that this provision
would lead to liability for covered entities if the release of
information results in harm to individuals. Commenters requested a Agood
faith@ standard in this provision to relieve covered entities of
liability if individuals suffer harm as a result of seeing their
protected health information or if the information is found to be
erroneous. A few commenters suggested requiring providers (when
applicable) to include with any disclosure to a third party a statement
that, in the provider=s opinion, the information should not be disclosed
to the patient.

*Response*: We do not intend to create a new duty to withhold
information nor to affect other laws on this issue. Some state laws
include policies similar to this rule, and we are not aware of liability
arising as a result.

*Comment*: Some commenters suggested that both the individual=s health
care professional and a second professional in the relevant field of
medicine should review each request. Many commenters suggested that
individuals have a right to have an independent review of any denial of
access, e.g., review by a health care professional of the individual=s
choice.

*Response*: We agree with the commenters who suggest that denial on
grounds of harm to self or others should be determined by a health
professional, and retain this requirement in the final rule. We
disagree, however, that all denials should be reviewed by a professional
of the individual=s choice. We are concerned that the burden such a
requirement would place on covered entities would be significantly
greater than any benefits to the individual. We believe that any health
professional, not just one of the individual=s choice, will exercise
appropriate professional judgment. To address some of these concerns,
however, we add a provision for the review of denials requiring the
exercise of professional judgment. If a covered entity denies access
based on harm to self or others, the individual has the right to have
the denial reviewed by another health care professional who did not
participate in the original decision to deny access.

*Comment*: A few commenters objected to the proposal to allow covered
entities to deny a request for access to health information if the
information was obtained from a confidential source that may be revealed
upon the individual=s access. They argued that this could be subject to
abuse and the information could be inherently less reliable, making the
patient=s access to it even more important.

*Response*: While we acknowledge that information provided by
confidential sources could be inaccurate, we are concerned that allowing
unfettered access to such information could undermine the trust between
a health care provider and patients other than the individual. We retain
the proposed policy because we do not want to interfere with a covered
entity=s ability to obtain important information that can assist in the
provision of health care or to maintain implicit or explicit promises of
confidence, which may be necessary to obtain such information. We
believe the concerns raised about abuse are mitigated by the fact that
the provision does not apply to promises of confidentiality made to a
health care provider. We note that a covered entity may provide access
to such information.

*Comment*: Some commenters were concerned that the NPRM did not allow
access to information unrelated to treatment, and thus did not permit
access to research information.

*Response*: In the final rule, we eliminate the proposed special
provision for Aresearch information unrelated to treatment.@ The only
restriction on access to research information in this rule applies where
the individual agrees in advance to denial of access when consenting to
participate in research that includes treatment. In this circumstance,
the individual\'s right of access to protected health information
created in the course of the research may be suspended for as long as
the research is in progress, but access rights resume after such time.
In other instances, we make no distinction between research information
and other information in the access provisions in this rule.

*Comment*: A few commenters supported the proposed provision temporarily
denying access to information obtained during a clinical trial if
participants agreed to the denial of access when consenting to
participate in the trial. Some commenters believed there should be no
access to any research information. Other commenters believed denial
should occur only if the trial would be compromised. Several recommended
conditioning the provision. Some recommended that access expires upon
completion of the trial unless there is a health risk. A few commenters
suggested that access should be allowed only if it is included in the
informed consent and that the informed consent should note that some
information may not be released to the individual, particularly research
information that has not yet been validated. Other commenters believed
that there should be access if the research is not subject to IRB or
privacy board review or if the information can be disclosed to third
parties.

*Response*: We agree with the commenters that support temporary denial
of access to information from research that includes treatment if the
subject has agreed in advance, and with those who suggested that the
denial of access expire upon completion of the research, and retain
these provisions in the final rule. We disagree with the commenters who
advocate for further denial of this information. These comments did not
explain why an individual=s interest in access to health information
used to make decisions about them is less compelling with respect to
research information. Under this rule, all protected health information
for research is subject either to privacy board or IRB review unless a
specific authorization to use protected health information for research
is obtained from the individual. Thus, this is not a criterion we can
use to determine access rights.

*Comment*: A few commenters believed that it would be Aextremely
disruptive of and dangerous@ to patients to have access to records
regarding their current care and that state law provides sufficient
protection of patients= rights in this regard.

*Response*: We do not agree. Information about current care has
immediate and direct impact on individuals. Where a health care
professional familiar with the circumstances believes that it is
reasonably likely that access to records would endanger the life or
physical safety of the individual or another person, the regulation
allows the professional to withhold access.

*Comment*: Several commenters requested clarification that a patient not
be denied access to protected health information because of failure to
pay a bill. A few commenters requested clarification that entities may
not deny requests simply because producing the information would be too
burdensome.

*Response*: We agree with these comments, and confirm that neither
failure to pay a bill nor burden are lawful reasons to deny access under
this rule. Covered entities may deny access only for the reasons
provided in the rule.

*Comment*: Some commenters requested that the final rule not include
detailed procedural requirements about how to respond to requests for
access. Others made specific recommendations on the procedures for
providing access, including requiring written requests, requiring
specific requests instead of blanket requests, and limiting the
frequency of requests. Commenters generally argued against requiring
covered entities to acknowledge requests, except under certain
circumstances, because of the potential burden on entities.

*Response*: We intend to provide sufficient procedural guidelines to
ensure that individuals have access to their protected health
information, while maintaining the flexibility for covered entities to
implement policies and procedures that are appropriate to their needs
and capabilities. We believe that a limit on the frequency of requests
individuals may make would arbitrarily infringe on the individual=s
right of access and have, therefore, not included such a limitation. To
limit covered entities= burden, we do not require covered entities to
acknowledge receipt of the individuals= requests, other than to notify
the individual once a decision on the request has been made. We also
permit a covered entity to require an individual to make a request for
access in writing and to discuss a request with an individual to clarify
which information the individual is actually requesting. If individuals
agree, covered entities may provide access to a subset of information
rather than all protected health information in a designated record set.
We believe these changes provide covered entities with greater
flexibility without compromising individuals= access rights.

*Comment*: Commenters offered varying suggestions for required response
time, ranging from 48 hours because of the convenience of electronic
records to 60 days because of the potential burden. Others argued
against a finite time period, suggesting the response time be based on
mutual convenience of covered entities and individuals, reasonableness,
and exigencies. Commenters also varied on suggested extension periods,
from one 30-day extension to three 30- day extensions to one 90-day
extension, with special provisions for off-site records.

*Response*: We are imposing a time limit because individuals are
entitled to know when to expect a response. Timely access to protected
health information is important because such information may be
necessary for the individual to obtain additional health care services,
insurance coverage, or disability benefits, and the covered entity may
be the only source for such information. To provide additional
flexibility, we eliminate the requirement that access be provided as
soon as possible and we lengthen the deadline for access to off-site
records. For on-site records, covered entities must act on a request
within 30 days of receipt of the request. For off-site records, entities
must complete action within 60 days. We also permit covered entities to
extend the deadline by up to 30 days if they are unable to complete
action on the request within the standard deadline. These time limits
are intended to be an outside deadline rather than an expectation. We
expect covered entities to be attentive to the circumstances surrounding
each request and respond in an appropriate time frame.

*Comment:* A few commenters suggested that, upon individuals= requests,
covered entities should be required to provide protected health
information in a format that would be understandable to a patient,
including explanations of codes or abbreviations. The commenters
suggested that covered entities be permitted to provide summaries of
pertinent information instead of full copies of records; for example, a
summary may be more helpful for the patient=s purpose than a series of
indecipherable billing codes.

*Response*: We agree with these commenters= point that some health
information is difficult to interpret. We clarify, therefore, that the
covered entity may provide summary information in lieu of the underlying
records. A summary may only be provided if the covered entity and the
individual agree, in advance, to the summary and to any fees imposed by
the covered entity for providing such summary. We similarly permit a
covered entity to provide an explanation of the information. If the
covered entity charges a fee for providing an explanation, it must
obtain the individual=s agreement to the fee in advance.

*Comment*: Though there were recommendations that fees be limited to the
costs of copying, the majority of commenters on this topic requested
that covered entities be able to charge a reasonable, cost-based fee.
Commenters suggested that calculation of access costs involve factors
such as labor costs for verification of requests, labor and software
costs for logging of requests, labor costs for retrieval, labor costs
for copying, expense costs for copying, capital cost for copying,
expense costs for mailing, postal costs for mailing, billing and
bad-debt expenses, and labor costs for refiling. Several commenters
recommended specific fee structures.

*Response*: We agree that covered entities should be able to recoup
their reasonable costs for copying of protected health information, and
include such provision in the regulation. We are not specifying a set
fee because copying costs could vary significantly depending on the size
of the covered entity and the form of such copy (e.g., paper,
electronic, film). Rather, covered entities are permitted to charge a
reasonable, cost-based fee for copying (including the costs of supplies
and labor), postage, and summary or explanation (if requested and agreed
to by the individual) of information supplied. The rule limits the types
of costs that may be imposed for providing access to protected health
information, but does not preempt applicable state laws regarding
specific allowable fees for such costs. The inclusion of a copying fee
is not intended to impede the ability of individuals to copy their
records.

*Comment:* Many commenters stated that if a covered entity denies a
request for access because the entity does not hold the protected health
information requested, the covered entity should provide, if known, the
name and address of the entity that holds the information. Some of these
commenters additionally noted that the Uniform Insurance Information and
Patient Protection Act, adopted by 16 states, already imposes this
notification requirement on insurance entities. Some commenters also
suggested requiring providers who leave practice or move offices to
inform individuals of that fact and of how to obtain their records.

*Response:* We agree that, when covered entities deny requests for
access because they do not hold the protected health information
requested, they should inform individuals of the holder of the
information, if known; we include this provision in the final rule. We
do not require health care providers to notify all patients when they
move or leave practice, because the volume of such notifications would
be unduly burdensome.

**SECTION 164.526CAMENDMENT OF PROTECTED HEALTH INFORMATION**

*Comment:* Many commenters strongly encouraged the Secretary to adopt
Aappendment@ rather than Aamendment and correction@ procedures. They
argued that the term Acorrection@ implies a deletion of information and
that the proposed rule would have allowed covered entities to remove
portions of the record at their discretion. Commenters indicated that
appendment rather than correction procedures will ensure the integrity
of the medical record and allow subsequent health care providers access
to the original information as well as the appended information. They
also indicated appendment procedures will protect both individuals and
covered entities since medical records are sometimes needed for
litigation or other legal proceedings.

*Response:* We agree with commenters= concerns about the term
Acorrection.@ We have revised the rule and deleted Acorrection@ from
this provision in order to clarify that covered entities are not
required by this rule to delete any information from the designated
record set. We do not intend to alter medical record retention laws or
current practice, except to require covered entities to append
information as requested to ensure that a record is accurate and
complete. If a covered entity prefers to comply with this provision by
deleting the erroneous information, and applicable record retention laws
allow such deletion, the entity may do so. For example, an individual
may inform the entity that someone else=s X-rays are in the individual=s
medical record. If the entity agrees that the X-ray is inaccurately
filed, the entity may choose to so indicate and note where in the record
the correct X-ray can be found. Alternatively, the entity may choose to
remove the X-ray from the record and replace it with the correct X-ray,
if applicable law allows the entity to do so. We intend the term
Aamendment@ to encompass either action.

We believe this approach is consistent with well-established privacy
principles, with other law, and with industry standards and ethical
guidelines. The July 1977 Report of the Privacy Protection Study
Commission recommended that health care providers and other
organizations that maintain medical-record information have procedures
for individuals to correct or amend the information.[^28] The Privacy
Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) requires government agencies to permit individuals
to request amendment of any record the individual believes is not
accurate, relevant, timely, or complete. In its report ABest Principles
for Health Privacy,@ the Health Privacy Working Group recommended, AAn
individual should have the right to supplement his or her own medical
record. Supplementation should not be implied to mean \>deletion= or
\>alteration= of the medical record.@[^29] The National Association of
Insurance Commissioners= Health Information Privacy Model Act
establishes the right of an individual who is the subject of protected
health information to amend protected health information to correct any
inaccuracies. The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State
Laws= Uniform Health Care Information Act states, ABecause accurate
health-care information is not only important to the delivery of health
care, but for patient applications for life, disability and health
insurance, employment, and a great many other issues that might be
involved in civil litigation, this Act allows a patient to request an
amendment in his record.@

Some states also establish a right for individuals to amend health
information about them. For example, Hawaii law (HRS section 323C-12)
states, AAn individual or the individual=s authorized representative may
request in writing that a health care provider that generated certain
health care information append additional information to the record in
order to improve the accuracy or completeness of the information;
provided that appending this information does not erase or obliterate
any of the original information.@ Montana law (MCA section 50-16-543)
states, AFor purposes of accuracy or completeness, a patient may request
in writing that a health care provider correct or amend its record of
the patient\'s health care information to which he has access.@
Connecticut, Georgia, and Maine provide individuals a right to request
correction, amendment, or deletion of recorded personal information
about them maintained by an insurance institution. Many other states
have similar provisions.

Industry and standard-setting organizations have also developed policies
for amendment of health information. The National Committee for Quality
Assurance and the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare
Organizations issued recommendations stating, AThe opportunity for
patients to review their records will enable them to correct any errors
and may provide them with a better understanding of their health status
and treatment. Amending records does not erase the original information.
It inserts the correct information with a notation about the date the
correct information was available and any explanation about the reason
for the error.@[^30] Standards of the American Society for Testing and
Materials state, AAn individual has a right to amend by adding
information to his or her record or database to correct inaccurate
information in his or her patient record and in secondary records and
databases which contain patient identifiable health information.@[^31]
We build on this well-established principle in this final rule.

*Comment:* Some commenters supported the proposal to allow individuals
to request amendment for as long as the covered provider or plan
maintains the information. A few argued that the provision should be
time-limited, e.g., that covered entities should not have to amend
protected health information that is more than two years old. Other
comments suggested that the provision should only be applied to
protected health information created after the compliance date of the
regulation.

*Response:* The purpose of this provision is to create a mechanism
whereby individuals can ensure that information about them is as
accurate as possible as it travels through the health care system and is
used to make decisions, including treatment decisions, about them. To
achieve this result, individuals must have the ability to request
amendment for as long as the information used to make decisions about
them exists. We therefore retain the proposed approach. For these
reasons, we also require covered entities to address requests for
amendment of all protected health information within designated record
sets, including information created or obtained prior to the compliance
date, for as long as the entity maintains the information.

*Comment:* A few commenters were concerned that the proposal implied
that the individual is in control of and may personally change the
medical record. These commenters opposed such an approach.

*Response:* We do not give individuals the right to alter their medical
records. Individuals may request amendment, but they have no authority
to determine the final outcome of the request and may not make actual
changes to the medical record. The covered entity must review the
individual=s request and make appropriate decisions. We have clarified
this intent in \' 164.526(a)(1) by stating that individuals have a right
to have a covered entity amend protected health information and in \'
164.526(b)(2) by stating that covered entities must act on an
individual=s request for amendment.

*Comment:* Some comments argued that there is no free-text field in some
current transaction formats that would accommodate the extra text
required to comply with the amendment provisions (e.g., sending
statements of disagreement along with all future disclosures of the
information at issue). Commenters argued that this provision will burden
the efficient transmission of information, contrary to HIPAA
requirements.

*Response:* We believe that most amendments can be incorporated into the
standard transactions as corrections of erroneous data. We agree that
some of the standard transactions cannot currently accommodate
additional material such as statements of disagreement and rebuttals to
such statements. To accommodate these rare situations, we modify the
requirements in \' 164.526(d)(iii). The provision now states that if a
standard transaction does not permit the inclusion of the additional
material required by this section, the covered entity may separately
transmit the additional material to the recipient of the standard
transaction. Commenters interested in modifying the standard
transactions to allow the incorporation of additional materials may also
bring the issue up for resolution through the process established by the
Transactions Rule and described in its preamble.

*Comment:* The NPRM proposed to allow amendment of protected health
information in designated record sets. Some commenters supported the
concept of a designated record set and stated that it appropriately
limits the type of information available for amendment to information
directly related to treatment. Other commenters were concerned about the
burden this provision will create due to the volume of information that
will be available for amendment. They were primarily concerned with the
potential for frivolous, minor, or technical requests. They argued that
for purposes of amendment, this definition should be limited to
information used to make medical or treatment decisions about the
individual. A few commenters requested clarification that individuals do
not have a right to seek amendment unless there is verifiable
information to support their claim or they can otherwise convince the
entity that the information is inaccurate or incomplete.

*Response:* We believe that the same information available for
inspection should also be subject to requests for amendment, because the
purpose of these provisions is the same: to give consumers access to and
the chance to correct errors in information that may be used to make
decisions that affect their interests. We thus retain use of the
Adesignated record set@ in this provision. However, we share commenters=
concerns about the potential for minor or technical requests. To address
this concern, we have clarified that covered entities may deny a request
for amendment if the request is not in writing and does not articulate a
reason to support the request, as long as the covered entity informs the
individual of these requirements in advance.

*Comment:* Many commenters noted the potentially negative impact of the
proposal to allow covered entities to deny a request for amendment if
the covered entity did not create the information at issue. Some
commenters pointed out that the originator of the information may no
longer exist or the individual may not know who created the information
in question. Other commenters supported the proposal that only the
originator of the information is responsible for amendments to it. They
argued that any extension of this provision requiring covered entities
to amend information they have not created is administratively and
financially burdensome.

*Response:* In light of the comments, we modify the rule to require the
holder of the information to consider a request for amendment if the
individual requesting amendment provides a reasonable basis to believe
that the originator of the information is no longer available to act on
a request. For example, if a request indicates that the information at
issue was created by a hospital that has closed, and the request is not
denied on other grounds, then the entity must amend the information.
This provision is necessary to preserve an individual=s right to amend
protected health information about them in certain circumstances.

*Comment:* Some commenters stated that the written contract between a
covered entity and its business associate should stipulate that the
business associate is required to amend protected health information in
accordance with the amendment provisions. Otherwise, these commenters
argued, there would be a gap in the individual=s right to have erroneous
information corrected, because the covered entity could deny a request
for amendment of information created by a business associate.

*Response:* We agree that information created by the covered entity or
by the covered entity=s business associates should be subject to
amendment. This requirement is consistent with the requirement to make
information created by a business associate available for inspection and
copying. We have revised the rule to require covered entities to specify
in the business associate contract that the business associate will make
protected health information available for amendment and will
incorporate amendments accordingly. (See \' 164.504(e).)

*Comment:* One commenter argued that covered entities should be required
to presume information must be corrected where an individual informs the
entity that an adjudicative process has made a finding of medical
identity theft.

*Response:* Identity theft is one of many reasons why protected health
information may be inaccurate, and is one of many subjects that may
result in an adjudicative process relevant to the accuracy of protective
health information. We believe that this provision accommodates this
situation without a special provision for identity theft.

*Comment:* Some commenters asserted that the proposed rule=s requirement
that action must be taken on individuals= requests within 60 days of the
receipt of the request was unreasonable and burdensome. A few commenters
proposed up to three 30-day extensions for Aextraordinary@ (as defined
by the entity) requests.

*Response:* We agree that 60 days will not always be a sufficient amount
of time to adequately respond to these requests. Therefore, we have
revised this provision to allow covered entities the option of a 30-day
extension to deal with requests that require additional response time.
However, we expect that 60 days will be adequate for most cases.

*Comment:* One commenter questioned whether a covered entity could
appropriately respond to a request by amending the record, without
indicating whether it believes the information at issue is accurate and
complete.

*Response:* An amendment need not include a statement by the covered
entity as to whether the information is or is not accurate and complete.
A covered entity may choose to amend a record even if it believes the
information at issue is accurate and complete. If a request for
amendment is accepted, the covered entity must notify the individual
that the record has been amended. This notification need not include any
explanation as to why the request was accepted. A notification of a
denied request, however, must contain the basis for the denial.

*Comment:* A few commenters suggested that when an amendment is made,
the date should be noted. Some also suggested that the physician should
sign the notation.

*Response:* We believe such a requirement would create a burden that is
not necessary to protect individuals= interests, and so have not
accepted this suggestion. We believe that the requirements of \'
164.526(c) regarding actions a covered entity must take when accepting a
request will provide an adequate record of the amendment. A covered
entity may date and sign an amendment at its discretion.

*Comment:* The NPRM proposed that covered entities, upon accepting a
request for amendment, make reasonable efforts to notify those persons
the individual identifies, and other persons whom the covered entity
knows have received the erroneous or incomplete information and who may
have relied, or could foreseeably rely, on such information to the
detriment of the individual. Many commenters argued that this
notification requirement was too burdensome and should be narrowed. They
expressed concern that covered entities would have to notify anyone who
might have received the information, even persons identified by the
individual with whom the covered entity had no contact. Other commenters
also contended that this provision would require covered entities to
determine the reliance another entity might place on the information and
suggested that particular part of the notification requirements be
removed. Another commenter suggested that the notification provision be
eliminated entirely, believing that it was unnecessary.

*Response:* Although there is some associated administrative burden with
this provision, we believe it is a necessary requirement to effectively
communicate amendments of erroneous or incomplete information to other
parties. The negative effects of erroneous or incomplete medical
information can be devastating. This requirement allows individuals to
exercise some control in determining recipients they consider important
to be notified, and requires the covered entity to communicate
amendments to other persons that the covered entity knows have the
erroneous or incomplete information and may take some action in reliance
on the erroneous or incomplete information to the detriment of the
individual. We have added language to clarify that the covered entity
must obtain the individual=s agreement to have the amendment shared with
the persons the individual and covered entity identifies. We believe
these notification requirements appropriately balance covered entities=
burden and individuals= interest in protecting the accuracy of medical
information used to make decisions about them. We therefore retain the
notification provisions substantially as proposed.

*Comment:* Some commenters argued against the proposed provision
requiring a covered entity that receives a notice of amendment to notify
its business associates, Aas appropriate,@ of necessary amendments. Some
argued that covered entities should only be required to inform business
associates of these changes if the amendment could affect the
individual=s further treatment, citing the administrative and financial
burden of notifying all business associates of changes that may not have
a detrimental effect on the patient. Other commenters suggested that
covered entities should only be required to inform business associates
whom they reasonably know to be in possession of the information.

*Response:* We agree with commenters that clarification is warranted.
Our intent is that covered entities must meet the requirements of this
rule with respect to protected health information they maintain,
including protected health information maintained on their behalf by
their business associates. We clarify this intent by revising the
definition of designated record set (see \' 164.501) to include records
maintained Aby or for@ a covered entity. Section 164.526(e) requires a
covered entity that is informed of an amendment made by another covered
entity to incorporate that amendment into designated record sets,
whether the designated record set is maintained by the covered entity or
for the covered entity by a business associate. If a business associate
maintains the record at issue on the covered entity=s behalf, the
covered entity must fulfill its requirement by informing the business
associate of the amendment to the record. The contract with the business
associate must require the business associate to incorporate any such
amendments. (See \' 164.504(e).)

*Comment:* Some commenters supported the proposal to require covered
entities to provide notification of the covered entity=s statement of
denial and the individual=s statement of disagreement in any subsequent
disclosures of the information to which the dispute relates. They argued
that we should extend this provision to prior recipients of disputed
information who have relied on it. These commenters noted an
inconsistency in the proposed approach, since notification of accepted
amendments is provided to certain previous recipients of erroneous
health information and to recipients of future disclosures. They
contended there is not a good justification for the different treatment
and believed that the notification standard should be the same,
regardless of whether the covered entity accepts the request for
amendment.

These commenters also recommended that the individual be notified of the
covered entity=s intention to rebut a statement of disagreement. They
suggested requiring covered entities to send a copy of the statement of
rebuttal to the individual.

*Response:* Where a request for amendment is accepted, the covered
entity knows that protected health information about the individual is
inaccurate or incomplete or the amendment is otherwise warranted; in
these circumstances, it is reasonable to ask the covered entity to
notify certain previous recipients of the information that reliance on
such information could be harmful. Where, however, the request for
amendment is denied, the covered entity believes that the relevant
information is accurate and complete or the amendment is otherwise
unacceptable. In this circumstance, the burden of prior notification
outweighs the potential benefits. We therefore do not require
notification of prior recipients.

We agree, however, that individuals should know how a covered entity has
responded to their requests, and therefore add a requirement that
covered entities also provide a copy of any rebuttal statements to the
individual.

**SECTION 164.528CACCOUNTING OF DISCLOSURES OF PROTECTED HEALTH
INFORMATION**

*Comment:* Many commenters expressed support for the concept of the
right to receive an accounting of disclosures. Others opposed even the
concept. One commenter said that it is likely that some individuals will
request an accounting of disclosures from each of his or her health care
providers and payors merely to challenge the disclosures that the
covered entity made.

Some commenters also questioned the value to the individual of providing
the right to an accounting. One commenter stated that such a provision
would be meaningless because those who deliberately perpetrate an abuse
are unlikely to note their breach in a log.

*Response:* The final rule retains the right of an individual to receive
an accounting of disclosures of protected health information. The
provision serves multiple purposes. It provides a means of informing the
individual as to which information has been sent to which recipients.
This information, in turn, enables individuals to exercise certain other
rights under the rule, such as the rights to inspection and amendment,
with greater precision and ease. The accounting also allows individuals
to monitor how covered entities are complying with the rule. Though
covered entities who deliberately make disclosures in violation of the
rule may be unlikely to note such a breach in the accounting, other
covered entities may document inappropriate disclosures that they make
out of ignorance and not malfeasance. The accounting will enable the
individual to address such concerns with the covered entity.

We believe this approach is consistent with well-established privacy
principles, with other law, and with industry standards and ethical
guidelines. The July 1977 Report of the Privacy Protection Study
Commission recommended that a health care provider should not disclose
individually-identifiable information for certain purposes without the
individual=s authorization unless Aan accounting of such disclosures is
kept and the individual who is the subject of the information being
disclosed can find out that the disclosure has been made and to
whom.@[^32] With certain exceptions, the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a)
requires government agencies to Akeep an accurate accounting of\... the
date, nature, and purpose of each disclosure of a record to any person
or to another agency\... and\... the name and address of the person or
agency to whom the disclosure is made.@ The National Association of
Insurance Commissioners= Health Information Privacy Model Act requires
carriers to provide to individuals on request Ainformation regarding
disclosure of that individual=s protected health information that is
sufficient to exercise the right to amend the information.@ We build on
these standards in this final rule.

*Comment:* Many commenters disagreed with the NPRM=s exception for
treatment, payment, and health care operations. Some commenters wanted
treatment, payment, and health care operations disclosures to be
included in an accounting because they believed that improper
disclosures of protected health information were likely to be committed
by parties within the entity who have access to protected health
information for treatment, payment, and health care operations related
purposes. They suggested that requiring covered entities to record
treatment, payment, and health care operations disclosures would either
prevent improper disclosures or enable transgressions to be tracked.

One commenter reasoned that disclosures for treatment, payment, and
health care operations purposes should be tracked since these
disclosures would be made without the individual=s consent. Others
argued that if an individual=s authorization is not required for a
disclosure, then the disclosure should not have to be tracked for a
future accounting to the individual.

One commenter requested that the provision be restated so that no
accounting is required for disclosures Acompatible with or directly
related to@ treatment, payment or health care operations. This comment
indicated that the change would make \' 164.515(a)(l) of the NPRM
consistent with \' 164.508(a)(2)(i)(A) of the NPRM.

*Response:* We do not accept the comments suggesting removing the
exception for disclosures for treatment, payment, and health care
operations. While including all disclosures within the accounting would
provide more information to individuals about to whom their information
has been disclosed, we believe that documenting all disclosures made for
treatment, payment, and health care operations purposes would be unduly
burdensome on entities and would result in accountings so voluminous as
to be of questionable value. Individuals who seek treatment and payment
expect that their information will be used and disclosed for these
purposes. In many cases, under this final rule, the individual will have
consented to these uses and disclosures. Thus, the additional
information that would be gained from including these disclosures would
not outweigh the added burdens on covered entities. We believe that
retaining the exclusion of disclosures to carry out treatment, payment,
and health care operations makes for a manageable accounting both from
the point of view of entities and of individuals. We have conformed the
language in this section with language in other sections of the rule
regarding uses and disclosures to carry out treatment, payment, and
health care operations. See \' 164.508 and the corresponding preamble
discussion regarding our to decision to use this language.

*Comments:* A few commenters called for a record of all disclosures,
including a right of access to a full audit trail where one exists. Some
commenters stated while audit trails for paper records are too expensive
to require, the privacy rule should not discourage audit trails, at
least for computer-based records. They speculated that an important
reason for maintaining a full audit trail is that most abuses are the
result of activity by insiders. On the other hand, other commenters
pointed out that an enormous volume of records would be created if the
rule requires recording all accesses in the manner of a full audit
trail.

One commenter supported the NPRM=s reference to the proposed HIPAA
Security Rule, agreeing that access control and disclosure requirements
under this rule should be coordinated with the final HIPAA Security
Rule. The commenter recommended that HHS add a reference to the final
HIPAA Security Rule in this section and keep specific audit log and
reporting requirements generic in the privacy rule.

*Response*: Audit trails and the accounting of disclosures serve
different functions. In the security field, an audit trail is typically
a record of each time a sensitive record is altered, how it was altered
and by whom, but does not usually record each time a record is used or
viewed. The accounting required by this rule provides individuals with
information about to whom a disclosure is made. An accounting, as
described in the this rule, would not capture uses. To the extent that
an audit trail would capture uses, consumers reviewing an audit trail
may not be able to distinguish between accesses of the protected health
information for use and accesses for disclosure. Further, it is not
clear the degree to which the field is technologically poised to provide
audit trails. Some entities could provide audit trails to individuals
upon their request, but we are concerned that many could not.

We agree that it is important to coordinate this provision of the
privacy rule with the Security Rule when it is issued as a final rule.

*Comments:* We received many comments from researchers expressing
concerns about the potential impact of requiring an accounting of
disclosures related to research. The majority feared that the accounting
provision would prove so burdensome that many entities would decline to
participate in research. Many commenters believed that disclosure of
protected health information for research presents little risk to
individual privacy and feared that the accounting requirement could shut
down research.

Some commenters pointed out that often only a few data elements or a
single element is extracted from the patient record and disclosed to a
researcher, and that having to account for so singular a disclosure from
what could potentially be an enormous number of records imposes a
significant burden. Some said that the impact would be particularly
harmful to longitudinal studies, where the disclosures of protected
health information occur over an extended period of time. A number of
commenters suggested that we not require accounting of disclosures for
research, registries, and surveillance systems or other databases unless
the disclosure results in the actual physical release of the patient=s
entire medical record, rather than the disclosure of discrete elements
of information contained within the record.

We also were asked by commenters to provide an exclusion for research
subject to IRB oversight or research that has been granted a waiver of
authorization pursuant to proposed \' 164.510, to exempt Ain-house@
research from the accounting provision, and to allow covered entities to
describe the type of disclosures they have made to research projects,
without specifically listing each disclosure. Commenters suggested that
covered entities could include in an accounting a listing of the various
research projects in which they participated during the time period at
issue, without regard to whether a particular individual=s protected
health information was disclosed to the project.

*Response:* We disagree with suggestions from commenters that an
accounting of disclosures is not necessary for research. While it is
possible that informing individuals about the disclosures made of their
health information may on occasion discourage worthwhile activities, we
believe that individuals have a right to know who is using their health
information and for what purposes. This information gives individuals
more control over their health information and a better base of
knowledge from which to make informed decisions.

For the same reasons, we also do not believe that IRB or privacy board
review substitutes for providing individuals the right to know how their
information has been disclosed. We permit IRBs or privacy boards to
determine that a research project would not be feasible if authorization
were required because we understand that it could be virtually
impossible to get authorization for archival research involving large
numbers of individuals or where the location of the individuals is not
easy to ascertain. While providing an accounting of disclosures for
research may entail some burden, it is feasible, and we do not believe
that IRBs or privacy boards would have a basis for waiving such a
requirement. We also note that the majority of comments that we received
from individuals supported including more information in the accounting,
not less.

We understand that requiring covered entities to include disclosures for
research in the accounting of disclosures entails some burden, but we
believe that the benefits described above outweigh the burden.

We do not agree with commenters that we should exempt disclosures where
only a few data elements are released or in the case of data released
without individuals= names. We recognize that information other than
names can identify an individual. We also recognize that even a few data
elements could be clues to an individual=s identity. The actual volume
of information released is not an appropriate indicator of whether an
individual could have a concern about privacy.

We disagree with comments that suggested that it would be sufficient to
provide individuals with a general list of research projects to which
information has been disclosed by the covered entity. We believe that
individuals are entitled to a level of specificity about disclosures of
protected health information about them and should know to which
research projects their protected health information has been disclosed,
rather than to which projects protected health information may have been
disclosed. However, we have added a provision allowing for a summary
accounting of recurrent disclosures. For multiple disclosures to the
same recipient pursuant to a single authorization or for a single
purpose permitted under the rule without authorization, the covered
entity may provide a summary accounting addressing the series of
disclosures rather than a detailed accounting of each disclosure in the
series. This change is designed to ease the burden on covered entities
involved in longitudinal projects.

With regard to the suggestion that we exempt Ain-house@ research from
the accounting provision, we note that only disclosures of protected
health information must appear in an accounting.

*Comments:* Several commenters noted that disclosures for public health
activities may be of interest to individuals, but add to the burden
imposed on entities. Furthermore, some expressed fear that priority
public health activities would be compromised by the accounting
provision. One commenter from a health department said that covered
entities should not be required to provide an accounting to certain
index cases, where such disclosures create other hazards, such as
potential harm to the reporting provider. This commenter also speculated
that knowing protected health information had been disclosed for these
public health purposes might cause people to avoid treatment in order to
avoid being reported to the public health department.

A provider association expressed concern about the effect that the
accounting provision might have on a non-governmental, centralized
disease registry that it operates. The provider organization feared that
individuals might request that their protected health information be
eliminated in the databank, which would make the data less useful.

*Response:* As in the discussion of research above, we reject the
contention that we should withhold information from individuals about
where their information has been disclosed because informing them could
occasionally discourage some worthwhile activities. We also believe
that, on balance, individuals= interest in having broad access to this
information outweighs concerns about the rare instances in which
providing this information might raise concerns about harm to the person
who made the disclosure. As we stated above, we believe that individuals
have a right to know who is using their health information and for what
purposes. This information gives individuals more control over their
health information and a better base of knowledge from which to make
informed decisions.

*Comment:* We received many comments about the proposed time-limited
exclusion for law enforcement and health oversight. Several commenters
noted that it is nearly impossible to accurately project the length of
an investigation, especially during its early stages. Some recommended
we permit a deadline based on the end of an event, such as conclusion of
an investigation. One commenter recommended amending the standard such
that covered entities would never be required to give an accounting of
disclosures to health oversight or law enforcement agencies. The
commenter noted that there are public policy reasons for limiting the
extent to which a criminal investigation is made known publicly,
including the possibility that suspects may destroy or falsify evidence,
hide assets, or flee. The commenter also pointed out that disclosure of
an investigation may unfairly stigmatize a person or entity who is
eventually found to be innocent of any wrongdoing.

On the other hand, many commenters disagreed with the exemption for
recording disclosures related to oversight activities and law
enforcement. Many of these commenters stated that the exclusion would
permit broad exceptions for government purposes while holding
disclosures for private purposes to a more burdensome standard.

Some commenters felt that the NPRM made it too easy for law enforcement
to obtain an exception. They suggested that law enforcement should not
be excepted from the accounting provision unless there is a court order.
One commenter recommended that a written request for exclusion be dated,
signed by a supervisory official, and contain a certification that the
official is personally familiar with the purpose of the request and the
justification for exclusion from accounting.

*Response:* We do not agree with comments suggesting that we permanently
exclude disclosures for oversight or law enforcement from the
accounting. We believe generally that individuals have a right to know
who is obtaining their health information and for what purposes.

At the same time, we agree with commenters that were concerned that an
accounting could tip off subjects of investigations. We have retained a
time-limed exclusion period similar to that proposed in the NPRM. To
protect the integrity of investigations, in the final rule we require
covered entities to exclude disclosures to a health oversight agency or
law enforcement official for the time specified by that agency or
official, if the agency or official states that including the disclosure
in an accounting to the individual would be reasonably likely to impede
the agency or official=s activities. We require the statement from the
agency or official to provide a specific time frame for the exclusion.
For example, pursuant to a law enforcement official=s statement, a
covered entity could exclude a law enforcement disclosure from the
accounting for a period of three months from the date of the official=s
statement or until a date specified in the statement.

In the final rule, we permit the covered entity to exclude the
disclosure from an accounting to an individual if the agency or official
makes the statement orally and the covered entity documents the
statement and the identify of the agency or official that made the
statement. We recognize that in urgent situations, agencies and
officials may not be able to provide statements in writing. If the
agency or official=s statement is made orally, however, the disclosure
can be excluded from an accounting to the individual for no longer than
30 days from the oral statement. For exclusions longer than 30 days, a
covered entity must receive a written statement.

We believe these requirements appropriately balance individuals= rights
to be informed of the disclosures of protected health information while
recognizing the public=s interest in maintaining the integrity of health
oversight and law enforcement activities.

*Comment:* One commenter stated that under Minnesota law, providers who
are mandated reporters of abuse are limited as to whom they may reveal
the report of abuse (generally law enforcement authorities and other
providers only). This is because certain abusers, such as parents, by
law may have access to a victim=s (child=s) records. The commenter
requested clarification as to whether these disclosures are exempt from
the accounting requirement or whether preemption would apply.

*Response:* While we do not except mandatory disclosures of abuse from
the accounting for disclosure requirement, we believe the commenter=s
concerns are addressed in several ways. First, nothing in this
regulation invalidates or limits the authority or procedures established
under state law providing for the reporting of child abuse. Thus, with
respect to child abuse the Minnesota law=s procedures are not preempted
even though they are less stringent with respect to privacy. Second,
with respect to abuse of persons other than children, we allow covered
entities to refuse to treat a person as an individual=s personal
representative if the covered entity believes that the individual has
been subjected to domestic violence, abuse, or neglect from the person.
Thus, the abuser would not have access to the accounting. We also note
that a covered entity must exclude a disclosure, including disclosures
to report abuse, from the accounting for specified period of time if the
law enforcement official to whom the report is made requests such
exclusion.

*Comment:* A few comments noted the lack of exception for disclosures
made to intelligence agencies.

*Response:* We agree with the comments and have added an exemption for
disclosures made for national security or intelligence purposes under \'
164.512(k)(2). Individuals do not have a right to an accounting of
disclosures for these purposes.

*Comment:* Commenters noted that the burden associated with this
provision would, in part, be determined by other provisions of the rule,
including the definitions of Aindividually identifiable,@ Atreatment,@
and Ahealth care operations.@ They expressed concern that the covered
entity would have to be able to organize on a patient by patient basis
thousands of disclosures of information, which they described as
Aroutine.@ These commenters point to disclosures for patient directory
information, routine banking and payment processes, uses and disclosures
in emergency circumstances, disclosures to next of kin, and release of
admissions statistics to a health oversight agency.

*Response:* We disagree with the commenters that ambiguity in other
areas of the rule increase the burden associated with maintaining an
accounting. The definitions of treatment, payment, and health operations
are necessarily broad and there is no accounting required for
disclosures for these purposes. These terms cover the vast majority of
routine disclosures for health care purposes. (See \' 164.501 and the
associated preamble for a discussion of changes made to these
definitions.)

The disclosures permitted under \' 164.512 are for national priority
purposes, and determining whether a disclosure fits within the section
is necessary before the disclosure can be made. There is no additional
burden, once such a determination is made, in determining whether it
must be included in the accounting.

We agree with the commenters that there are areas where we can reduce
burden by removing additional disclosures from the accounting
requirement, without compromising individuals= rights to know how their
information is being disclosed. In the final rule, covered entities are
not required to include the following disclosures in the accounting:
disclosures to the individual, disclosures for facility directories
under \' 164.510(a), or disclosures to persons assisting in the
individual=s care or for other notification purposes under \'
164.510(b). For each of these types of disclosures, the individual is
likely to already know about the disclosure or to have agreed to the
disclosure, making the inclusion of such disclosures in the accounting
less important to the individual and unnecessarily burdensome to the
covered entity.

*Comment:* Many commenters objected to requiring business partners to
provide an accounting to covered entities upon their request. They cited
the encumbrance associated with re-contracting with the various business
partners, as well as the burden associated with establishing this type
of record keeping.

*Response:* Individuals have a right to know to whom and for what
purpose their protected health information has been disclosed by a
covered entity. The fact that a covered entity uses a business associate
to carry out a function does not diminish an individual=s right to know.

*Comments:* One commenter requested clarification as to how far a
covered entity=s responsibility would extend, asking whether an entity
had to track only their direct disclosures or subsequent re-disclosures.

*Response:* Covered entities are required to account for their
disclosures, as well as the disclosures of their business associates, of
protected health information. Because business associates act on behalf
of covered entities, it is essential that their disclosures be included
in any accounting that an individual requests from a covered entity.
Covered entities are not responsible, however, for the actions of
persons who are not their business associates. Once a covered entity has
accounted for a disclosure to any person other than a business
associate, it is not responsible for accounting for any further uses or
disclosures of the information by that other person.

*Comments:* Some commenters said that the accounting provision described
in the NPRM was ambiguous and created uncertainty as to whether it
addresses disclosures only, as the title would indicate, or whether it
includes accounting of uses. They urged that the standard address
disclosures only, and not uses, which would make implementation far more
practicable and less burdensome.

*Response:* The final rule requires disclosures, not uses, to be
included in an accounting. See \' 164.501 for definitions of Ause@ and
Adisclosure.@

*Comments:* We received many comments from providers and other
representatives of various segments of the health care industry,
expressing the view that a centralized system of recording disclosures
was not possible given the complexity of the health care system, in
which disclosures are made by numerous departments within entities. For
example, commenters stated that a hospital medical records department
generally makes notations regarding information it releases, but that
these notations do not include disclosures that the emergency department
may make. Several commenters proposed that the rule provide for patients
to receive only an accounting of disclosures made by medical records
departments or some other central location, which would relieve the
burden of centralizing accounting for those entities who depend on paper
records and tracking systems.

*Response:* We disagree with commenters= arguments that covered entities
should not be held accountable for the actions of their subdivisions or
workforce members. Covered entities are responsible for accounting for
the disclosures of protected health information made by the covered
entity, in accordance with this rule. The particular person or
department within the entity that made the disclosure is immaterial to
the covered entity=s obligation. In the final rule, we require covered
entities to document each disclosure that is required to be included in
an accounting. We do not, however, require this documentation to be
maintained in a central registry. A covered hospital, for example, could
maintain separate documentation of disclosures that are made from the
medical records department and the emergency department. At the time an
individual requests an accounting, this documentation could be
integrated to provide a single accounting of disclosures made by the
covered hospital. Alternatively, the covered hospital could centralize
its processes for making and documenting disclosures. We believe this
provision provides covered entities with sufficient flexibility to meet
their business needs without compromising individuals= rights to know
how information about them is disclosed.

*Comments:* Commenters stated that the accounting requirements placed
undue burden on covered entities that use paper, rather than electronic,
records.

*Response:* We do not agree that the current reliance on paper records
makes the accounting provision unduly burdensome. Covered entities must
use the paper records in order to make a disclosure, and have the
opportunity when they do so to make a notation in the record or in a
separate log. We require an accounting only for disclosures for purposes
other than treatment, payment, and health care operations. Such
disclosures are not so numerous that they cannot be accounted for, even
if paper records are involved.

*Comments:* The exception to the accounting provision for disclosures of
protected health information for treatment, payment, and health care
operations purposes was viewed favorably by many respondents. However,
at least one commenter stated that since covered entities must
differentiate between disclosures that require documentation and those
that do not, they will have to document each instance when a patient=s
medical record is disclosed to determine the reason for the disclosure.
This commenter also argued that the administrative burden of requiring
customer services representatives to ask in which category the
information falls and then to keep a record that they asked the question
and record the answer would be overwhelming for plans. The commenter
concluded that the burden of documentation on a covered entity would not
be relieved by the stipulation that documentation is not required for
treatment, payment, and health care operations.

*Response:* We disagree. Covered entities are not required to document
every disclosure in order to differentiate those for treatment, payment,
and health care operations from those for purposes for which an
accounting is required. We require that, when a disclosure is made for
which an accounting is required, the covered entity be able to produce
an accounting of those disclosures upon request. We do not require a
covered entity to be able to account for every disclosure. In addition,
we believe that we have addressed many of the commenters= concerns by
clarifying in the final rule that disclosures to the individual,
regardless of the purpose for the disclosure, are not subject to the
accounting requirement.

*Comment*s: An insurer explained that in the context of underwriting, it
may have frequent and multiple disclosures of protected health
information to an agent, third party medical provider, or other entity
or individual. It requested we reduce the burden of accounting for such
disclosures.

*Response:* We add a provision allowing for a summary accounting of
recurrent disclosures. For multiple disclosures to the same recipient
pursuant to a single authorization or for a single purpose permitted
under the rule without authorization, the covered entity may provide a
summary accounting addressing the series of disclosures rather than a
detailed accounting of each disclosure in the series.

*Comment:* Several commenters said that it was unreasonable to expect
covered entities to track disclosures that are requested by the
individual. They believed that consumers should be responsible for
keeping track of their own requests.

Other commenters asked that we specify that entities need not retain and
provide copies of the individual=s authorization to disclose protected
health information. Some commenters were particularly concerned that if
they maintain all patient information on a computer system, it would be
impossible to link the paper authorization with the patient=s electronic
records.

Another commenter suggested we allow entities to submit copies of
authorizations after the 30-day deadline for responding to the
individual, as long as the accounting itself is furnished within the
30-day window.

*Response:* In the final rule we do not require disclosures to the
individual to be included in the accounting. Other disclosures requested
by the individual must be included in the accounting, unless they are
otherwise excepted from the requirement. We do not agree that
individuals should be required to track these disclosures themselves. In
many cases, an authorization may authorize a disclosure by more than one
entity, or by a class of entities, such as all physicians who have
provided medical treatment to the individual. Absent the accounting, the
individual cannot know whether a particular covered entity has acted on
the authorization.

We agree, however, that it is unnecessarily burdensome to require
covered entities to provide the individual with a copy of the
authorization. We remove the requirement. Instead, we require the
accounting to contain a brief statement describing the purpose for which
the protected health information was disclosed. The statement must be
sufficient to reasonably inform the individual of the basis for the
disclosure. Alternatively, the covered entity may provide a copy of the
authorization or a copy of the written request for disclosure, if any,
under \'\' 164.502(a)(2)(ii) or 164.512.

*Comments:* We received many comments regarding the amount of
information required in the accounting. A few commenters requested that
we include additional elements in the accounting, such as the method of
transmittal and identity of the employee who accessed the information.

Other commenters, however, felt that the proposed requirements went
beyond what is necessary to inform the individual of disclosures.
Another commenter stated that if the individual=s right to obtain an
accounting extends to disclosures that do not require a signed
authorization, then the accounting should be limited to a disclosure of
the manner and purpose of disclosures, as opposed to an individual
accounting of each entity to whom the protected health information was
disclosed. An insurer stated that this section of the proposed rule
should be revised to provide more general, rather than detailed,
guidelines for accounting of disclosures. The commenter believed that
its type of business should be allowed to provide general information
regarding the disclosure of protected health information to outside
entities, particularly with regard to entities with which the insurer
maintains an ongoing, standard relationship (such as a reinsurer).

*Response:* In general, we have retained the proposed approach, which we
believe strikes an appropriate balance between the individual=s right to
know to whom and for what purposes their protected health information
has been disclosed and the burden placed on covered entities. In the
final rule, we clarify that the accounting must include the address of
the recipient only if the address is known to the covered entity. As
noted above, we also add a provision allowing for a summary accounting
of recurrent disclosures. We note that some of the activities of concern
to commenters may fall under the definition of health care operations
(see \' 164.501 and the associated preamble).

*Comment:* A commenter asked that we limit the accounting to information
pertaining to the medical record itself, as opposed to protected health
information more generally. Similarly, commenters suggested that the
accounting be limited to release of the medical record only.

*Response:* We disagree. Protected health information exists in many
forms and resides in many sources. An individual=s right to know to whom
and for what purposes his or her protected health information has been
disclosed would be severely limited if it pertained only to disclosure
of the medical record, or information taken only from the record.

*Comment:* A commenter asked that we make clear that only disclosures
external to the organization are within the accounting requirement.

*Response:* We agree. The requirement only applies to disclosures of
protected health information, as defined in \' 164.501.

*Comment:* Some commenters requested that we establish a limit on the
number of times an individual could request an accounting. One comment
suggested we permit individuals to request one accounting per year;
another suggested two accountings per year, except in Aemergency
situations.@ Others recommended that we enable entities to recoup some
of the costs associated with implementation by allowing the entity to
charge for an accounting.

*Response:* We agree that covered entities should be able to defray
costs of excessive requests. The final rule provides individuals with
the right to receive one accounting without charge in a twelve-month
period. For additional requests by an individual within a twelve-month
period, the covered entity may charge a reasonable, cost-based fee. If
it imposes such a fee, the covered entity must inform the individual of
the fee in advance and provide the individual with an opportunity to
withdraw or modify the request to avoid or reduce the fee.

*Comment:* In the NPRM, we solicited comments on the appropriate
duration of the individual=s right to an accounting. Some commenters
supported the NPRM=s requirement that the right exist for as long as the
covered entities maintains the protected health information. One
commenter, however, noted that most audit control systems do not retain
data on activity for indefinite periods of time.

Other commenters noted that laws governing the length of retention of
clinical records vary by state and by provider type and suggested that
entities be allowed to adhere to state laws or policies established by
professional organizations or accrediting bodies. Some commenters
suggested that the language be clarified to state that whatever minimum
requirements are in place for the record should also guide covered
entities in retaining their capacity to account for disclosures over
that same time, but no longer.

Several commenters asked us to consider specific time limits. It was
pointed out that proposed \' 164.520(f)(6) of the NPRM set a six-year
time limit for retaining certain information including authorization
forms and contracts with business partners. Included in this list was
the accounting of disclosures, but this requirement was inconsistent
with the more open-ended language in \' 164.515. Commenters suggested
that deferring to this six-year limit would make this provision
consistent with other record retention provisions of the standard and
might relieve some of the burden associated with implementation. Other
specific time frames suggested were two years, three years, five years,
and seven years.

Another option suggested by commenters was to keep the accounting record
for as long as entities have the information maintained and Aactive@ on
their systems. Information permanently taken off the covered entity=s
system and sent to Adead storage@ would not be covered. One commenter
further recommended that we not require entities to maintain records or
account for prior disclosures for members who have Adisenrolled.@

*Response:* We agree with commenters who suggested we establish a
specific period for which an individual may request an accounting. In
the final rule, we provide that individuals have a right to an
accounting of the applicable disclosures that have been made in the
six-year period prior to a request for an accounting. We adopt this time
frame to conform with the other documentation retention requirements in
the rule. We also note that an individual may request, and a covered
entity may then provide, an accounting of disclosures for a period of
time less than six years from the date of the request. For example, an
individual could request an accounting only of disclosures that occurred
during the year prior to the request. In addition, we note that covered
entities do not have to account for disclosures that occurred prior to
the compliance date of this rule.

*Comments:* Commenters asked that we provide more time for entities to
respond to requests for accounting. Suggestions ranged from 60 days to
90 days. Another writer suggested that entities be able to take up to
three 30-day extensions from the original 30-day deadline. Commenters
raised concerns about the proposed requirement that a covered health
care provider or health plan act as soon as possible.

*Response:* We agree with concerns raised by commenters and in the final
rule, covered entities are required to provide a requested accounting no
later than 60 days after receipt of the request. We also provide for one
30 day extension if the covered entity is unable to provide the
accounting within the standard time frame. We eliminate the requirement
for a covered entity to act as soon as possible.

We recognize that circumstances may arise in which an individual will
request an accounting on an expedited basis. We encourage covered
entities to implement procedures for handling such requests. The time
limitation is intended to be an outside deadline, rather than an
expectation. We expect covered entities always to be attentive to the
circumstances surrounding each request and to respond in an appropriate
time frame.

*Comment:* A commenter asked that we provide an exemption for
disclosures related to computer upgrades, when protected health
information is disclosed to another entity solely for the purpose of
establishing or checking a computer system.

*Response:* This activity falls within the definition of health care
operations and is, therefore, excluded from the accounting requirement.

**SECTION 164.530CADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS**

**Section 164.530(a)CDesignation of a Privacy Official and Contact
Person**

*Comment:* Many of the commenters on this topic objected to the cost of
establishing a privacy official, including the need to hire additional
staff, which might need to include a lawyer or other highly paid
individual.

*Response:* We believe that designation of a privacy official is
essential to ensure a central point of accountability within each
covered entity for privacy-related issues. The privacy official is
charged with developing and implementing the policies and procedures for
the covered entity, as required throughout the regulation, and for
compliance with the regulation generally. While the costs for these
activities are part of the costs of compliance with this rule, not extra
costs associated with the designation of a privacy official, we do
anticipate that there will be some cost associated with this
requirement. The privacy official role may be an additional
responsibility given to an existing employee in the covered entity, such
as an office manager in a small entity or an information officer or
compliance official in a larger institution. Cost estimates for the
privacy official are discussed in detail in the overall cost analysis.

*Comment:* A few commenters argued for more flexibility in meeting the
requirement for accountability. One health care provider maintained that
covered entities should be able to establish their own system of
accountability. For example, most physician offices already have the
patient protections incorporated in the proposed administrative
requirements B the commenter urged that the regulation should explicitly
promote the application of flexibility and scalability. A national
physician association noted that, in small offices, in particular,
responsibility for the policies and procedures should be allowed to be
shared among several people. A major manufacturing corporation asserted
that mandating a privacy official is unnecessary and that it would be
preferable to ask for the development of policies that are designed to
ensure that processes are maintained to assure compliance.

*Response:* We believe that a single focal point is needed to achieve
the necessary accountability. At the same time, we recognize that
covered entities are organized differently and have different
information systems. We therefore do not prescribe who within a covered
entity must serve as the privacy official, nor do we prohibit combining
this function with other duties. Duties may be delegated and shared, so
long as there is one point of accountability for the covered entity=s
policies and procedures and compliance with this regulation.

*Comment:* Some commenters echoed the proposal of a professional
information management association that the regulation establish formal
qualifications for the privacy official, suggesting that this should be
a credentialed information management professional with specified
minimum training standards. One commenter emphasized that the privacy
official should be sufficiently high in management to have influence.

*Response:* While there may be some advantages to establishing formal
qualifications, we concluded the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
Since the job of privacy official will differ substantially among
organizations of varying size and function, specifying a single set of
qualifications would sacrifice flexibility and scalability in
implementation.

*Comment:* A few commenters suggested that we provide guidance on the
tasks of the privacy official. One noted that this would reduce the
burden on covered entities to clearly identify those tasks during the
initial HIPAA implementation phase.

*Response:* The regulation itself outlines the tasks of the privacy
official, by specifying the policies and procedures required, and
otherwise explaining the duties of covered entities. Given the wide
variation in the function and size of covered entities, providing
further detail here would unnecessarily reduce flexibility for covered
entities. We will, however, provide technical assistance in the form of
guidance on the various provisions of the regulation before the
compliance date.

*Comment:* Some comments expressed concern that the regulation would
require a company with subsidiaries to appoint a privacy official within
each subsidiary. Instead they argued that the corporate entity should
have the option of designating a single corporate official rather than
one at each subsidiary.

*Response:* In the final regulation, we give covered entities with
multiple subsidiaries that meet the definition of covered entities under
this rule the flexibility to designate whether such subsidiaries are
each a separate covered entity or are together a single covered entity.
(See \' 164.504(b) for the rules requiring such designation.) If only
one covered entity is designated for the subsidiaries, only one privacy
officer is needed. Further, we do not prohibit the privacy official of
one covered entity from serving as the privacy official of another
covered entity, so long as all the requirements of this rule are met for
each such covered entity.

**Section 164.530(b)CTraining**

*Comment:* A few commenters felt that the proposed provision was too
stringent, and that the content of the training program should be left
to the reasonable discretion of the covered entity.

*Response:* We clarify that we do not prescribe the content of the
required training; the nature of the training program is left to the
discretion of the covered entity. The scenarios in the NPRM preamble of
potential approaches to training for different sized covered entities
were intended as examples of the flexibility and scalability of this
requirement.

*Comment:* Most commenters on this provision asserted that
recertification/retraining every three years is excessive, restrictive,
and costly. Commenters felt that retraining intervals should be left to
the discretion of the covered entity. Some commenters supported
retraining only in the event of a material change. Some commenters
supported the training requirement as specified in the NPRM.

*Response:* For the reasons cited by the commenters, we eliminate the
triennial recertification requirements in the final rule. We also
clarify that retraining is not required every three years. Retraining is
only required in the case of material changes to the privacy policies
and procedures of the covered entity.

*Comment:* Several commenters objected to the burden imposed by required
signatures from employees after they are trained. Many commenters
suggested that electronic signatures be accepted for various reasons.
Some felt that it would be less costly than manually producing,
processing, and retaining the hard copies of the forms. Some suggested
sending out the notice to the personal workstation via email or some
other electronic format and having staff reply via email. One commenter
suggested that the covered entity might opt to give web based training
instead of classroom or some other type. The commenter indicated that
with web based training, the covered entity could record whether or not
an employee had received his or her training through the use of a guest
book or registration form on the web site. Thus, a physical signature
should not be required.

*Response:* We agree that there are many appropriate mechanisms by which
covered entities can implement their training programs, and therefore
remove this requirement for signature. We establish only a general
requirement that covered entities document compliance with the training
requirement.

*Comment:* Some commenters were concerned that there was no proposed
requirement for business associates to receive training and/or to train
their employees. The commenters believed that if the business associate
violated any privacy requirements, the covered entity would be held
accountable. These commenters urged the Secretary to require periodic
training for appropriate management personnel assigned outside of the
component unit of the covered entity, including business associates.
Other commenters felt that it would not be fair to require covered
entities to impose training requirements on business associates.

*Response:* We do not have the statutory authority directly to require
business associates to train their employees. We also believe it would
be unnecessarily burdensome to require covered entities to monitor
business associates= establishment of specific training requirements.
Covered entities= responsibility for breaches of privacy by their
business associates is described in \'\' 164.504(e) and 164.530(f). If a
covered entity believes that including a training requirement in one or
more of its business associate contracts is an appropriate means of
protecting the health information provided to the business associate, it
is free to do so.

*Comments:* Many commenters argued that training, as well as all of the
other administrative requirements, are too costly for covered entities
and that small practices would not be able to bear the added costs.
Commenters also suggested that HHS should provide training materials at
little, or no, cost to the covered entity.

*Response:* For the final regulation, we make several changes to the
proposed provisions. We believe that these changes address the issue of
administrative cost and burden to the greatest extent possible,
consistent with protecting the privacy of health information. In
enforcing the privacy rule, we expect to provide general training
materials. We also hope to work with professional associations and other
groups that target classes of providers, plans and patients, in
developing specialized material for these groups.

We note that, under long-standing legal principles, entities are
generally responsible for the actions of their workforce. The
requirement to train workforce members to implement the covered entity=s
privacy policies and procedures, and do such things as pass evidence of
potential problems to those responsible, is in line with these
principles. For example, the comments and our fact finding indicate
that, today, many hospitals require their workforce members to sign a
confidentiality agreement, and include confidentiality matters in their
employee handbooks.

**Section 164.530(c)CSafeguards**

*Comments:* A few comments assert that the rule requires some
institutions that do not have adequate resources to develop costly
physical and technical safeguards without providing a funding mechanism
to do so. Another comment said that the vague definitions of adequate
and appropriate safeguards could be interpreted by HHS to require the
purchase of new computer systems and reprogram many old ones. A few
other comments suggested that the safeguards language was vague and
asked for more specifics.

*Response:* We require covered entities to maintain safeguards adequate
for their operations, but do not require that specific technologies be
used to do so. Safeguards need not be expensive or high-tech to be
effective. Sometimes, it is an adequate safeguard to put a lock on a
door and only give the keys to those who need access. As described in
more detail in the preamble discussion of \' 164.530, we do not require
covered entities to guarantee the safety of protected health information
against all assaults. This requirement is flexible and scalable to allow
implementation of required safeguards at a reasonable cost.

*Comments:* A few commenters noted that once protected health
information becomes non-electronic, by being printed for example, it
escapes the protection of the safeguards in the proposed Security Rule.
They asked if this safeguards requirement is intended to install similar
security protections for non-electronic information.

*Response:* This provision is not intended to incorporate the provisions
in the proposed Security regulation into this regulation, or to
otherwise require application of those provisions to paper records.

*Comments:* Some commenters said that it was unclear what
\"appropriate\" safeguards were required by the rule and who establishes
the criteria for them. A few noted that the privacy safeguards were not
exactly the same as the security safeguards, or that the \'other
safeguards\' section was too vague to implement. They asked for more
clarification of safeguards requirements and flexible solutions.

*Response:* In the preamble discussion of \' 164.530, we provide
examples of types of safeguards that can be appropriate to satisfy this
requirement. Other sections of this regulation require specific
safeguards for specific circumstances. The discussion of the
requirements for Aminimum necessary= uses and disclosures of protected
health information includes related guidance for developing role-based
access policies for a covered entity=s workforce. The requirements for
Acomponent entities@ include requirements for firewalls to prevent
access by unauthorized persons. The proposed Security Rule included
further details on what safeguards would be appropriate for electronic
information systems. The flexibility and scalability of these rules
allows covered entities to analyze their own needs and implement
solutions appropriate for their own environment.

*Comments:* A few comments asked for a requirement for a firewall
between a health care component and the rest of a larger organization as
another appropriate safeguard.

*Response:* We agree, and have incorporated such a requirement in \'
164.504.

*Comments:* One commenter agreed with the need for administrative,
physical, and technical safeguards, but took issue with our
specification of the type of documentation or proof that the covered
entity is taking action to safeguard protected health information.

*Response:* This privacy rule does not require specific forms of proof
for safeguards.

*Comments:* A few commenters asked that, for the requirement for a
signed certification of training and the requirements for verification
of identity, we consider the use of electronic signatures that meet the
requirements in the proposed security regulation to meet the
requirements of this rule.

*Response:* In this final rule, we drop the requirements for signed
certifications of training. Signatures are required elsewhere in this
regulation, for example, for a valid authorization. In the relevant
sections we clarify that electronic signatures are sufficient provided
they meet standards to be adopted under HIPAA. In addition, we do not
intend to interfere with the application of the Electronic Signature in
Global and National Commerce Act.

*Comments:* A few commenters requested that the privacy requirements for
appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards be
considered to have been met if the requirements of the proposed Security
Rule have been met. Others requested that the safeguards requirements of
the final Privacy Rule mirror or be harmonized with the final Security
Rule so they do not result in redundant or conflicting requirements.

*Response:* Unlike the proposed regulation, the final regulation covers
all protected health information, not just information that had at some
point been electronic. Thus, these commenters= assumption that the
proposed Privacy Rule and the proposed Security Rule covered the same
information is not the case, and taking the approach suggested by these
comments would leave a significant number of health records unprotected.
The safeguards required by this regulation are appropriate for both
paper and electronic information. We will take care to ensure that the
final Security Rule works in tandem with these requirements.

*Comments:* One commenter requested that the final privacy rule be
published before the final Security Rule, recognizing that the privacy
policies must be in place before the security technology used to
implement them could be worked out. Another commenter asked that the
final Security Rule be published immediately and not wait for an
expected delay while privacy policies are worked out.

*Response:* Now that this final privacy rule has been published in a
timely manner, the final Security Rule can be harmonized with it and
published soon.

*Comments:* Several commenters echoed an association recommendation
that, for those organizations that have implemented a computer based
patient record that is compliant with the requirements of the proposed
Security Rule, the minimum necessary rule should be considered to have
been met by the implementation of role-based access controls.

*Response:* The privacy regulation applies to paper records to which the
proposed Security Rule does not apply. Thus, taking the approach
suggested by these comments would leave a significant number of health
records unprotected. Further, since the final Security Rule is not yet
published and the number of covered entities that have implemented this
type of computer-based patient record systems is still small, we cannot
make a blanket statement. We note that this regulation requires covered
entities to develop role-based access rules, in order to implement the
requirements for Aminimum necessary@ uses and disclosures of protected
health information. Thus, this regulation provides a foundation for the
type of electronic system to which these comments refer.

**Section 164.530(d)CComplaints to the Covered Entity**

*Comment:* Several commenters felt that some form of due process is
needed when it comes to internal complaints. Specifically, they wanted
to be assured that the covered entity actually hears the complaints made
by the individual and that the covered entity resolves the complaint
within a reasonable time frame. Without due process the commenters felt
that the internal complaint process is open ended. Some commenters
wanted the final rule to include an appeals process for individuals if a
covered entity=s determination in regards to the complaint is
unfavorable to the individual.

*Response:* We do not require covered entities to implement any
particular due process or appeals process for complaints, because we are
concerned about the burden this could impose on covered entities. We
provide individuals with an alternative to take their complaints to the
Secretary. We believe that this provides incentives for covered entities
to implement a complaint process that resolves complaints to
individuals= satisfaction.

*Comment:* Some commenters felt that the individual making the complaint
should exhaust all other avenues to resolve their issues before filing a
complaint with the Secretary. A number of commenters felt that any
complaint being filed with the Secretary should include documentation of
the reviews done by the covered entity.

*Response:* We reject these suggestions, for two reasons. First, we want
to avoid establishing particular process requirements for covered
entities= complaint programs. Also, this rule does not require the
covered entity to share any information with the complainant, only to
document the receipt of the complaint and the resolution, if any.
Therefore, we cannot expect the complainant to have this information
available to submit to the Secretary. Second, we believe the individual
making the complaint should have the right to share the complaint with
the Secretary at any point in time. This approach is consistent with
existing civil rights enforcement programs for which the Department is
responsible. Based on that experience, we believe that most complaints
will come first to covered entities for disposition.

*Comment:* Some commenters wanted the Department to prescribe a minimum
amount of time before the covered entity could dispose of the
complaints. They felt that storing these complaints indefinitely would
be cumbersome and expensive.

*Response:* We agree, and in the final rule require covered entities to
keep all items that must be documented, including complaints, for at
least six years from the date of creation.

*Comments:* Some commenters objected to the need for covered entities to
have at least one employee, if not more, to deal with complaints. They
felt that this would be costly and is redundant in light of the
designation of a contact person to receive complaints.

*Response:* We do not require assignment of dedicated staff to handle
complaints. The covered entity can determine staffing based on its needs
and business practices. We believe that consumers need one clear point
of contact for complaints, in order that this provision effectively
inform consumers how to lodge complaints and so that the compliant will
get to someone who knows how to respond. The contact person (or office)
is for receipt of complaints, but need not handle the complaints.

**Section 164.530(e)CSanctions**

*Comment:* Commenters argued that most covered entities already have
strict sanctions in place for violations of a patient=s privacy, either
due to current laws, contractual obligations, or good operating
practices. Requiring covered entities to create a formal sanctioning
process would be superfluous.

*Response:* We believe it is important for the covered entity to have
these sanction policies and procedures documented so that employees are
aware of what actions are prohibited and punishable. For entities that
already have sanctions policies in place, it should not be problematic
to document those policies. We do not define the particular sanctions
that covered entities must impose.

*Comment:* Several commenters agreed that training should be provided
and expectations should be clear so that individuals are not sanctioned
for doing things that they did not know were wrong or inappropriate. A
good faith exception should be included in the final rule to protect
these individuals.

*Response:* We agree that employees should be trained to understand the
covered entity=s expectations and understand the consequences of any
violation. This is why we are requiring each covered entity to train its
workforce. However, we disagree that a good faith exception is
explicitly needed in the final rule. We leave the details of sanctions
policies to the discretion of the covered entity. We believe it is more
appropriate to leave this judgment to the covered entity that will be
familiar with the circumstances of the violation, rather than to specify
such requirements in the regulation.

*Comment:* Some commenters felt that the sanctions need to reach
business partners as well, not just employees of the covered entities.
These commenters felt all violators should be sanctioned, including
government officials and agencies.

*Response:* All members of a covered entity=s workforce are subject to
sanctions for violations, including government officials who are part of
a covered entity=s workforce. Requirements for addressing privacy
violations by business associates are discussed in \'\' 164.504(e) and
164.530(f).

*Comments:* Many commenters appreciated the flexibility left to the
covered entities to determine sanctions. However, some were concerned
that the covered entity would need to predict each type of violation and
the associated sanction. They argue that, if the Department could not
determine this in the NPRM, then the covered entities should be allowed
to come up with sanctions as appropriate at the time of the violation.
Some commenters wanted a better explanation and understanding of what
HHS= expectation is of when is it appropriate to apply sanctions. Some
commenters felt that the sanctioning requirement is nebulous and
requires independent judgment of compliance; as a result it is hard to
enforce. Offending individuals may use the vagueness of the standard as
an defense.

*Response:* We agree with the commenters that argue that covered
entities should be allowed to determine the specific sanctions as
appropriate at the time of the violation. We believe it is more
appropriate to leave this judgment to the covered entity, because the
covered entity will be familiar with the circumstances of the violation
and the best way to improve compliance.

*Comment:* A commenter felt that the self-imposition of this requirement
is an inadequate protection, as there is an inherent conflict of
interest when an entity must sanction one of its own.

*Response:* We believe it is in the covered entity=s best interests to
appropriately sanction those individuals who do not follow the outlined
policies and procedures. Allowing violations to go unpunished may lead
bigger problems later, and result in complaints being registered with
the Department by aggrieved parties and/or an enforcement action.

*Comment:* This provision should cover all violations, not just repeat
violations.

*Response:* We do not limit this requirement to repeat offenses.

**Section 164.530(f)CDuty to Mitigate**

*Comments:* A few commenters felt that any duty to mitigate would be
onerous, especially for small entities. One commenter supported an
affirmative duty to mitigate for employees of the covered entity , as
long as there is no prescribed mitigation policy. One commenter stated
that a requirement for mitigation is unnecessary because any prudent
entity would do it.

Some practitioner organizations as well as a health plan, expressed
concern about the obligation to mitigate in the context of the business
associate relationship. Arguing that it is unnecessary for the
regulation to explicitly extend the duty to mitigate to business
associates, commenters noted that: any prudent entity would discipline a
vendor or employee that violates a regulation; that the matter is best
left to the terms of the contract, and that it is difficult and
expensive for a business associate to have a separate set of procedures
on mitigation for each client/provider. One commenter suggested that the
federal government should fund the monitoring needed to administer the
requirement.

*Response*: Eliminating the requirement to mitigate harm would undermine
the purposes of this rule by reducing covered entities= accountability
to their patients for failure to protect their confidential data. To
minimize burden, we do not prescribe what mitigation policies and
procedures must be implemented. We require only that the covered entity
mitigate harm. We also assume that violations will be rare, and so the
duty to mitigate harm will rarely be triggered. To the extent a covered
entity already has methods for mitigating harm, this rule will not pose
significant burden, since we don\'t require the covered entity to follow
any prescribed method or set of rules.

We also modify the NPRM to impose the duty to mitigate only where the
covered entity has actual knowledge of harm. Further reducing burden,
the rule requires mitigation \"to the extent practicable.\" It does not
require the covered entity to eliminate the harm unless that is
practicable. For example, if protected health information is advertently
provided to a third party without authorization in a domestic abuse
situation, the covered entity would be expected to promptly contact the
patient as well as appropriate authorities and apprize them of the
potential danger .

The harm to the individual is the same, whether the privacy breach was
caused by a member of the covered entity=s workforce, or by a
contractor. We believe the cost of this requirement to be minimal for
covered entities that engage in prudent business practices for
exchanging protected health information with their business associates.

*Comment*: A few commenters noted that it is difficult to determine
whether a violation has resulted in a deleterious effect, especially as
the entity cannot know all places to which information has gone and uses
that have been made of it. Consequently, there should be a duty to
mitigate even if a deleterious effect cannot be shown, because the
individual has no other redress.

*Response*: As noted above, this provision only applies if the covered
entity has actual knowledge of the harm, and requires mitigation \"to
the extent practicable.\" The covered entity is expected to take
reasonable steps based on knowledge of where the information has been
disclosed, how it might be used to cause harm to the patient or another
individual, and what steps can actually have a mitigating effect in that
specific situation.

*Comments*: Commenters stated that the language of the regulation was in
some places vague and imprecise thus providing covered entities with
insufficient guidance and allowing variation in interpretation.
Commenters also noted that this could result in inconsistency in
implementation as well as permitting such inconsistency to be used as a
defense by an offending entity. Particular language for which at least
one commenter requested clarification included \"reasonable steps\" and
what is entailed in the duty to mitigate.

*Response*: We considered ways in which we might increase specificity,
including defining \"to the extent practicable\" and \"reasonable
steps\" and relating the mitigating action to the deleterious impact.
While this approach could remove from the covered entity the burden of
decision-making about actions that need to be taken, we believe that
other factors outweighed this potential benefit. Not only would there be
a loss of desirable flexibility in implementation, but it would not be
possible to define \"to the extent practicable\" in a way that makes
sense for all types of covered entities. We believe that allowing
flexibility and judgment by those familiar with the circumstances to
dictate the approach is the best approach to mitigating harm.

**Section 164.530(g)CRefraining from Intimidating or Retaliatory Acts**

*Comment:* Several commenters stated that the regulation should prohibit
covered entities from engaging in intimidating or retaliatory acts
against any person, not just against the Aindividual,@ as proposed. They
suggested adding Aor other person or entity@ after Aany individual.@

*Response:* We agree, and allow any person to file a compliant with the
Secretary. APerson@ is not limited to natural persons, but includes any
type of organization, association or group such as other covered
entities, health oversight agencies and advocacy groups.

*Comment:* A few commenters suggested deleting this provision in its
entirety. One commenter indicated that the whistleblower and retaliation
provisions could be inappropriately used against a hospital and that the
whistleblower=s ability to report numerous violations will result in a
dangerous expansion of liability. Another commenter stated that covered
entities could not take action against an employee who had violated the
employer=s privacy provisions if this employee files a complaint with
the Secretary.

Several commenters suggested deleting Ain any manner@ and Aor opposing
any act or practice made unlawful by this subpart@ in \' 164.522(d)(4).
The commenters indicated that, as proposed, the rule would make it
difficult to enforce compliance within the workforce. One commenter
stated that the proposed 164.522(d)(4) Ais extremely broad and may allow
an employee to reveal protected health information to fellow employees,
the media and others (e.g., an employee may show a medical record to a
friend or relative before filing a complaint with the Department). This
commenter further stated that covered entities will Aabsolutely be
prevented from prohibiting such conduct.@ One commenter suggested adding
that a covered entity may take disciplinary action against any member of
its work force or any business partner who uses or discloses
individually identifiable health information in violation of this
subpart in any manner other than through the processes set forth in the
regulation.

*Response:* To respond to these comments, we make several changes to the
proposed provision.

First, where the activity does not involve the filing of a complaint
under \' 160.306 of this part or participation in an investigation or
proceeding initiated by the government under the rule, we delete the
phrase Ain any manner@ and add a requirement that the individual=s
opposition to Aany act or practice@ made unlawful by this subpart be in
good faith, and that the expression of that opposition must be
reasonable. Second, we add a requirement that the individual=s
opposition to Aany act or practice@ made unlawful by this subpart must
not involve a disclosure of protected health information that is in
violation of this subpart. Thus, the employee who discloses protected
health information to the media or friends is not protected. In
providing interpretations of the retaliation provision, we will consider
existing interpretations of similar provisions such as the guidance
issued by EEOC in this regard.

**Section 164.530(h)CWaiver of Rights**

There are no comments directly about this section because it was not
included in the proposed rule.

**Section 164.530(i)CPolicies and Procedures and \'
164.530(j)CDocumentation Requirements**

*Comments:* Many of the comments to this provision addressed the costs
and complexity of the regulation as a whole, not the additional costs of
documenting policies and procedures per se. Some did, either implicitly
or explicitly, object to the need to develop and document policies and
procedures as creating excessive administrative burden. Many of these
commenters also asserted that there is a contradiction between the
administrative burden of this provision and one of the statutory
purposes of this section of the HIPAA to reduce costs through
administrative simplification. Suggested alternatives were generally
reliance on existing regulations and ethical standards, or on current
business practices.

*Response:* A specific discussion of cost and burden is found in the
Regulatory Impact Analysis of this final rule.

We do not believe there is a contradiction between the administrative
costs of this provision and of the goal of administrative
simplification. In the Administrative Simplification provisions of the
HIPAA, Congress combined a mandate to facilitate the efficiencies and
cost savings for the health care industry that the increasing use of
electronic technology affords, with a mandate to improve privacy and
confidentiality protections. Congress recognized, and we agree, that the
benefits of electronic commerce can also cause increased vulnerability
to inappropriate access and use of medical information, and so must be
balanced with increased privacy protections. By including the mandate
for privacy standards in section 264 of the HIPAA, Congress determined
that existing regulations and ethical standards, and current business
practices were insufficient to provide the necessary protections.

Congress mandated that the total benefits associated with administrative
simplification must outweigh its costs, including the costs of
implementing the privacy regulation. We are well within this mandate.

*Comments:* Several commenters suggested that the documentation
requirements not be established as a standard under the regulation,
because standards are subject to penalties. They recommend we delete the
documentation standards and instead provide specific guidance and
technical assistance. Several commenters objected to the suggestion in
the NPRM that professional associations assist their members by
developing appropriate policies for their membership. Several
commentators representing professional associations believed this to be
an onerous and costly burden for the associations, and suggested instead
that we develop specific models which might require only minor
modification. Some of these same associations were also concerned about
liability issues in developing such guidelines. One commenter argued
that sample forms, procedures, and policies should be provided as part
of the Final Rule, so that practitioners would not be overburdened in
meeting the demands of the regulations. They urged us to apply this
provision only to larger entities.

*Response:* The purpose of requiring covered entities to develop
policies and procedures for implementing this regulation is to ensure
that important decisions affecting individuals= rights and privacy
interests are made thoughtfully, not on an ad hoc basis. The purpose of
requiring covered entities to maintain written documentation of these
policies is to facilitate workforce training, and to facilitate creation
of the required notice of information practices. We further believe that
requiring written documentation of key decisions about privacy will
enhance accountability, both within the covered entity and to the
Department, for compliance with this regulation.

We do not include more specific guidance on the content of the required
policies and procedures because of the vast difference in the size of
covered entities and types of covered entities= businesses. We believe
that covered entities should have the flexibility to design the policies
and procedures best suited to their business and information practices.
We do not exempt smaller entities, because the privacy of their patients
is no less important than the privacy of individuals who seek care from
large providers. Rather, to address this concern we ensure that the
requirements of the rule are flexible so that smaller covered entities
need not follow detailed rules that might be appropriate for larger
entities with complex information systems.

We understand that smaller covered entities may require some assistance,
and intend to provide such technical assistance after publication of
this rule. We hope to work with professional associations and other
groups that target classes of providers, plans and patients, in
developing specialized material for these groups. Our discussions with
several such organizations indicate their intent to work on various
aspects of model documentation, including forms. Because the
associations= comments regarding concerns about liability did not
provide sufficient details, we cannot address them here.

*Comment:* Many commenters discussed the need for a recognition of
scalability of the policies and procedures of an entity based on size,
capabilities, and needs of the participants. It was noted that the
actual language of the draft regulations under \' 164.520 did not
address scalability, and suggested that some scalability standard be
formally incorporated into the regulatory language and not rely solely
on the NPRM introductory commentary.

*Response:* In \' 164.530(i)(1) of the final rule, we specify that we
require covered entities to implement policies and procedures that take
into account the size of the covered entity and the types of activities
that relate to protected health information undertaken by the covered
entity.

*Comment:* One commenter objected to our proposal to allow covered
entities to make uses or disclosures not permitted by their current
notice if a compelling reason exists to make the use or disclosure and
the entity documents the reasons and changes its policies within 30 days
of the use or disclosure. The commenter argued that the subjective
language of the regulation might give entities the ability to engage in
*post hoc* justifications for violations of their own information
practices and policies. The commenter suggested that there should be an
objective standard for reviewing the covered entity=s reasons before
allowing the covered entity to amend its policies.

*Response:* We eliminate this provision from the final rule. The final
rule requires each covered entity to include in its notice of
information practices a statement of all permitted uses under this rule,
not just those in which the covered entity actually engages in at the
time of that notice.

*Comment:* Some commenters expressed concern that the required retention
period in the NPRM applied to the retention of medical records.

*Response:* The retention requirement of this regulation only applies to
the documentation required by the rule, for example, keeping a record of
accounting for disclosures or copies of policies and procedures. It does
not apply to medical records.

*Comments:* Comments on the six year retention period were mixed. Some
commenters endorsed the six-year retention period for maintaining
documentation. One of the comments stated this retention period would
assist physicians legally. Other commenters believed that the retention
period would be an undue burden. One commenter noted that most State
Board of Pharmacy regulations require pharmacies to keep records for two
years, so the six year retention period would triple document retention
costs.

*Response:* We established the retention period at six years because
this is the statute of limitations for the civil monetary penalties.
This rule does not apply to all pharmacy records, but only to the
documentation required by this rule.

**Section 164.530(k)CGroup Health Plans**

There were no comments directly about this section because it was not
included in the proposed rule.

**SECTION 164.532CTRANSITION PROVISIONS**

*Comment:* Commenters urged the Department to clarify whether the Areach
of the transition requirement@ is limited to a particular time frame, to
the provider=s activities in a particular job, or work for a particular
employer. For example, one commenter questioned how long a nurse is a
covered entity after she moves from a job reviewing files with protected
health information to an administrative job that does not handle
protected health information; or whether an occupational health nurse
who used to transmit first reports of injury to her company=s workers=
compensation carrier last year but no longer does so this year because
of a carrier change still is a covered entity.

*Response:* Because this comment addresses a question of enforcement, we
will address it in the enforcement regulation.

*Comment*: Several commenters sought clarification as to the application
of the privacy rule to research already begun prior to the effective
date or compliance date of the final rule. These commenters argued that
applying the privacy rule to research already begun prior the rule=s
effective date would substantially overburden IRBs and that the
resulting research interruptions could harm participants and threaten
the reliability and validity of conclusions based upon clinical trial
data. The commenters recommended that the rule grandfather in any
ongoing research that has been approved by and is under the supervision
of an IRB.

*Response*: We generally agree with the concerns raised by commenters.
In the final rule, we have provided that covered entities may rely upon
consents, authorizations, or other express legal permissions obtained
from an individual for a specific research project that includes the
treatment of individuals to use or disclose protected health information
the covered entity obtained before or after the applicable compliance
date of this rule as long as certain requirements are met. These
consents, authorizations, or other express legal permissions may
specifically permit a use or disclosure of individually identifiable
health information for purposes of the project or be a general consent
of the individual to participate in the project. A covered entity may
use or disclose protected health information it created or received
before or after the applicable compliance date of this rule for purposes
of the project provided that the covered entity complies with all
limitations expressed in the consent, authorization, or permission.

In regard to research projects that include the treatment of
individuals, such as clinical trials, covered entities engaged in these
projects will have obtained at least an informed consent from the
individual to participate in the project. In some cases, the researcher
may also have obtained a consent, authorization, or other express legal
permission to use or disclose individually identifiable health
information in a specific manner. To avoid disrupting ongoing research
and because the participants have already agreed to participate in the
project (which expressly permits or implies the use or disclosure of
their protected health information), we have grandfathered in these
consents, authorizations, and other express legal permissions.

It is unlikely that a research project that includes the treatment of
individuals could proceed under the Common Rule with a waiver of
informed consent. However, to the extent such a waiver has been granted,
we believe individuals participating in the project should be able to
determine how their protected health information is used or disclosed.
Therefore, we require researchers engaged in research projects that
include the treatment of individuals who obtained an IRB waiver of
informed consent under the Common Rule to obtain an authorization or a
waiver of such authorization from an IRB or a privacy board under \'
164.512(i) of this rule.

If a covered entity obtained a consent, authorization, or other express
legal permission from the individual who is the subject of the research,
it would be able to rely upon that consent, authorization, or
permission, consistent with any limitations it expressed, to use or
disclose the protected health information it created or received prior
to or after the compliance date of this regulation. If a covered entity
wishes to use or disclose protected health information but no such
consent, authorization, or permission exists, it must obtain an
authorization pursuant to \' 164.508 or obtain a waiver of authorization
under \' 164.512(i). To the extent such a project is ongoing and the
researchers are unable to locate the individuals whose protected health
information they are using or disclosing, we believe the IRB or privacy
board under the criteria set forth in \' 164.512(i) will be able to take
that circumstance into account when conducting its review. In most
instances, we believe this type of research will be able to obtain a
waiver of authorization and be able to continue uninterrupted.

*Comment*: Several comments raised questions about the application of
the rule to individually identifiable information created prior to (1)
the effective date of the rule, and (2) the compliance dates of the
rule. One commenter suggested that the rule should apply only to
information gathered after the effective date of the final rule. A drug
manufacturer asked what would be the effect of the rule on research on
records compiled before the effective date of the rule.

*Response*: We disagree with the commenter=s suggestion. The
requirements of this regulation apply to all protected health
information held by a covered entity, regardless of when or how the
covered entity obtained the information. Congress required us to adopted
privacy standards that apply to individually identifiable health
information. While it limited the compliance date for health plans,
covered health care providers, and healthcare clearinghouses, it did not
provide similar limiting language with regard to individually
identifiable health information. Therefore, uses and disclosures of
protected health information made by a covered entity after the
compliance date of this regulation must meet the requirements of these
rules. Uses or disclosures of individually identifiable health
information made prior to the compliance date are not affected; covered
entities will not be sanctioned under this rule based on past uses or
disclosures that are inconsistent with this regulation.

Consistent with the definition of individually identifiable health
information in HIPAA, of which protected health information is a subset,
we do not distinguish between protected health information in research
records and protected health information in other records. Thus, a
covered entity=s research records are subject to this regulation to the
extent they contain protected health information.

**SECTION 164.534 - EFFECTIVE DATE AND COMPLIANCE DATE**

Section 1175(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires all covered entities other
than small health plans to comply with a standard or implementation
specification Anot later than 24 months after the date on which an
initial standard or implementation specification is adopted or
established@; section 1175(b)(1)(B) provides that small health plans
must comply not later than 36 months after that date. The proposed rule
provided, at proposed \' 164.524 (which was titled AEffective date@),
that a covered entity was required to be in compliance with the proposed
subpart E not later than 24 months following the effective date of the
rule, except that small health plans were required to be in compliance
not later than 36 months following the effective date of the rule.

The final rules retain these dates in the text of Subpart E, but
denominate them as Acompliance dates,@ to distinguish the statutory
dates from the date on which the rules become effective. The effective
date of the final rules is 60 days following publication in the [Federal
Register]{.underline}.

***Meaning of Effective Date***

*Comment*: A number of commenters expressed confusion about the
difference between the effective date of the rule and the effective date
on which compliance was required (the statutory compliance dates set out
at section 1175(b)(1), summarized above).

*Response*: The Department agrees that the title of proposed \' 164.524
was confusing. Similar comments were received on the Transactions Rule.
Those comments were addressed by treating the Aeffective date@ of the
rule as the date on which adoption takes effect (the AEffective Date@
heading at the beginning of the preamble), while the dates provided for
by section 1175(b)(1) of the statute were denominated as Acompliance
dates.@ These changes are reflected in the definition of Acompliance
date@ in \' 160.103 below (initially published as part of the
Transactions Rule) and are also reflected at \' 164.524 below. Section
164.524 below has also been reorganized to follow the organization of
the analogous provisions of the Transactions Rule. The underlying
policy, however, remains as proposed.

***Extend the Compliance Date***

*Comment*: Some commenters recommended that the compliance date be
extended. A number of comments objected that the time frame for
compliance with the proposed standards is unrealistically short. It was
pointed out that providers and others would have to do the following,
among other things, prior to the applicable compliance date: assess
their current systems and departments, determine which state laws were
preempted and which were not, update and reprogram computer systems,
train workers, create and implement the required privacy policies and
procedures, and create or update contracts with business partners. One
comment also noted that the task of coming into compliance during the
same time period with the other regulations being issued under HIPAA
would further complicate the task. These comments generally supported an
extension of the compliance dates by one or more years. Other comments
supported extending the compliance dates on the ground that the
complexity of the tasks involved in implementing the regulation would be
a heavy financial burden for providers and others, and that they should
be given more time to comply, in order to spread the associated capital
and workforce costs over a longer period. It was also suggested that
there be provision for granting extensions of the compliance date, based
on some criteria, such as a good faith effort to comply or that the
compliance dates be extended to two years following completion of a
Astate-by-state preemption analysis@ by the Department.

*Response:* The Secretary acknowledges that covered entities will have
to make changes to their policies and procedures during the period
between the effective date of the rules below and the applicable
compliance dates. The delayed compliance dates which the statute
provides for constitute a recognition of the fact changes will be
required and are intended to permit covered entities to manage and
implement these changes in an orderly fashion. However, because the time
frames for compliance with the initial standards are established by
statute, the Secretary has no discretion to extend them: compliance is
statutorily required Anot later than@ the applicable compliance date.
Nor do we believe that it would be advisable to accomplish this result
by delaying the effective date of the final rules beyond 60 days. Since
the Transactions Rule is now in effect, it is imperative to bring the
privacy protections afforded by the rules below into effect as soon as
possible. Retaining the delayed effective date of 60 days, as originally
contemplated, will minimize the gap between transactions covered by
those rules and not also afforded protection under the rules below.

***Phase-in Requirements***

*Comment:* Several comments suggested that the privacy standards be
phased in gradually, to ease the manpower and cost burdens of
compliance. A couple of equipment manufacturing groups suggested that
updating of various types of equipment would be necessary for compliance
purposes, and suggested a phased approach to this \-- for example, an
initial phase consisting of preparation of policies, plans, and risk
assessments, a second phase consisting of bringing new equipment into
compliance, and a final phase consisting of bringing existing equipment
into compliance.

*Response*: As noted in the preceding response, section 1175(b)(1) does
not allow the Secretary discretion to change the time frame within which
compliance must be achieved. Congress appears to have intended the
phasing in of compliance to occur during the two-year compliance period,
not thereafter.

***Compliance Gap Vis-à-Vis State Laws and Small Health Plans***

*Comment:* Several comments stated that, as drafted, the preemption
provisions would be effective as of the rule=s effective date (i.e., 60
days following publication), even though covered entities would not be
required to comply with the rules for at least another two years.
According to these comments, the Apreempted@ state laws would not be in
effect in the interim, so that the actual privacy protection would
decrease during that period. A couple of comments also expressed concern
about how the preemption provisions would work, given the one-year
difference in applicable compliance dates for small health plans and
other covered entities. A state medical society pointed out that this
gap would also be very troublesome for providers who deal with both
Asmall health plans@ and other health plans. One comment asked what
entities that decided to come into compliance early would have to do
with respect to conflicting state laws and suggested that, since all
parties Aneed to know with confidence which laws govern at the moment,
\... \[t\]here should be uniform effective dates.@

*Response:* We agree that clarification is needed with respect to the
applicability of state laws in the interim between the effective date
and the compliance dates. What the comments summarized above appeared to
assume is that the preemption provisions of section 1178 operate to
broadly and generally invalidate any state law that comes within their
ambit. We do not agree that this is the effect of section 1178. Rather,
what section 1178 does - where it acts to preempt - is to preempt the
state law in question with respect to the actions of covered entities to
which the state law applies. Thus, if a provision of state law is
preempted by section 1178, covered entities within that state to which
the state law applies do not have to comply with it, and must instead
comply with the contrary federal standard, requirement, or
implementation specification. However, as compliance with the contrary
federal standard, requirement, or implementation specification is not
required until the applicable compliance date, we do not view the state
law in question as meeting the test of being Acontrary.@ That is, since
compliance with the federal standard, requirement, or implementation
standard is not required prior to the applicable compliance date, it is
possible for covered entities to comply with the state law in question.
See \' 160.202 (definition of Acontrary@). Thus, since the state law is
not Acontrary@ to an applicable federal standard, requirement, or
implementation specification in the period before which compliance is
required, it is not preempted.

Several implications of this analysis should be spelled out. First, one
conclusion that flows from this analysis is that preemption is specific
to covered entities and does not represent a general invalidation of
state law, as suggested by many commenters. Second, because preemption
is covered entity-specific, preemption will occur at different times for
small health plans than it will occur for all other covered entities.
That is, the preemption of a given state law for a covered entity, such
as a provider, that is covered by the 24-month compliance date of
section 1175(b)(1)(A) will occur 12 months earlier than the preemption
of the same state law for a small health plan that is covered by the
36-month compliance date of section 1175(b)(1)(B). Third, the preemption
occurs only for covered entities; a state law that is preempted under
section 1178(a)(1) would not be preempted for persons and entities to
which it applies who are not covered entities. Thus, to the extent
covered entities or non-covered entities follow the federal standards on
a voluntary basis (i.e., the covered entity prior to the applicable
compliance date, the non-covered entity at any time), the state law in
question will not be preempted for them.

***Small Health Plans***

*Comment:* Several comments, pointing to the ASmall Business@ discussion
in the preamble to the proposed rules, applauded the decision to extend
the compliance date to three years for small businesses. It was
requested that the final rules clarify that the three year compliance
date applies to small doctors offices and other small entities, as well
as to small health plans.

*Response:* We recognize that our discussion in the preamble to the
proposed rules may have suggested that more covered entities came within
the 36 month compliance date than is in fact the case. Again, this is an
area in which we are limited by statute. Under section 1175(b) of the
Act, only small health plans have three years to come into compliance
with the standards below. Thus, other Asmall businesses@ that are
covered entities must comply by the two-year compliance date.

***Coordination with the Security Standard***

*Comment:* Several comments suggested that the security standard be
issued either with or after the privacy standards. It was argued that
both sets of standards deal with protecting health information and will
require extensive personnel training and revisions to business
practices, so that coordinating them would make sense. An equipment
manufacturers group also pointed out that it would be logical for
covered entities and their business partners to know what privacy
policies are required in purchasing security systems, and that Athe
policies on privacy are implemented through the security standards
rather than having already finalized security standards drive policy.@

*Response:* We agree with these comments, and are making every effort to
coordinate the final security standards with the privacy standards
below. The privacy standards below are being published ahead of the
security standards, which is also responsive to the stated concerns.

***Prospective Application***

*Comment*: Several comments raised questions about the application of
the rule to individually identifiable information created prior to (1)
the effective date of the rule, and (2) the compliance dates of the
rule. One provider group suggested that the rule should apply only to
information gathered after the effective date of the final rule. A drug
manufacturer asked what would be the effect of the rule on research on
records compiled before the effective date of the rule.

*Response*: These comments are addressed in connection with the
discussion of \' 164.532 above.

**IMPACT ANALYSES**

**Cost/Benefit Analysis**

*Comment:* Many commenters made general statements to the effect that
the cost estimates for implementing the provisions of the proposed
regulation were incomplete or greatly understated.

*Response:* The proposal, including the cost analysis, is, in effect, a
first draft. The purpose of the proposal was to solicit public comment
and to use those comments to refine the final regulation. As a result of
the public comment, the Department has significantly refined our initial
cost estimates for implementing this regulation. The cost analysis below
reflects a much more complete analysis of the major components of the
regulation than was presented in the proposal.

*Comment:* Numerous commenters noted that significant areas of potential
cost had not been estimated and that if they were estimated, they would
greatly increase the total cost of the regulation. Potential cost areas
identified by various respondents as omitted from the analyses include
the minimum disclosure requirements; the requisite monitoring by covered
entities of business partners with whom they share private health
information; creation of de-identified information; internal complaint
processes; sanctions and enforcement; the designation of a privacy
official and creation of a privacy board; new requirements for
research/optional disclosures; and future litigation costs.

*Response:* We noted in the proposed rule that we did not have data from
which to estimate the costs of many provisions, and solicited comments
providing such data. The final analysis below reflects the best estimate
possible for these areas, based on the information available. The data
and the underlying assumptions are explained in the cost analysis
section below.

*Comment:* A number of comments suggested that the final regulation be
delayed until more thorough analyses could be undertaken and completed.
One commenter stated that the Department should refrain from
implementing the regulation until a more realistic assessment of costs
could be made and include local governments in the process. Similarly, a
commenter requested that the Department assemble an outside panel of
health industry experts, including systems analysts, legal counsel, and
management consultants to develop stronger estimates.

*Response:* The Department has engaged in extensive research, data
collection and fact-finding to improve the quality of its economic
analysis. This has included comments from and discussions with the kinds
of experts one commenter suggested. The estimates represent a reasonable
assessment of the policies proposed.

*Comment:* Several commenters indicated that the proposed regulation
would impose significant new costs on providers= practices. Furthermore,
they believe that it runs counter to the explicit statutory intent of
HIPAA=s Administrative Simplification provisions which require that Aany
standard adopted . . . shall be consistent with the objective of
reducing the administrative costs of providing and paying for health
care.@

*Response:* As the Department explained in the Transactions Rule, this
provision applies to the administrative simplification regulations of
HIPAA in the aggregate. The Transactions Rule is estimated to save the
health care system \$29.9 billion in nominal dollars over ten years.
Other regulations published pursuant to the administrative
simplification authority in HIPAA, including the privacy regulation,
will result in costs, but these costs are within the statutory directive
so long as they do not exceed the \$29.9 billion in estimated savings.
Furthermore, as explained in the Transactions Rule, and the preamble to
this rule, assuring privacy is essential to sustaining many of the
advances that computers will provide. If people do not have confidence
that their medical privacy will be protected, they will be much less
likely to allow their records to be used for any purpose or might even
avoid obtaining necessary medical care.

*Comment:* Several commenters criticized the omission of aggregate,
quantifiable benefit estimates in the proposed rule. Some respondents
argued that the analysis in the proposed rule used Ade minimus@ cost
estimates to argue only that benefits would certainly exceed such a low
barrier. These commenters further characterized the benefits analysis in
the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking as Ahand waving@ used to divert
attention from the fact that no real cost-benefit comparison is
presented. Another commenter stated that the benefit estimates rely
heavily on anecdotal and unsubstantiated inferences. This respondent
believes that the benefit estimates are based on postulated, but largely
unsubstantiated causal linkages between increased privacy and earlier
diagnosis and medical treatment.

*Response:* The benefits of privacy are diffused and intangible but
real. Medical privacy is not a good people buy or sell in a market;
therefore, it is very difficult to quantify. The benefits discussion in
the proposal reflects this difficulty. The examples presented in the
proposal were meant to be illustrative of the benefits based on a few
areas of medicine where some relevant data was available. Unfortunately,
no commenters provided either a better methodological approach or better
data for assessing the overall benefits of privacy. Therefore, we
believe the analysis in the proposal represents a valid illustration of
the benefits of privacy, and we do not believe it is feasible to provide
an overall dollar estimate of the benefits of privacy in the aggregate.

*Comment:* One commenter criticized the benefit analysis as being
incomplete because it did not consider the potential cost of new
treatments that might be engendered by increased confidence in medical
privacy resulting from the regulation.

*Response:* There is no data or model to reliably assess such long-term
behavioral and scientific changes, nor to determine what portion of the
increasingly rapid evolution of new improved treatments might stem from
improved privacy protections. Moreover, to be complete, such analysis
would have to include the savings that might be realized from earlier
detection and treatment. It is not possible at this time to project the
magnitude or even the direction of the net effects of the response to
privacy that the commenter suggests.

**Scope of the Regulation**

*Comment:* Numerous commenters noted the potential cost and burden of
keeping track in medical records of information which had been
transmitted electronically, which would be subject to the rule, as
opposed to information that had only been maintained in paper form.

*Response:* This argument was found to have considerable merit and was
one of the reasons that the Department concluded that the final
regulation should apply to all medical records maintained by covered
entities, including information that had never been transmitted
electronically. The costs analysis below reflects the change in scope.

**Notice Requirements**

*Comment:* Several commenters expressed their belief that the
administrative and cost burdens associated with the notice requirements
were understated in the proposed rule. While some respondents took issue
with the policy development cost estimates associated with the notice,
more were focused on its projected implementation and production costs.
For example, one respondent stated that determining Afirst service@
would be an onerous task for many small practices, and that provider
staff will now have to manually review each patient=s chart or access a
computer system to determine whether the patient has been seen since
implementation of the rule.

*Response:* The policy in the final rule has been changed to make the
privacy policy notice to patients less burdensome. Providers will be
able to distribute the notice when a patient is seen and will not have
to distribute it to a patient more than once, unless substantive changes
are made in the notice. This change will significantly reduce the cost
of distributing the privacy notices.

*Comment:* Some commenters also took issue with the methodology used to
calculate the cost estimates for notices. These respondents believe that
the survey data used in the proposed rule to estimate the costs (i.e.,
Aencounters,@ Apatients,@ and Aepisodes@ per year) are very different
concepts that, when used together, render the purported total
meaningless. Commenters further stated that they can verify the estimate
of 543 million patients cited as being seen at least once every five
years.

*Response:* In the course of receiving treatment, a patient may go to a
number of medical organizations. For example, a person might see a
doctor in a physician=s office, be admitted to a hospital, and later go
to a pharmacy for medication. Each time a person Aencounters@ a
facility, a medical record may be started or additions made to an
existing record. The concept in the proposal was to identify the number
of record sets that a person might have for purposes of estimating
notice and copying costs. For example, whether a person made one or ten
visits in the course of a year to a specific doctor would, for our
purposes, be one record set because in each visit the doctor would most
likely be adding information to an existing medical record. The comments
demonstrated that we had not explained the concept well. As explained
below we modified the concept to more effectively measure the number of
record sets that exist and explain it more clearly.

*Comment:* Several commenters criticized the lack of supporting evidence
for the cost estimates of notice development and dissemination. Another
opinion voiced in the comments is that the estimated cost for plans of
\$0.75 per insured person is so low that it may cover postage, but it
cannot include labor and capital usage costs.

*Response:* Based on comments and additional fact finding, the
Department was able to gain a better understanding of how covered
entities would develop policies and disseminate information. The cost
analysis below explains more fully how we derived the final cost
estimates for these areas.

*Comment:* A commenter noted that privacy policy costs assume that
national associations will develop privacy policies for members but HHS
analysis does not account for the cost to the national associations. A
provider cost range of \$300-\$3,000 is without justification and seems
low.

*Response:* The cost to the national associations was included in the
proposal estimates, and it is included in the final analysis (see
below).

*Comment:* A commenter states that the notice costs discussion mixes the
terms Apatients@, Aencounters@ and Aepisodes@ and 397 million encounter
estimate is unclear.

*Response:* A clearer explanation of the concepts employed in this
analysis is provided below.

**Systems Compliance Costs**

*Comment*: Numerous commenters questioned the methodology used to
estimate the systems compliance cost and stated that the ensuing cost
estimates were grossly understated. Some stated that the regulation will
impose significant information technology costs to comply with
requirement to account for disclosures, additional costs for hiring new
personnel to develop privacy policies, and higher costs for training
personnel.

*Response:* Significant comments were received regarding the cost of
systems compliance. In response, the Department retained the assistance
of consultants with extensive expertise in health care information
technology. We have relied on their work to revise our estimates, as
described below. The analysis does not include Asystems compliance@ as a
cost item, per se. Rather, in the final analysis we organized estimates
around the major policy provisions so the public could more clearly see
the costs associated with them. To the extent that the policy might
require systems changes (and a number of them do), we have incorporated
those costs in the provision=s estimate.

*Comment:* Items explicitly identified by commenters as significantly
adding to systems compliance costs include tracking disclosures of
protected health information and patient authorizations; restricting
access to the data; accommodating minimum disclosure provisions;
installing notices and disclaimers; creating de-identified data;
tracking uses of protected health information by business partners;
tracking amendments and corrections; increased systems capacity; and
annual systems maintenance. The commenters noted that some of the
aforementioned items are acknowledged in the proposed rule as future
costs to covered entities, but several others are singularly ignored.

*Response:* The Department recognizes the validity of much of this
criticism. Unfortunately, other than general criticism, commenters
provided no specific data or methodological information which might be
used to improve the estimates. Therefore, the Department retained
consultants with extensive expertise in these areas to assess the
proposed regulation, which helped the Department refine its policies and
cost estimates.

In addition, it is important to note that the other HIPAA administrative
simplification regulations will require systems changes. As explained
generally in the cost analysis for the electronic Transactions rule, it
is assumed that providers and vendors will undertake systems changes for
these regulations collectively, thereby minimizing the cost of changes.

**Inspection and Copying**

*Comment:* Numerous commenters disagreed with the cost estimates in the
NPRM for inspection and copying of patient records, believing that they
were too low.

*Response:* The Department has investigated the potential costs through
a careful reading of the comments and subsequent factfinding discussions
with a variety of providers. We believe the estimates, explained more
fully below, represent a reasonable estimate in the aggregate. It is
important to note, however, that this analysis is not measuring the cost
of all inspection and copying because a considerable amount of this
already occurs. The Department is only measuring the incremental
increase likely to occur as a result of this regulation.

*Comment:* One commenter speculates that, even at a minimum charge of
\$.50/page, (and not including search and retrieval charges), costs
could run as high as \$450 million annually.

*Response:* The \$0.50 per page in the proposal represent an average of
several data sources. Subsequently, an industry commenter, which
provided extensive medical records copying, stated that this was a
reasonable average cost. Hence, we retained the number for the final
estimate.

*Comment:* One respondent states that, since the proposed rules give
patients the right to inspect and copy their medical records regardless
of storage medium, HHS must make a distinction in its cost estimates
between records stored electronically and those which must be accessed
by manual means, since these costs will differ.

*Response:* The cost estimates made for regulations are not intended to
provide such refined gradations; rather, they are intended to show the
overall costs for the regulation as a whole and its major components.
For inspections and copying (and virtually all other areas for which
estimates are made) estimates are based on averages; particular
providers may experience greater or lesser costs than the average cost
used in this analysis.

*Comment:* Several commenters noted that the Department did not appear
to include the cost of establishing storage systems, retrieval fees and
the cost of searching for records, and that these costs, if included,
would significantly increase the Department=s estimate.

*Response:* Currently, providers keep and maintain medical records and
often provide copies to other providers and patients. Therefore, much of
the cost of maintaining records already exists. Indeed, based on public
comments, the Department has concluded that there will be relatively few
additional copies requested as the result of this regulation (see
below). We have measured and attributed to this regulation the
incremental cost, which is the standard for conducting this kind of
analysis.

*Comment:* A federal agency expressed concern over the proposal to allow
covered entities to charge a fee for copying personal health information
based on reasonable costs. The agency requests personal health
information from many covered entities and pays a fee that it
establishes. Allowing covered entities to establish the fee, the agency
fears, may cost them significantly more than the current amounts they
pay and as a result, could adversely affect their program.

*Response:* The proposal and the final rule establish the right to
access and copy records only for individuals, not other entities; the
Areasonable fee@ is only applicable to the individual=s request. The
Department=s expectation is that other existing practices regarding
fees, if any, for the exchange of records not requested by an individual
will not be affected by this rule.

**Appending Records (Amendment and Correction)**

*Comment:* The proposed rule estimated the cost of amending and
correcting patients= records at \$75 per instance and \$260 million per
year for small entities. At least one commenter stated that such
requests will rise significantly upon implementation of the regulations
and increase in direct proportion to the number of patients served.
Another commenter described the more subtle costs associated with record
amendment and correction, which would include a case-by-case clinical
determination by providers on whether to grant such requests, forwarding
the ensuing record changes to business partners, and issuing written
statements to patients on the reasons for denials, including a recourse
for complaints.

*Response:* The comments were considered in revising the proposal, and
the decision was made to clarify in the final regulation that providers
must only append the record (the policy is explained further in the
preamble and the regulation text). The provider is now only required to
note in the medical record any comments from the patient; they may, but
are not required to, correct any errors. This change in policy
significantly reduces the cost from the initial proposal estimate.

*Comment:* Several commenters criticized the proposed rule=s lack of
justification for assumptions regarding the percentage of patients who
request inspection and copying, who also request amendment and
correction. Another commenter pointed out that the cost estimate for
amendment and correction is dependent on a base assumption that only 1.5
percent of patients will request inspection of their records. As such,
if this estimate were too low by just one percentage point, then the
estimates for inspection and copying plus the costs for amendment and
correction could rise by 67 percent.

*Response:* Based on information and data received in the public
comments, the estimate for the number of people requesting inspection
and copying has been revised. No commenter provided specific information
on the number of amended record requests that might result, but the
Department subsequently engaged in fact-finding and made appropriate
adjustments in its estimates. The revisions are explained further below.

**Consent and Authorizations**

*Comment:* One respondent indicated that the development, collection,
and data entry of all the authorizations will create a new transaction
type for employers, health plans, and providers, and result in
duplicated efforts among them. This commenter estimates that the costs
of mailing, re-mailing, answering inquiries, making outbound calls and
performing data entry in newly created authorization computer systems
could result in expenses of close to \$2.0 billion nationally. Another
commenter indicated that authorization costs will be at least double the
notice dissemination costs due to the cost of both outbound and return
postage.

*Response:* Public commenters and subsequent factfinding clearly
indicate that most providers with patient contact already obtain
authorizations for release of records, so for them there is virtually no
new cost. Further, this comment does not reflect the actual regulatory
requirement. For example, there is no need to engage in mailing and
re-mailing of forms, and we do not foresee any reason why there should
be any significant calls involved.

*Comment:* A commenter criticized the percentage (1%) that we used to
calculate the number of health care encounters expected to result in
requests to withhold the release of protected information. This
respondent postulates that even if one in six patients who encounter the
U.S. health care system opt to restrict access to their records, the
total expected national cost per year could rise to \$900 million.

*Response:* The final regulation requirements regarding the release of
protected health information has been substantially changed, thereby
greatly reducing the potential cost burden. A fuller explanation of the
cost is provided below in the regulatory impact analysis.

*Comment:* An additional issue raised by commenters was the added cost
of seeking authorizations for health promotion and disease management
activities, health care operations that traditionally did not require
such action.

*Response:* In the final regulation, a covered entity can use medical
information collected for treatment or operations for its own health
promotion and disease management efforts without obtaining additional
authorization. Therefore, there is no additional cost incurred.

**Business Associates**

*Comment:* A number of commenters were concerned about the cost of
monitoring business partners. Specifically, one commenter stated that
the provisions of the proposed regulation pertaining to business
partners would likely force the discontinuation of outsourcing for some
functions, thereby driving up the administrative cost of health care.

*Response:* The final regulation clarifies the obligations of the
business associates in assuring privacy. As explained in the preamble,
business associates must take reasonable steps to assure confidentiality
of health records they may have, and the covered entity must take
appropriate action if they become aware of a violation of the agreement
they have with the business associate. This does not represent an
unreasonable burden; indeed, the provider is required to take the same
kind of precautions and provide the same kind of oversight that they
would in many other kinds of contractual relationships to assure they
obtain the quality and level of performance that they would expect from
a business associate.

*Comment:* HHS failed to consider enforcement costs associated with
monitoring partners and litigation costs arising from covered entities
seeking restitution from business partners whose behavior puts the
covered entity at risk for noncompliance.

*Response:* The Department acknowledged in the proposal that it was not
estimating the cost of compliance with the business associates provision
because of inadequate information. It requested information on this
issue, but no specific information was provided in the comments.
However, based on revisions in the final policy and subsequent
factfinding, the Department has provided an estimate for this
requirement, as explained below.

**Training**

*Comment:* Many of the commenters believe that the Department used
unrealistic assumptions in the development of the estimated cost of the
training provisions and they provided their own estimates.

*Response:* The commenters= estimates varied widely, and could not be
used by the Department in revising its analysis because there was
inadequate explanation of how the estimates were made.

*Comment:* Several commenters argued that if even an hour of time of
each of the entity=s employees is spent on training instead of Awork@
and they are paid the minimum wage, an entity would incur \$100 of cost
for training no more than 20 employees. The commenters noted that the
provision of health care services is a labor-intensive enterprise, and
many covered entities have thousands of employees, most of whom make
well in excess of minimum wage. They questioned whether the estimates
include time taken from the employee=s actual duties (opportunity cost)
and the cost of a trainer and materials.

*Response:* As explained in more detail below, the Department made
extensive revisions in its training estimate, including the number of
workers in the health care sector, the cost of workers in training based
on average industry wages, and training costs (instructors and
materials). The revised estimate is a more complete and accurate
estimate of the costs likely to be borne as a result of the final
regulation.

*Comment:* One commenter estimated that simply training an employee
could have a burdensome impact on his company. He argued, for example, a
10-hour annual requirement takes 0.5% of an employee=s time if they work
a 2000-hour year, but factoring in sick and vacation leave, the effects
of industry turnover could significantly increase the effect.

*Response:* In the analysis below, the Department has factored in
turnover rates, employment growth and greater utilization based on data
obtained from broad-based surveys and a public comment.

*Comment:* Some commenters felt that the regulatory training provisions
are overly burdensome. Specific concerns centered around the requirement
to train all individuals who may come in contact with protected health
information and the requirement to have such individuals sign a new
certifying statement at least every three years. Some commenters felt
that the content of the training program should be left to the
discretion of the covered entity.

*Response:* Changes and clarifications in the training requirements are
made in the final regulation, explained below. For example, the
certification requirement has been eliminated. As in the NPRM, the
content of the training program is left to the discretion of the covered
entity. These changes are expected to lessen the training burden and are
reflected in the final cost estimates.

**Compliance and Enforcement**

*Comment:* A Member of Congress and a number of privacy and consumer
groups expressed their concern with whether the Office for Civil Rights
(OCR) in HHS has adequate funding to carry out the major responsibility
of enforcing the complaint process established by this rule. The Member
stated that \"\[d\]ue to the limited enforcement ability allowed for in
this rule by HIPAA, it is essential that OCR have the capacity to
enforce the regulations. Now is the time for The Secretary to begin
building the necessary infrastructure to enforce the regulation
effectively.\"

*Response:* The Secretary agrees with the commenters and is committed to
an effective enforcement program. We will work with Congress to ensure
that the Department has the necessary funds to secure voluntary
compliance through education and technical assistance, to investigate
complaints and conduct compliance reviews, to provide states with
exception determinations and to use civil and criminal penalties when
necessary.

**Economic Effect on Small Entities**

*Comment:* Many commenters stated that the cost estimates on the effect
of the proposed regulation on small businesses were understated or
incomplete.

*Response:* The Department conducted a thorough review of potential data
sources that would improve the quality of the analysis of the effects on
small business. The final regulatory flexibility analysis below is based
on the best data available (much of it from the Small Business
Administration) and represents a reliable estimate for the effects on
small entities in various segments of the health care industry. It is
important to note that the estimates are for small business segments in
the aggregate; the cost to individual firms will vary, perhaps
considerably, based on its particular circumstances.

*Comment:* The cost of implementing privacy regulations, when added to
the cost of other required HIPAA regulations, could increase overhead
significantly. As shown in the 1993 Workgroup on Electronic Data
Interchange (WEDI) Report, providers will bear the larger share of
implementation costs and will save less than payors.

*Response:* The regulatory flexibility analysis below shows generally
the marginal effect of the privacy regulation on small entities.
Collectively, the HIPAA administrative standards will save money in the
health care system. As important, given the rapid expansion of
electronic commerce, it is probable that small entities would need to
comply with standards for electronic commerce in order to complete
effectively, even if the standards were voluntary. The establishment of
uniform standards through regulation help small entities because they
will not have to invest in multiple systems, which is what they would
confront if they system remained voluntary.

*Comment:* One respondent believed that the initial and ongoing costs
for small provider offices could be as much as 11 times higher than the
estimates provided in the proposed rule. Other commenters stated that
the estimates for small entities are Aabsurdly low@.

*Response:* Although there were a number of commenters highly critical
of the small business analysis, none provided alternative estimates or
even provided a rationale for their statements. Many appeared to assume
that *all* costs associated with medical record confidentiality should
be estimated. This represents a misunderstanding of the purpose of the
analysis: to estimate the incremental effects of this regulation, i.e.,
the new costs (and savings) that will result from changes required by
the regulation. The Department has made substantial changes in the final
small entities analysis (below), reflecting policy changes in the final
rule and additional information and data collected by the Department
since the issuance of the proposal last fall. We believe that these
estimates reasonably reflect the costs that various types of small
entities will experience in general, though the actual costs of
particular providers might vary considerably based on their current
practices and technology.

*Comment*: A respondent expressed the belief that small providers would
bear a disproportionate share of the regulation=s administrative burden
because of the likelihood of larger companies incurring fewer marginal
costs due to greater in-house resources to aid in the legal and
technical analysis of the proposed rule.

*Response:* As explained below, the Department does not agree with the
assertion that small entities will be disproportionately affected. Based
on discussions with a number of groups, the Department expects many
professional and trade associations to provide their members with
analysis of the regulation, including model policies, statements and
basic training materials. This will minimize the cost for most small
entities. Providers that use protected health information for voluntary
practices, such as marketing or research, are more likely to need
specific legal and technical assistance, but these are likely to be
larger providers.

*Comment:* Several commenters took issue with the Atop-down@ approach
that we used to estimate costs for small businesses, believing that this
methodology provided only a single point estimate, gave no indication of
the variation around the estimate, and was subject to numerous
methodological errors since the entities to which the numerator
pertained may not have been the same as the denominator. These
respondents further recommended that we prepare a Abottom-up@ analysis
using case studies and/or a survey of providers to refine the estimates.

*Response:* The purpose of the regulatory flexibility analysis is to
provide a better insight into the relative burden of small businesses
compared to larger firms in complying with a regulation. There may be
considerable variance around average costs within particular industry
sectors, even among small businesses within them. The estimates are
based on the best data available, including information from the Small
Business Administration, the Census Bureau, and public comments.

*Comment:* A commenter stated that the proposal=s cost estimate does not
account for additional administrative costs imposed on physicians, such
as requirements to rewrite contracts with business partners.

*Response:* Such costs are included in the analysis below.

*Comment:* Numerous public comments were directed specifically at the
systems compliance cost estimates for small businesses. One respondent
maintained that the initial upgrade cost alone would range from \$50
thousand to more than \$1 million per covered entity.

*Response:* The cost estimates for systems compliance varied enormously;
unfortunately, none of the commenters provided documentation of how they
made their estimates, preventing us from comparing their data and
assumptions to the Department=s. Because of concern about the costs in
this area, however, the Department retained an outside consultant to
provide greater expertise and analysis. The product of this effort has
been incorporated in the analysis below.

*Comment:* One commenter stated that just the development and
documentation of new health information policies and procedures (which
would require an analysis of the federal regulations and state law
privacy provisions), would cost far more than the \$396 cited in the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking as the average start-up cost for small
businesses.

*Response:* As explained below in the cost analysis, the Department
anticipates that most of the policies and procedures that will be
required under the final rule will be largely standardized, particularly
for small businesses. Thus, much of the work and cost can be done by
trade associations and professional groups, thereby minimizing the costs
and allowing it to be spread over a large membership base.

*Comment:* A number of comments criticized the initial estimates for
notices, inspection and copying, amendments and correction, and training
as they relate to small businesses.

*Response:* The Department has made substantial revisions in its
estimates for all of these areas which is explained below in the
regulatory flexibility analysis.

*Comment:* One commenter noted that there appeared to be a discrepancy
in the number of small entities cited. There is no explanation for the
difference and no explanation for difference between Aestablishments@
and Aentities.@

*Response:* There are discrepancies among the data bases on the number
of Aestablishments@ and Aentities@ or Afirms@. The problem arises
because most surveys count (or survey) establishments, which are
physical sites. A single firm or entity may have many establishments.
Moreover, although an establishment may have only a few employees, the
firm may have a large number of workers (the total of all its various
establishments) and therefore not be a small entity.

As discussed below, there is some discrepancy between the aggregate
numbers we use for the regulatory impact analysis (RIA) and the
regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA). We concluded that for purposes of
the RFA, which is intended to measure the effects on small entities, we
would use Small Business Administration data, which defines entities
based on revenues rather than physical establishments to count the
number of small entities in various SIC. This provides a more accurate
estimate of small entities affected. For the RIA, which is measuring
total effects, we believe the establishment based surveys provide a more
reliable count.

*Comment:* Because small businesses must notify patients of their
privacy policies on patients= first visit after the effective date of
the regulation, several commenters argued that staff would have to
search records either manually or by computer on a daily basis to
determine if patients had been seen since the regulation was
implemented.

*Response:* Under the final regulation, all covered entities will have
to provide patients copies of their privacy policy at the first visit
after the effective date of the regulation. The Department does not view
this as burdensome. We expect that providers will simply place a note or
marker at the beginning of a file (electronic or paper) when a patient
is given the notice. This is neither time-consuming nor expensive, and
it will not require constant searches of records.

*Comment:* A commenter stated that the definitions of small business,
small entity, and a small health plan are inconsistent because the NPRM
includes firms with annual receipts of \$5 million or less and
non-profits.

*Response:* The Small Business Administration, whose definitions we use
for this analysis, includes firms with \$5 million or less in receipts
and all non-profits as Asmall businesses.@ We recognize that some health
plans, though very large in terms of receipts (and insured lives),
nonetheless would be considered Asmall businesses@ under this definition
because they are non-profits. In the final regulatory flexibility
analysis, we generally have maintained the Small Business Administration
definitions because it is the accepted standard for these analyses.
However, we have added several categories, such as IRBs and employer
sponsored group health plans, which are not small entities, per se, but
will be effected by the final rule and we were able to identify costs
imposed by the regulation on them.

*Comment:* The same commenter wanted clarification that all non-profit
organizations are small entities and that the extended effective date
for compliance applies to them.

*Response:* For purposes of the regulatory flexibility analysis, the
Department is utilizing the Small Business Administration guidelines.
However, under HIPAA the Secretary may extend the effective compliance
date from 24 months to 36 months for Asmall health plans@. The Secretary
is given the explicit discretion of defining the term for purposes of
compliance with the regulation. For compliance purposes, the Secretary
has decided to define Asmall health plans@ as those with receipts of \$5
million or less, regardless of their tax status. As noted above, some
non-profit plans are large in terms of revenues (i.e., their revenues
exceed \$5 million annually). The Department determined that such plans
do not need extra time for compliance.

*Comment:* Several commenters requested that Asmall providers@
\[undefined\] be permitted to take 36 months to come into compliance
with the final regulation, just as small health plans will be permitted
to do so.

*Response:* Congress specified small health plans, but not small
providers, as needing extra time to comply. The majority of providers
affected by the regulation are Asmall@, based on the SBA definitions; in
other words, granting the delay would be tantamount to make the
effective date three years rather than two. In making policy decisions
for the final regulation, extensive consideration was given to
minimizing the cost and administrative burden associated with
implementing the rule. The Department believes that the requirements of
the final rule will not be difficult to fulfill, and therefore, it has
maintained the two year effective date.

**External Studies**

*Comment:* One commenter submitted a detailed analysis of privacy
legislation that was pending and concluded that they might cost over
\$40 billion.

*Response*: The study did not analyze the policies in the proposal, and
therefore, the estimates do not reflect the costs that would have been
imposed by the proposed regulation. In fact, the analysis was prepared
before the Administration=s proposed privacy regulation was even
published. As a result, the analysis is of limited relevance to the
regulation actually proposed.

The following are examples of assumptions and costs in the analysis that
do not match privacy policies or requirements stated in the proposed
rule.

1\. Authorizations: The study assumed rules requiring new authorizations
from current subscribers to use their data for treatment, payment of
claims, or other health plan operations. The proposed rule would have
prohibited providers or plans from obtaining patient authorization to
use data for treatment, payment or health care operations, and the final
rule makes obtaining consent for these purposes voluntary for all health
plans and for providers that do not have direct treatment relationships
with individuals.

2\. Disclosure History: The study assumes that providers, health plans,
and clearinghouses would have to track all disclosures of health
information. Under the NPRM and the final rule, plans, providers and
clearinghouses are only required to account for disclosures that are not
for treatment, payment, and health care operations, a small minority of
all disclosures.

3\. Inspection, Copying, and Amendment: The study assumed requirements
to allow patients and their subscribers to inspect, copy, and amend all
information that includes their name, social security number or other
identifying feature (e.g. customer service calls, internal memorandum,
claim runs). However, the study assumed broader access than provided in
the rule, which requires access only to information in records used to
make decisions about individuals, not all records with identifiable
information.

4\. Infrastructure development: The study attributed significant costs
to infrastructure implementation of (computer systems, training, and
other compliance costs). As explained below, the compliance requirements
are much less extensive than assumed in this study. For example, many
providers and plans will not be required to modify their privacy systems
but will only be required to document their practices and notify
patients of these practices, and others will be able to purchase
low-cost, off-the-shelf software that will facilitate the new
requirements. The final regulation will not require massive capital
expenditures; we assumed, based on our consultants= work, that providers
will rely on low-cost incremental adjustments initially, and as their
technology becomes outdated, they will replace it with new systems that
incorporate the HIPAA standard requirements.

Although many of the policy assumptions in the study are fundamentally
different than those in the proposed or final regulation, the study did
provide some assistance to the Department in preparing its final
analysis. The Department compared data, methodologies and model
assumptions, which helped us think more critically about our own
analysis and enhanced the quality of our final work.

*Comment:* One commenter submitted a detailed analysis of the NPRM
Regulatory Impact Analysis and concluded that it might cost over \$64
billion over 5 years. This analysis provided an interesting framework
for analyzing the provision for the rule. More precisely, the analysis
generally attempted to identify the number of entities would be required
to comply with each of the significant provision of the proposed rule,
then estimated the numbers of hours required to comply per entity, and
finally, estimated an hourly wage.

*Response:* HHS adopted this general structure for the final RIA because
it provided a better framework for analysis than what the Department had
done in the NPRM. However, HHS did not agree with many of the specific
assumptions used by in this analysis, for several reasons. First, in
some instances the assumptions were no longer relevant because the
requirements of the NPRM were altered in the final rule. For other
assumptions, HHS found more appropriate data sources for the number of
covered entities, wages rates and trend rates or other factors affecting
costs. In addition, HHS believes that in a few instances, this analysis
over-estimated what is required of covered entities to comply. Based on
public comments and its own factfinding, the Department believes many of
its assumptions used in the final analysis more accurately reflect what
is likely to be the real cost of the regulation.

**IV. FINAL REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS**

5U.S.C. 804(2) (as added by section 251 of Public Law 104-21), specifies
that a Amajor rule@ is any rule that the Office of Management and Budget
finds is likely to result in:

\$ An annual effect on the economy of \$100 million or more;

\$ A major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual
industries, federal, state, or local government agencies, or geographic
regions; or

\$ Significant adverse effects in competition, employment, investment
productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States based
enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and
export markets. The impact of this final rule will be over \$1 billion
in the first year of implementation. Therefore, this rule is a major
rule as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits
of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary,
to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including
potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects;
distributive impacts; and equity). According to Executive Order 12866, a
regulatory action is Asignificant@ if it meets any one of a number of
specified conditions, including having an annual effect on the economy
of \$100 million or more adversely affecting in a material way a sector
of the economy, competition, or jobs, or if it raises novel legal or
policy issues. The purpose of the regulatory impact analysis is to
assist decision-makers in understanding the potential ramifications of a
regulation as it is being developed. The analysis is also intended to
assist the public in understanding the general economic ramifications of
a regulation, both in the aggregate as well as the major policy areas of
a regulation and how they are likely to affect the major industries or
sectors of the economy covered by it.

In accordance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and
Fairness Act (Pub. L. 104-121), the Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has determined that this rule is a major rule for the
purpose of congressional review.

The proposal for the privacy regulation included a preliminary
regulatory impact analysis (RIA) which estimated the cost of the rule at
\$3.8 billion over five years. The preliminary analysis also noted that
a number of significant areas were not included in the estimate due to
inadequate information. The proposal solicited public comment on these
and all other aspects of the analysis. In this preamble, the Department
has summarized the public comments pertinent to the cost analysis and
its response to them. However, because of the extensive policy changes
incorporated in the final regulation, additional data collected from the
public comments and the Department=s fact-finding, and changes in the
methodology underlying the estimates, the Department is setting forth in
this section a more complete explanation of its revised estimates and
how they were obtained. This will facilitate a better understanding by
the public of how the estimates were developed and provide more insight
into how the Department believes the regulation will ultimately affect
the health care sector.

The impact analysis measures the effect of the regulation on current
practices. In the case of privacy, as discussed in the preamble, there
already exists considerable, though quite varied, efforts to protect the
confidentiality of medical information. The RIA is measuring the change
in these current practices and the cost of new and additional
responsibilities that are required to conform to the new regulation.

To achieve a reasonable level of privacy protection, the Department
defined three objectives for the final rule: 1) to establish national
baseline standards, implementation specifications, and requirements for
health information privacy protection, 2) to protect the privacy of
individually identifiable health information maintained or transmitted
by covered entities, and 3) to protect the privacy of all individually
identifiable health information within covered entities, regardless of
its form.

Establishing minimum standards, implementation specifications, and
requirements for health information privacy protection creates a level
baseline of privacy protection for patients across states. The Health
Privacy Project=s report, [The State of Health Privacy: An Uneven
Terrain]{.underline}[^33] makes it clear that under the current system
of state laws, privacy protection is extremely variable. The
Department=s statutory authority under HIPAA which allows the privacy
regulation to preempt any state law if such law is contrary to and not
more stringent than privacy protection pursuant to this regulation. This
sets a floor, but permits a state to create laws that are more
protective of privacy. We discuss preemption in greater detail in other
parts of the preamble.

The second objective is to establish a uniform base of privacy
protection for individually identifiable health information maintained
or transmitted by covered entities. HIPAA restricts the type of entities
covered by the rule to three broad categories: health care providers
that transmit health information in HIPAA standard transactions, health
plans, and health care clearinghouses. However, there are similar public
and private entities that are not within the Department=s authority to
regulate under HIPAA. For example, life insurance companies are not
covered by this rule but may have access to a large amount of
individually identifiable health information.

The third objective is to protect the privacy of all individually
identifiable health information held by covered entities, including
their business associates. Health information is currently stored and
transmitted in multiple forms, including electronic, paper, and oral
forms. To provide consistent protection to information, and to avoid
requiring covered entities from distinguishing between health
information that has been transmitted or maintained electronically and
that which has not, this rule covers all individually identifiable
health information in any form maintained or transmitted by a covered
entity.

For purposes of this cost analysis, the Department has assumed all
health care providers will be affected by the rule. This results in an
overestimation of costs because there are providers that do not engage
in any HIPAA standard transactions, and therefore, are not affected. The
Department could not obtain any reliable data on the number of such
providers, but the available data suggest that there are very few such
entities, and given the expected increase in all forms of electronic
health care in the coming decade, the number of paper-only providers is
likely to decrease.

**A. Relationship of this Analysis to Analyses in Other HIPAA
Regulations**

Congress has recognized that privacy standards, implementation
specifications and requirements must accompany the electronic data
interchange standards, implementation specifications and requirements
because the increased ease of transmitting and sharing individually
identifiable health information will result in an increase in concern
regarding privacy and confidentiality of such information. The bulk of
the first Administrative Simplification section that was debated on the
floor of the Senate in 1994 (as part of the Health Security Act) was
made up of privacy provisions. The requirement for the issuance of
concomitant privacy measures remained a part of the HIPAA bill passed by
the House of Representatives in 1996, but the requirement for privacy
measures was removed in conference. Instead, Congress added section 264
to Title II of HIPAA, which directs the Secretary to develop and submit
to Congress recommendations addressing at least the following:

\(1\) The rights that an individual who is a subject of individually
identifiable health information should have.

\(2\) The procedures that should be established for the exercise of such
rights.

\(3\) The uses and disclosures of such information that should be
authorized or required. The Secretary\'s Recommendations were submitted
to Congress on September 11, 1997, and are summarized below. Section
264(c)(1) of HIPAA provides that:

If legislation governing standards with respect to the privacy of
individually identifiable health information transmitted in connection
with the transactions described in section 1173(a) of the Social
Security Act (as added by section 262) is not enacted by \[August 21,
1999\], the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall promulgate
final regulations containing such standards not later than \[February
21, 2000\]. Such regulations shall address at least the subjects
described in subsection \[regarding recommendations\].

Because the Congress did not enact legislation governing standards with
respect to the privacy of individually identifiable health information
prior to August 21, 1999, the Department has, in accordance with this
statutory mandate, developed final rules setting forth standards to
protect the privacy of such information.

Title II of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
(HIPAA) also provides a statutory framework for the promulgation of
other administrative simplification regulations. On August 17, 2000, the
Transactions Rule was published. Proposals for health care provider
identifier (May 1998), employer identifier (June 1998), and security and
electronic signature standards (August 1998) have also been published.
These regulations are expected to be made final in the foreseeable
future.

HIPAA states that, Aany standard adopted under this part shall be
consistent with the objective of reducing the administrative costs of
providing and paying for health care.@ (Section 1172 (b)). This
provision refers to the administrative simplification regulations in
their totality, including this rule regarding privacy standards. The
savings and costs generated by the various standards should result in a
net savings to the health care system. The Transactions Rule shows a net
savings of \$29.9 billion over ten years (2002-2011), or a net present
value savings of \$19 billion. This estimate does not include the growth
in Ae-health@ and Ae-commerce@ that may be spurred by the adoption of
uniform codes and standards.

This final Privacy Rule is estimated to produce net costs of \$18.0
billion, with net present value costs of \$11.8 billion (2003 dollars)
over ten years (2003-2012). This estimate is based on some costs already
having been incurred due to the requirements of the Transactions Rule,
which included an estimate of a net savings to the health care system of
\$29.9 billion over ten years (2002 dollars) and a net present value of
\$19.1 billion. The Department expects that the savings and costs
generated by all administrative simplification standards should result
in a net savings to the health care system.

**B. Summary of Costs and Benefits**

Measuring both the economic costs and benefits of health information
privacy is difficult. Traditionally, privacy has been addressed by state
laws, contracts, and professional practices and guidelines. Moreover,
these practices have been evolving as computers have dramatically
increased the potential use of medical data; the scope and form of
health information is likely to be very different ten years from now
than it is today. This final regulation is both altering current health
information privacy practice and shaping its evolution as electronic
uses expand.

To estimate costs, the Department used information from published
studies, trade groups and associations, public comments to the proposed
regulation, and fact-finding by staff. The analysis focused on the major
policy areas in the regulation that would result in significant costs.
Given the vast array of institutions affected by this regulation and the
considerable variation in practices, the Department sought to identify
the Atypical@ current practice for each of the major policy areas and
estimate the cost of change resulting from the regulation. Because of
the paucity of data and incomplete information on current practices, the
Department has consistently made conservative assumptions (that is,
given uncertainty, we have made assumptions that, if incorrect, are more
likely to overstate rather than understate the true cost).

Benefits are difficult to measure because people conceive of privacy
primarily as a right, not as a commodity. Furthermore, a wide gap
appears to exist between what people perceive to be the level of privacy
afforded health information about them and what actually occurs with the
use of such information today. Arguably, the Acost@ of the privacy
regulation is the amount necessary to bring health information privacy
to these perceived levels.

The benefits of enhanced privacy protections for individually
identifiable health information are significant, even though they are
hard to quantify. The Department solicited comments on this issue, but
no commenters offered a better alternative. Therefore, the Department is
essentially reiterating the analysis it offered in the proposed Privacy
Rule. The illustrative examples set forth below, using existing data on
mental health, cancer screening, and HIV/AIDS patients, suggest the
level of economic and health benefits that might accrue to individuals
and society. Moreover, the benefits of improved privacy protection are
likely to increase in the future as patients gain trust in health care
practitioners= ability to maintain the confidentiality of their health
information.

The estimated cost of compliance with the final rule is \$17.6 billion
over the ten year period, 2003-2012.[^34] This includes the cost of all
the major requirements for the rule, including costs to federal, state
and local governments. The net present value of the final rule, applying
a 11.2 percent discount rate[^35], is \$11.8 billion.[^36]

The first year estimate is \$3.2 billion (this includes expenditures
that may be incurred before the effective date in 2003). This represents
about 0.23 percent of projected national health expenditures for
2003[^37]. By 2008, seven years after the rule=s effective date, the
rule is estimated to cost 0.07 percent of projected national health
expenditures.

The largest cost items are the requirement to have a privacy official,
\$5.9 billion over ten years, and the requirement that disclosures of
protected health information only involve the minimum amount necessary,
\$5.8 billion over ten years (see Table 1). These costs reflect the
change that affected organizations will have to undertake to implement
and maintain compliance with the requirements of the rule and achieve
enhanced privacy of protected health information.

**Table 1. The Cost of Complying with the Proposed Privacy Regulation,
in Dollars**

+--------------------+----------------+--------------+-----------------+
| **Provision**      | **Initial or   | **Average    | **Ten Year Cost |
|                    | First Year     | Annual Cost  | (2003-2012)**   |
|                    | Cost**         | (\$Million,  |                 |
|                    |                | Years        | **(\$Million)** |
|                    | **(2003,       | 2-10)**      |                 |
|                    | \$Million)**   |              |                 |
+--------------------+----------------+--------------+-----------------+
| Policy Development | \$597.7        | \$0          | \$597.7         |
+--------------------+----------------+--------------+-----------------+
| Minimum Necessary  | 926.2          | 536.7        | 5,756.7         |
+--------------------+----------------+--------------+-----------------+
| Privacy Officials  | 723.2          | 575.8        | 5,905.8         |
+--------------------+----------------+--------------+-----------------+
| Disclosure         | 261.5          | 95.9         | 1,125.1         |
| Tracking/          |                |              |                 |
|                    |                |              |                 |
| History            |                |              |                 |
+--------------------+----------------+--------------+-----------------+
| Business           | 299.7          | 55.6         | 800.3           |
| Associates         |                |              |                 |
+--------------------+----------------+--------------+-----------------+
| Notice             | 50.8           | 37.8         | 391.0           |
| Distribution       |                |              |                 |
+--------------------+----------------+--------------+-----------------+
| Consent            | 166.1          | 6.8          | 227.5           |
+--------------------+----------------+--------------+-----------------+
| Inspection/Copying | 1.3            | 1.7          | 16.8            |
+--------------------+----------------+--------------+-----------------+
| Amendment          | 5.0            | 8.2          | 78.8            |
+--------------------+----------------+--------------+-----------------+
| Requirements on    | 40.2           | 60.5         | 584.8           |
| Research           |                |              |                 |
+--------------------+----------------+--------------+-----------------+
| Training           | 287.1          | 50.0         | 737.2           |
+--------------------+----------------+--------------+-----------------+
| De-Identification  | 124.2          | 117.0        | 1,177.4         |
| of Information     |                |              |                 |
+--------------------+----------------+--------------+-----------------+
| Employers with     | 52.4           | 0            | 52.4            |
| Insured Group      |                |              |                 |
| Health Plans       |                |              |                 |
+--------------------+----------------+--------------+-----------------+
| Internal           | 6.6            | 10.7         | 103.2           |
| Complaints         |                |              |                 |
+--------------------+----------------+--------------+-----------------+
| Total\*            | 3,242.0        | 1,556.9      | 17,554.7        |
+--------------------+----------------+--------------+-----------------+
| Net Present Value  | 3,242.0        | 917.8        | 11,801.8        |
+--------------------+----------------+--------------+-----------------+

^\*^Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.

**C. Need for the Final Rule**

The need for a national health information privacy framework is
described in detail in Section I of the preamble above. In short,
privacy is a necessary foundation for delivery of high quality health
care \-- the entire health care system is built upon the willingness of
individuals to share the most intimate details of their lives with their
health care providers. At the same time, there is increasing public
concern about loss of privacy generally, and health privacy in
particular. The growing use of interconnected electronic media for
business and personal activities, our increasing ability to know an
individual=s genetic make-up, and the increasing complexity of the
health care system each bring the potential for tremendous benefits to
individuals and society, but each also brings new potential for
invasions of our privacy.

Concerns about the lack of attention to information privacy in the
health care industry are not merely theoretical. Section I of the
preamble, above, lists numerous examples of the kinds of deliberate or
accidental privacy violations that call for a national legal framework
of health privacy protections. Disclosure of health information about an
individual can have significant implications well beyond the physical
health of that person, including the loss of a job, alienation of family
and friends, the loss of health insurance, and public humiliation. The
answer to these concerns is not for consumers to withdraw from the
health care system, but for society to establish a clear national legal
framework for privacy.

This section adds to the discussion in Section I, above, a discussion of
the market failures inherent in the current system which create
additional and compelling reasons to establish national health
information privacy standards. Market failures will arise to the extent
that privacy is less well protected than the parties would have agreed
to, if they were fully informed and had the ability to monitor and
enforce contracts. The chief market failures with respect to privacy of
health information concern information, negotiation, and enforcement
costs between the entity and the individual. The information costs arise
because of the information asymmetry between the company and the patient
\-- the company typically knows far more than the patient about how the
protected health information will be used by that company. A health care
provider or plan, for instance, knows many details about how protected
health information may be generated, combined with other databases, or
sold to third parties.

Absent this regulation, patients face at least two layers of cost in
learning about how their information is used. First, as with many
aspects of health care, patients face the challenge of trying to
understand technical medical terminology and practices. A patient
generally will have difficulty understanding medical records and the
implications of transferring health information about them to a third
party. Second, in the absence of consistent national rules, patients may
face significant costs in trying to learn and understand the nature of a
company\'s privacy policies.

The costs of learning about companies\' policies are magnified by the
difficulty patients face in detecting whether companies, in fact, are
complying with those policies. Patients might try to adopt strategies
for monitoring whether companies have complied with their announced
policies. These sorts of strategies, however, are both costly (in time
and effort) and likely to be ineffective. In addition, modern health
care often requires protected health information to flow legitimately
among multiple entities for purposes of treatment, payment, health care
operations, and other necessary uses. Even if the patient could identify
the provider whose data ultimately leaked, the patient could not easily
tell which of those multiple entities had impermissibly transferred her
information. Therefore, the cost and ineffectiveness of monitoring leads
to less than optimal protection of individually identifiable health
information.

The incentives facing a company that acquires individually identifiable
health information also discourage privacy protection. A company gains
the full benefit of using such information, including its own marketing
efforts or its ability to sell the information to third parties. The
company, however, does not suffer the losses from disclosure of
protected health information; the patient does. Because of imperfect
monitoring, customers often will not learn of, and thus not be able to
take efficient action to prevent uses or disclosures of sensitive
information. Because the company internalizes the gains from using the
information, but does not bear a significant share, if any, of the cost
to patients (in terms of lost privacy), it will have a systematic
incentive to over-use individually identifiable health information. In
market failure terms, companies will have an incentive to use
individually identifiable health information where the patient would not
have freely agreed to such use.

These difficulties are exacerbated by the third-party nature of many
health insurance and payment systems. Even where individuals would wish
to bargain for privacy, they may lack the legal standing to do so. For
instance, employers often negotiate the terms of health plans with
insurers. The employee may have no voice in the privacy or other terms
of the plan, facing a take-it-or-leave-it choice of whether to be
covered by insurance. The current system leads to significant market
failures in bargaining privacy protection. Many privacy-protective
agreements that patients would wish to make, absent barriers to
bargaining, will not be reached.

The economic arguments become more compelling as the medical system
shifts from predominantly paper to predominantly electronic records.
Rapid changes in information technology should result in increased
market failures in the markets for individually identifiable health
information. Improvements in computers and networking mean that the
costs of gathering, analyzing, and disseminating electronic data are
plunging. Market forces are leading many health care providers and
health plans to shift from paper to electronic records, due both to
lower cost and the increased functionality provided by having
information in electronic form. These market changes will be accelerated
by the administrative simplification implemented by the other
regulations promulgated under HIPAA. A chief goal of administrative
simplification, in fact, is to create a more efficient flow of medical
information, where appropriate. This privacy regulation is an integral
part of the overall effort of administrative simplification; it creates
a framework for more efficient flows for certain purposes, including
treatment and payment, while restricting flows in other circumstances
except where appropriate institutional safeguards exist.

If the medical system shifts predominantly to electronic records in the
near future, accompanying privacy rules will become more critical to
prevent unanticipated, inappropriate, or unnecessary uses or disclosures
of individually identifiable health information without patient consent
and without effective institutional controls against further
dissemination. In terms of the market failure, it will become more
difficult for patients to know how their health provider or health plan
is using health information about them. It will become more difficult to
monitor the subsequent flows of individually identifiable health
information, as the number of electronic flows and possible points of
leakage both increase. Similarly, the costs and difficulties of
bargaining to get the patients\' desired level of use will likely rise
due to the greater number and types of entities that receive protected
health information.

As the benefits section, below, discusses in more detail, the protection
of privacy and correcting the market failure also have practical
implications. Where patients are concerned about lack of privacy
protections, they might fail to get medical treatment that they would
otherwise seek. This failure to get treatment may be especially likely
for certain conditions, including mental health, and HIV. Similarly,
patients who are concerned about lack of privacy protections may report
health information inaccurately to their providers when they do seek
treatment. For instance, they might decide not to mention that they are
taking prescription drugs that indicate that they have an embarrassing
condition. These inaccurate reports may lead to mis-diagnosis and
less-than-optimal treatment, including inappropriate additional
medications. In short, the lack of privacy safeguards can lead to
efficiency losses in the form of foregone or inappropriate treatment.

In summarizing the economic arguments supporting the need for this
regulation, the discussion here has emphasized the market failures that
will be addressed by this regulation. These arguments become
considerably stronger with the shift from predominantly paper to
predominantly electronic records. As discussed in the benefits section
below, the proposed privacy protections may prevent or reduce the risk
of unfair treatment or discrimination against vulnerable categories of
persons, such as those who are HIV positive, and thereby, foster better
health. The proposed regulation may also help educate providers, health
plans, and the general public about how protected health information is
used. This education, in turn, may lead to better information practices
in the future.

**D. Baseline Privacy Protections**

An analysis of the costs and benefits of the regulation requires a
baseline from which to measure the regulation\'s effects. For some
regulations, the baseline is relatively straightforward. For instance,
an industry might widely use a particular technology, but a new
regulation may require a different technology, which would not otherwise
have been adopted by the industry. In this example, the old and widely
used technology provides the baseline for measuring the effects of the
regulation. The costs and the benefits are the difference between
keeping the old technology and implementing the new technology.

Where the underlying technology and industry practices are rapidly
changing, however, it can be far more difficult to determine the
baseline and thereby measure the costs and benefits of a regulation.
There is no simple way to know what technology industry would have
chosen to introduce if the regulation had never existed, nor how
industry practices would have evolved.

Today, the entities covered by the HIPAA privacy regulation are in the
midst of a shift from primarily paper records to electronic records. As
covered entities spend significant resources on hardware, software, and
other information technology costs, questions arise about which of these
costs are fairly attributable to the privacy regulations as opposed to
costs that would have been expended even in the absence of the
regulations. Industry practices generally are rapidly evolving, as
described in more detail in Part I of this preamble. New technological
or other measure taken to protect privacy are in part attributable to
the expected expense of shifting to electronic medical records, rather
than being solely attributable to the new regulations. In addition, the
existence of privacy rules in other sectors of the economy help set a
norm for what practices will be considered good practices for health
information. The level of privacy protection that would exist in the
health care sector, in the absence of regulations, thus would likely be
affected by regulatory and related developments in other sectors. In
short, it is therefore difficult to project a cost or benefits baseline
for this rule.

The common security practice of using \"firewalls\" illustrates how each
of the three baselines might apply. Under the first baseline, the full
cost of implementing firewalls should be included in a Regulatory Impact
Analysis for a rule that expects entities to have firewalls. Because
current law has not required firewalls, a new rule expecting this
security measure must include the full cost of creating firewalls. This
approach, however, would seem to overstate the cost of such a
regulation. Firewalls would seem to be an integral part of the decision
to move to an on-line, electronic system of records. Firewalls are also
being widely deployed by users and industries where no binding security
or privacy regulations have been proposed.

Under the second baseline, the touchstone is the level of risk of
security breaches for individually identifiable health information under
current practices. There is quite possibly a greater risk of breach for
an electronic system of records, especially where such records are
accessible globally through the Internet, than for patient records
dispersed among various doctors\' offices in paper form. Using the
second baseline, the costs of firewalls for electronic systems should
not be counted as a cost of the regulation except where firewalls create
greater security than existed under the previous, paper-based system.

Finally, the third baseline would require an estimate of the typical
level of firewall protections that covered entities would adopt in the
absence of regulation, and include in the Regulatory Impact Analysis
only the costs that exceed what would otherwise have been adopted. For
this analysis, the Department has generally assumed that the status quo
would otherwise exist throughout the ten-year period (in a few areas we
explicitly discuss likely changes). We made this decision for two
reasons. First, predicting the level of change that would otherwise
occur is highly problematic. Second, it is a Aconservative@
assumptionBthat is, any error will likely be an overstatement of the
true costs of the regulation.

Privacy practices are most often shaped by professional organizations
that publish ethical codes of conduct and by state law. On occasion,
state laws defer to professional conduct codes. At present, where
professional organizations and states have developed only limited
guidelines for privacy practices, an entity may implement privacy
practices independently. However, it is worth noting that changes in
privacy protection continue to increase in various areas. For example,
European Union countries may only send individually identifiable
information to companies, including U.S. firms, that comply with their
privacy standards, and the growing use of health data in other areas of
commerce, such as finance and general commercial marketing, have also
increased the demand for privacy in ways that were not of concern in the
past.

***1. Professional codes of ethics***

The Department examined statements issued by five major professional
groups, one national electronic network association and a leading
managed care association.[^38] There are a number of common themes that
all the organizations appear to subscribe to:

\$ The need to maintain and protect an individual=s health information;

\$ The development of policies to ensure the confidentiality of
individually identifiable health information;

\$ A restriction that only the minimum necessary information should be
released to accomplish the purpose for which the information is sought.

Beyond these principles, the major associations differ with respect to
the methods used to protect individually identifiable health
information. There is no common professional standard across the health
care field with respect to the protection of individually identifiable
health information. One critical area of difference is the extent to
which professional organizations should release individually
identifiable health information. A major mental health association
advocates the release of identifiable patient information A. . .only
when de-identified data are inadequate for the purpose at hand.@ A major
association of physicians counsels members who use electronically
maintained and transmitted data to require that they and their patients
know in advance who has access to protected patient data, and the
purposes for which the data will be used. In another document, the
association advises physicians not to Asell@ patient information to data
collection companies without fully informing their patients of this
practice and receiving authorization in advance to release of the
information.

Only two of the five professional groups state that patients have the
right to review their medical records. One group declares this as a
fundamental patient right, while the second association qualifies its
position by stating that the physician has the final word on whether a
patient has access to his or her health information. This association
also recommends that its members respond to requests for access to
patient information within ten days, and recommends that entities allow
for an appeal process when patients are denied access. The association
further recommends that when a patient contests the accuracy of the
information in his or her record and the entity refuses to accept the
patient=s change, the patient=s statement should be included as a
permanent part of the patient=s record.

In addition, three of the five professional groups endorse the
maintenance of audit trails that can track the history of disclosures of
individually identifiable health information.

The one set of standards that we reviewed from a health network
association advocated the protection of individually identifiable health
information from disclosure without patient authorization and emphasized
that encrypting information should be a principal means of protecting
individually identifiable health information. The statements of a
leading managed care association, while endorsing the general principles
of privacy protection, were vague on the release of information for
purposes other than treatment. The association suggested allowing the
use of protected health information without the patient=s authorization
for what they term Ahealth promotion.@ It is possible that the use of
protected health information for Ahealth promotion@ may be construed
under the rule as part of marketing activities.

Based on the review of the leading association standards, we believe
that the final rule embodies most or all of the major principles
expressed in the standards. However, there are some major areas of
difference between the rule and the professional standards reviewed. The
final rule generally provides stronger, more consistent, and more
comprehensive guarantees of privacy for individually identifiable health
information than the professional standards. The differences between the
rule and the professional codes include the individual=s right of access
to health information in the covered entity=s possession, relationships
between contractors and covered entities, and the requirement that
covered entities make their privacy policies and practices available to
patients through a notice and the ability to respond to questions
related to the notice. Because the regulation requires that (with a few
exceptions) patients have access to their protected health information
that a covered entity possesses, large numbers of health care providers
may have to modify their current practices in order to allow patient
access, and to establish a review process if they deny a patient access.
Also, none of the privacy protection standards reviewed require that
health care providers or health plans prepare a formal statement of
privacy practices for patients (although the major physician association
urges members to inform patients about who would have access to their
protected health information and how their health information would be
used). Only one HMO association explicitly made reference to information
released for legitimate research purposes. The regulation allows for the
release of protected health information for research purposes without an
individual=s authorization, but only if the research where such
authorization is waived by an institutional research board or an
equivalent privacy board. This research requirement may cause some
groups to revise their disclosure authorization standards.

**2. *State Laws***

The second body of privacy protections is found in a complex, and often
confusing, myriad of state laws and requirements. To determine whether
or not the final rule would preempt a state law, first we identified the
relevant laws, and second, we addressed whether state or federal law
provides individuals with greater privacy protection.

*Identifying the relevant state statutes:* Health information privacy
provisions can be found in laws applicable to many issues including
insurance, worker=s compensation, public health, birth and death
records, adoptions, education, and welfare. In many cases, state laws
were enacted to address a specific situation, such as the reporting of
HIV/AIDS, or medical conditions that would impair a person=s ability to
drive a car. For example, Florida has over 60 laws that apply to
protected health information. According to the Georgetown Privacy
Project[^39], Florida is not unique. Every state has laws and
regulations covering some aspect of medical information privacy. For the
purpose of this analysis, we simply acknowledge the variation in state
requirements.

We recognize that covered entities will need to learn the laws of their
states in order to comply with such laws that are not contrary to the
rule, or that are contrary to and more stringent than the rule. This
analysis should be completed in the context of individual markets;
therefore, we expect that professional associations or individual
businesses will complete this task.

Recognizing the limits of our ability to effectively summarize state
privacy laws, we discuss conclusions generated by the Georgetown
University Privacy Project=s report, [The State of Health Privacy: An
Uneven Terrain]{.underline}. The Georgetown report is among the most
comprehensive examination of state health privacy laws currently
published, although it is not exhaustive. The report, which was
completed in July 1999, is based on a 50-state survey.

To facilitate discussion, we have organized the analysis into two
sections: access to health information and disclosure of health
information. Our analysis is intended to suggest areas where the final
rule appears to preempt various state laws; it is not designed to be a
definitive or wholly comprehensive state-by-state comparison.

*Access to Subject=s Information:* In general, state statutes provide
individuals with some access to medical records about them. However,
only a few states allow individuals access to health information held by
all their health care providers and health plans. In 33 states,
individuals may access their hospital and health facility records. Only
13 states guarantee individuals access to their HMO records, and 16
states provide individuals access to their medical information when it
is held by insurers. Seven states have no statutory right of patient
access; three states and the District of Columbia have laws that only
assure individuals= right to access their mental health records. Only
one state permits individuals access to records about them held by
health care providers, but it excludes pharmacists from the definition
of provider. Thirteen states grant individuals statutory right of access
to pharmacy records.

The amount that entities are allowed to charge for copying of
individuals= records varies widely from state to state. A study
conducted by the American Health Information Management Association[^40]
found considerable variation in the amounts, structure, and combination
of fees for search and retrieval, and the copying of the record.

In 35 states, there are laws or regulations that set a basis for
charging individuals inspecting and copying fees. Charges vary not only
by state, but also by the purpose of the request and the facility
holding the health information. Also, charges vary by the number of
pages and whether the request is for X-rays or for standard medical
information.

Of the 35 states with laws regulating inspection and copying charges,
seven states either do not allow charges for retrieval of records or
require that the entity provide the first copy free of charge. Some
states may prohibit hospitals from charging patients a retrieval and
copying fee, but allow clinics to do so. Many states allow fee
structures, while eleven states specify only that the record holder may
charge Areasonable/actual costs.@

According to the report by the Georgetown Privacy Project, among states
that do grant access to patient records, the most common basis for
denying individuals access is concern for the life and safety of the
individual or others.

The amount of time an entity is given to supply the individual with his
or her record varies widely. Many states allow individuals to amend or
correct inaccurate health information, especially information held by
insurers. However, few states provide the right to insert a statement in
the record challenging the covered entity=s information when the
individual and entity disagree.[^41]

*Disclosure of Health Information:* State laws vary widely with respect
to disclosure of individually identifiable health information.
Generally, states have applied restrictions on the disclosure of health
information either to specific entities or for specific health
conditions. Only three state laws place broad limits on disclosure of
individually identifiable health information without regard for policies
and procedures developed by covered entities. Most states require
patient authorization before an entity may disclose health information
to certain recipients, but the patient often does not have an
opportunity to object to any disclosures.[^42]

It is also important to point out that none of the states appear to
offer individuals the right to restrict disclosure of their health
information for treatment.

State statutes often have exceptions to requiring authorization before
disclosure. The most common exceptions are for purposes of treatment,
payment, or auditing and quality assurance functions. Restrictions on
re-disclosure of individually identifiable health information also vary
widely from state to state. Some states restrict the re-disclosure of
health information, and others do not. The Georgetown report cites state
laws that require providers to adhere to professional codes of conduct
and ethics with respect to disclosure and re-disclosure of protected
health information.

Most states have adopted specific measures to provide additional
protections for health information regarding certain sensitive
conditions or illnesses. The conditions and illnesses most commonly
afforded added privacy protection are:

\$ Information derived from genetic testing;

\$ Communicable and sexually-transmitted diseases;

\$ Mental health; and

\$ Abuse, neglect, domestic violence, and sexual assault.

Some states place restrictions on releasing condition-specific health
information for research purposes, while others allow release of
information for research without the patient=s authorization. States
frequently require that researchers studying genetic diseases, HIV/AIDS,
and other sexually transmitted diseases have different authorization and
privacy controls than those used for other types of research. Some
states require approval from an IRB or agreements that the data will be
destroyed or identifiers removed at the earliest possible time. Another
approach has been for states to require researchers to obtain sensitive,
identifiable information from a state public health department. One
state does not allow automatic release of protected health information
for research purposes without notifying the subjects that their health
information may be used in research and allowing them an opportunity to
object to the use of their information.[^43]

*Comparing state statutes to the final rule:* The variability of state
law regarding privacy of individually identifiable health information
and the limitations of the applicability of many such laws demonstrates
the need for uniformity and minimum standards for privacy protection.
This regulation is designed to meet these goals while allowing stricter
state laws to be enacted and remain effective. A comparison of state
privacy laws with the final regulation highlights several of the rule=s
key implications:

\$ No state law requires covered entities to make their privacy and
access policies available to patients. Thus, all covered entities that
have direct contact with patients will be required by this rule to
prepare a statement of their privacy protection and access policies.
This necessarily assumes that entities have to develop procedures if
they do not already have them in place.

\$ The rule will affect more entities than are covered or encompassed
under many state laws.

\$ Among the three categories of covered entities, it appears that
health plans will be the most significantly affected by the access
provisions of the rule. Based on the Health Insurance Association of
America (HIAA) data[^44], there are approximately 94.7 million
non-elderly persons with private health insurance in the 35 states that
do not provide patients a legal right to inspect and copy their records.

\$ Under the rule, covered entities will have to obtain an individual=s
authorization before they could use or disclose their information for
purposes other than treatment, payment, and health care operations \--
except in the situations explicitly defined as allowable disclosures
without authorization. Although the final rule would establish a
generally uniform disclosure and re-disclosure requirement for all
covered entities, the entities that currently have the greatest ability
and economic incentives to use and disclose protected health information
for marketing services to both patients and health care providers
without individual authorization.

\$ While the final rule appears to encompass many of the requirements
found in current state laws, it also is clear that within state laws,
there are many provisions that cover specific cases and health
conditions. Certainly, in states that have no restrictions on
disclosure, the rule will establish a baseline standard. But in states
that do place conditions on the disclosure of protected health
information, the rule may place additional requirements on covered
entities.

**3. *Other Federal Laws***

The relationship with other federal statutes is discussed above in the
preamble.

**E. Costs**

Covered entities will be implementing the privacy final rules at the
same time many of the administrative simplification standards are being
implemented. As described in the overall impact analysis for the
Transactions Rule, the data handling change occurring due to the other
HIPAA standards will have both costs and benefits. To the extent the
changes required for the privacy standards, implementation
specifications, and requirements can be made concurrently with the
changes required by the other regulations, costs for the combined
implementation should be only marginally higher than for the
administrative simplification standards alone. The extent of this
incremental cost is uncertain, in the same way that the costs associated
with each of the individual administrative simplification standards is
uncertain.

The costs associated with implementing the requirements under this
Privacy Rule will be directly related to the number of affected entities
and the number of affected transactions in each entity. There are
approximately 12,200 health plans (including self-insured employer and
government health plans that are at least partially
self-administered)[^45], 6480 hospitals, and 630,000 non-hospital
providers that will bear implementation costs under the final rule.

The relationship between the HIPAA security and privacy standards is
particularly relevant. On August 17, 2000, the Secretary published a
final rule to implement the HIPAA standards on electronic transactions.
That rule adopted standards for eight electronic code sets to be used
for those transactions. The proposed rule for security and electronic
signature standards was published on August 12, 1998. That proposal
specified the security requirements for covered entities that transmit
and store information specified in Part C, Title II of the Act. In
general, that proposed rule proposed administrative and technical
standards for protecting A\...any health information pertaining to an
individual that is electronically maintained or transmitted.@ (63 FR
43243). The final Security Rule will detail the system and
administrative requirements that a covered entity must meet in order to
assure itself and the Secretary that health information is safe from
destruction and tampering from people without authorization for its
access.

By contrast, the Privacy Rule describes the requirements that govern the
circumstances under which protected health information must be used or
disclosed with and without patient involvement and when a patient may
have access to his or her protected health information.

While the vast majority of health care entities are privately owned and
operated, we note that federal, state, and local government providers
are reflected in the total costs as well. Federal, state, and locally
funded hospitals represent approximately 26 percent of hospitals in the
United States. This is a significant portion of hospitals, but it
represents a relatively small proportion of all provider entities. We
estimated that the number of government providers who are employed at
locations other than government hospitals is significantly smaller
(approximately two percent of all providers). Weighting the relative
number of government hospital and non-hospital providers by the revenue
these types of providers generate, we estimate that health care services
provided directly by government entities represent 3.4 percent of total
health care services. Indian Health Service and tribal facilities costs
are included in the total, since the adjustments made to the original
private provider data to reflect federal providers included them. In
developing the rule, the Department consulted with states,
representatives of the National Congress of American Indians,
representatives of the National Indian Health Board, and a
representative of the self-governance tribes. During the consultation we
discussed issues regarding the application of Title II of HIPAA to the
states and tribes.

The costs associated with this final rule involve, for each provision,
consideration of both the degree to which covered entities must modify
their existing records management systems and privacy policies under the
final rule, and the extent to which there is a change in behavior by
both patients and the covered entities as a result of the final rule.
The following sections examine these provisions as they apply to the
various covered entities under the final rule. The major costs that
covered entities will incur are one-time costs associated with
implementation of the final rules, and ongoing costs that result in
continuous requirements in the final rule.

The Department has quantified the costs imposed by the final regulation
to the extent possible. The cost of many provisions were estimated by
first using data from the Census Bureau=s Statistics of U.S. Business to
identify the number of non-hospital health care providers, hospitals and
health plans. Then, using the Census Bureau=s Current Population Survey
(CPS) wage data for the classes of employees affected by the rule, the
Department identified the hourly wage of the type of employee assumed to
be mostly likely responsible for compliance with a given provision.
Where the Department believed a number of different types of employees
might be responsible for complying with a certain provision, as is often
expected to be the case, the Department established a weighted-average
wage based on the types of employees involved. Finally, the Department
made assumptions regarding the number of person-hours per institution
required to comply with the rule.

The Department cannot determine precisely how many person-hours per
institution will be required to comply with a given provision, however,
the Department attempted to establish reasonable estimates based on
fact-finding discussions with private sector health care providers, the
advice of the Department=s consultants, and the Department=s own best
judgement of the level of burden required to comply with a given
provision. Moreover, the Department recognizes that the number of hours
required to comply with a given requirement of the rule will vary from
provider to provider and health plan to health plan, particularly given
the flexibility and scalability permitted under the rule. Therefore, the
Department considers the estimates to be averages across the entire
class of health care providers, hospitals, or health plans in question.

Underlying all annual cost estimates are growth projections. For growth
in the number of patients, the Department used data from the National
Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical
Care Survey, the National Home and Hospice Survey, the National Nursing
Home Survey, and information from the American Hospital Association. For
growth in the number of health care workers, the Department used data
from the Bureau of Health Professions in the Department=s Health
Resources Services Administration (HRSA). For insurance coverage growth
(private and military coverage), we used a five-year average annual
growth rate in employer-sponsored, individual, military, and overall
coverage growth from the Census Bureau=s CPS, 1995-1999. To estimate
growth in the number of Medicare and Medicaid enrollees, the Department
used the enrollment projections of the Health Care Financing
Administration=s Office of the Actuary. For growth in the number of
hospitals, health care providers and health plans, trend rates were
derived from the Census Bureau=s Statistics of U.S. Businesses, using
SIC code-specific five-year annual average growth rate from1992-1997
(the most recent data available). For wage growth, the Department used
the same assumptions made in the Medicare Trustees= Hospital Insurance
Trust Fund report for 2000.

In some areas, the Department was able to obtain very reliable data,
such as survey data from the Statistics of U.S. Businesses and the
Medical Expenditures Panel Survey (MEPS). In numerous areas, however,
there was too little information or data to support quantitative
estimates. As a result, the Department relied on data provided in the
public comments or subsequent fact-finding to provide a basis for making
key assumptions. We were able to provide a reasonable cost estimate for
virtually all aspects of the regulation, except law enforcement. In this
latter area, the Department was unable to obtain sufficient data about
current practices (e.g., the number of criminal and civil investigations
that may involve requests for protected health information., the number
of subpoenas for protected health information., etc.) to determine the
marginal effects of the regulation. As discussed more fully below, the
Department believes the effects of the final rule are marginal because
the policies adopted in the final rule appear to largely reflect current
practice.

The NPRM included an estimate of \$3.8 billion for the privacy proposal.
The estimate for the final rule is \$18.0 billion. Much of the
difference can be explained by two factors. First, the NPRM estimate was
for five years; the final rule estimate is for ten years. The Department
chose the longer period for the final rule because ten years was also
the period of analysis in the Transactions Rule RIA, and we wanted to
facilitate comparisons, given that the net benefits and costs of the
administrative simplification rules should be considered together.
Second, the final impact analysis includes cost estimates for a number
of key provisions that were not estimated in the NPRM because the
Department did not have adequate information at the time. Although we
received little useable data in the public comments (see comment and
response section), the Department was able to undertake more extensive
fact-finding and collect sufficient information to make informed
assumptions about the level of effort and time various provisions of the
final rule are likely to impose on different types of affected entities.

The estimate of \$18.0 billion represents a gross cost, not a net cost.
As discussed more fully below in the benefits section, the benefits of
enhanced privacy and confidentiality of personal health information are
very significant. If people believe their information will be used
properly and not disseminated beyond certain bounds without their
knowledge and consent, they will be much more likely to seek proper
health care, provide all relevant health information, and abide by their
providers= recommendations. In addition, more confidence by individuals
and covered entities that privacy will be maintained will lead to an
increase in electronic transactions and the efficiencies and cost
savings that stem from such action. The benefits section quantifies some
examples of benefits. The Department was not able to identify data
sources or models that would permit us to measure benefits more broadly
or accurately. The inability to quantify benefits, however, does not
lessen the importance or value that is ultimately realized by having a
national standard for health information privacy.

The largest initial costs resulting from the final Privacy Rule stem
primarily from the requirement that covered entities use and disclose
only the minimum necessary protected health information, that covered
entities develop policies and codify their privacy procedures, and that
covered entities designate a privacy official and train all personnel
with access to individually identifiable health information. The largest
ongoing costs will result from the minimum necessary provisions
pertaining internal uses of individually identifiable health
information, and the cost of a privacy official. In addition, covered
entities will have recurring costs for training, disclosure tracking and
notice requirements. A smaller number of large entities may have
significant costs for de-identification of protected health information
and additional requirements for research.

The privacy costs are in addition to the Transactions Rule estimates.
The cost of complying with the regulation represents approximately 0.23
percent of projected national health expenditures the first year the
regulation is enacted. The costs for the first eight years of the final
regulation represents 0.07 percent of the increase in national health
care costs experienced over the same period.[^46]

***Minimum Necessary***

The Aminimum necessary@ policy in the final rule has essentially three
components: first, it does not pertain to certain uses and disclosures
including treatment-related exchange of information among health care
providers; second, for disclosures that are made on a routine and
recurring basis, such as insurance claims, a covered entity is required
to have policies and procedures for governing such exchanges (but the
rule does not require a case-by-case determination); and third,
providers must have a process for reviewing non-routine requests on a
case-by-case basis to assure that only the minimum necessary information
is disclosed.

Based on public comments and subsequent fact-finding, the Department has
concluded that the requirements of the final rule are generally similar
to the current practice of most providers. For standard disclosure
requests, for example, providers generally have established procedures
for determining how much health information is released. For non-routine
disclosures, providers have indicated that they currently ask questions
to discern how much health information is necessary for such disclosure.
Under the final rule, we anticipate providers will have to be more
thorough in their policies and procedures and more vigilant in their
oversight of them; hence, the costs of this provision are significant.

To make the final estimates for this provision, the Department
considered the minimum necessary requirement in two parts. First,
providers, hospitals, and health plans will need to establish policies
and procedures which govern uses and disclosures of protected health
information. Next, these entities will need to adjust current practices
that do not comply with the rule, such as updating passwords and making
revisions to software.

To determine the policies and procedures for the minimum necessary
requirement, the Department assumed that each hospital would spend 160
hours, health plans would spend 107 hours, and non-hospital providers
would spend 8 hours. As noted above, the time estimates for this and
other provisions of the rule are considered an average number of
person-hours for the institutions involved. An underlying assumption is
that some hospitals, and to a lesser extent health plans, are part of
chains or larger entities that will be able to prepare the basic
materials at a corporate level for a number of covered entities.

Once the policies and procedures are established, the Department
estimates there will be costs resulting from implementing the new
policies and procedures to restrict internal uses of protected health
information to the minimum necessary. Initially, this will require 560
hours for hospitals, 160 hours for health plans, and 12 hours for
non-hospital providers.[^47] The wage for health care providers and
hospitals is estimated at \$47.28, a weighted average of various health
care professionals based on CPS data; the wage for health plans is
estimated to be \$33.82, based on average wages in the insurance
industry (note that all wage assumptions in this impact analysis assume
a 39 percent load for benefits, the standard Bureau of Labor Statistics
assumption). In addition, there will be time required on an annual basis
to ensure that the implemented practices continue to meet the
requirements of the rule. Therefore, the Department estimates that on an
annual ongoing basis (after the first year), hospitals will require 320
hours, health plans 100 hours, and non-hospital providers 8 hours to
comply with this provision.

The initial cost attributable to the minimum necessary provision is
\$926 million. The total cost of the provision is \$5.757 billion.
(These estimates are for the cost of complying with the minimum
necessary provisions that restrict internal uses to the minimum
necessary. The Department has estimated in the business associates
section below the requirement limiting disclosures outside the covered
entity to the minimum amount necessary.)

***Privacy Official***

The final rule requires entities to designate a privacy official who
will be responsible for the development and implementation of privacy
policies and procedures. In this cost analysis, the Department has
estimated each of the primary administrative requirements of the rule
(e.g., training, policy and procedure development, etc), including the
development and implementation costs associated with each specific
requirement. These activities will certainly involve the privacy
official to some degree; thus, some costs for the privacy official,
particularly in the initial years, are subsumed in other cost
requirements. Nonetheless, we anticipate that there will be additional
ongoing responsibilities that the privacy official will have to address,
such as coordinating between departments, evaluating procedures and
assuring compliance. To avoid double-counting, the cost calculated in
this section is only for the ongoing, operational functions of a privacy
official (e.g., clarifying procedures for staff) that are in addition to
items discussed in other sections of this impact analysis.

The Department assumes the privacy official role will be an additional
responsibility given to an existing employee in the covered entity, such
as an office manager in a small entity or a compliance official in a
larger institution. Moreover, today any covered entity that handles
individually identifiable health information has one or more people with
responsibility for handling and protecting the confidentiality of such
information. As a result of the specific requirement for a privacy
official, the Department assumes covered entities will centralize this
function, but the overall effort is not likely to increase
significantly. Specifically, the Department has assumed non-hospital
providers will need to devote, on average, an additional 30 minutes per
week of an official=s time (i.e., 26 hours per year) to compliance with
the final regulation for the first two years and 15 minutes per week for
the remaining eight years (i.e., 13 hours per year). For hospitals and
health plans, which are more likely to have a greater diversity of
activities involving privacy issues, we have assumed three hours per
week for the first two years (i.e., 156 hours per year), and 1.5 hours
per week for the remaining eight years (i.e., 78 hours per year).

For non-hospital providers, the time was calculated at a wage of \$34.13
per hour, which is the average wage for managers of medicine and health
according to the CPS. For hospitals, we used a wage of \$79.44, which is
the rate for senior planning officers.[^48] For health plans, the
Department assumed a wage of \$88.42 based on the wage for top claims
executives.[^49] Although individual hospitals and health plans may not
necessarily select their planning officers or claims executives to be
their privacy officials, we believe they will be of comparable
responsibility, and therefore comparable pay, in larger institutions.

The initial year cost for privacy officials will be \$723 million; the
ten-year cost will be \$5.9 billion.

***Internal Complaints***

The final rule requires each covered entity to have an internal process
to allow an individual to file a complaint concerning the covered
entity=s compliance with its privacy policies and procedures. The
requirement includes designating a contact person or office responsible
for receiving complaints and documenting the disposition of them, if
any. This function may be performed by the privacy official, but because
it is a distinct right under the final rule and may be performed by
someone else, we are costing it separately.

The covered entity only is required to receive and document a complaint
(no response is required), which we assume will take, on average, ten
minutes (the complaint can be oral or in writing). The Department
believes that such complaints will be uncommon. We have assumed that one
in every thousand patients will file a complaint, which is approximately
10.6 million complaints over ten years. Based on a weighted-average
hourly wage of \$47.28 at ten minutes per complaint, the cost of this
policy is \$6.6 million in the first year. Using wage growth and patient
growth assumptions, the cost of this policy is \$103 million over ten
years.

***Disclosure Tracking and History***

The final rule requires providers to be able to produce a record of all
disclosures of protected health information, except in certain
circumstances. The exceptions include disclosures for treatment,
payment, health care operations, or disclosures to an individual. This
requirement will require a notation in the record (electronic or paper)
of when, to whom, and what information was disclosed, as well as the
purpose of such disclosure or a copy of an individual=s written
authorization or request for a disclosure.

Based on information from several hospital sources, the Department
assumes that all hospitals already track disclosures of individually
identifiable health information and that 15 percent of all patient
records held by a hospital will have an annual disclosure that will have
to be recorded in an individual=s record. It was more difficult to
obtain a reliable estimate for non-hospital providers, though it appears
that they receive many fewer requests. The Department assumed a ten
percent rate for ambulatory care patients and five percent, for nursing
homes, home health, dental and pharmacy providers. (It was difficult to
obtain any reliable data for these latter groups, but those we talked to
said that they had very few, and some indicated that they currently keep
track of them in the records.) These estimated percentages represent
about 63 million disclosures that will have to be recorded in the first
year, with each recording estimated to require two minutes. At the
average nurse=s salary of \$30.39 per hour, the cost in the first year
is \$25.7 million. For health plans, the Department assumed that
disclosures of protected health information are more rare than for
health care providers. Therefore, the Department assumed that there will
be disclosures of protected health information for five percent of
covered lives. At the average wage for the insurance industry of \$33.82
per hour, the initial cost for health plans is \$6.8 million. Using our
standard growth rates for wages, patients, and covered entities, the
ten-year cost for providers and health plans is \$519 million.

In addition, although hospitals generally track patient disclosures
today, the Department assumes that hospitals will seek to update
software systems to assure full compliance. Based on software upgrade
costs provided by the Department=s private sector consultants with
expertise in the area (the Gartner Group), the Department assumed that
each upgrade would cost \$35,000 initially and \$6,300 annually
thereafter, for a total cost of \$572 million over ten years.

The final rule also requires covered entities to provide individuals
with an accounting of disclosures upon request. The Department assumes
that few patients will request a history of disclosures of their
protected medical information. Therefore, we estimate that one in a
thousand patients will request such an accounting each year, which is
approximately 850,000 requests. If it takes an average of five minutes
to copy any disclosures and the work is done by a nurse, the cost will
for the first year will be \$2.1 million. The total ten-year cost is
\$33.8 million.

***De-identification of Information***

The rule allows covered entities to determine that health information is
de-identified (i.e., that it is not individually identifiable health
information) if certain conditions are met. Currently, some entities
release de-identified information for research purposes. De-identified
information may originate from automated systems (such as records
maintained by pharmacy benefit managers) and non-automated systems (such
as individual medical records maintained by providers). As compared with
current practice, the rule requires that an expanded list of identifiers
be removed for the data (such as driver=s license numbers, and detailed
geographic and certain age information). For example, as noted in a
number of public comments, currently complete birth dates (day, month,
and year) and zip codes are often included in de-identified information.
The final rule requires that only the year of birth (except in certain
circumstances) and the first three digits of the zip code can be
included in de-identified information.

These changes will not require extensive change from current practice.
Providers generally remove most of the 19 identifiers listed in the
final rule. The Department relied on Gartner Group estimates that some
additional programmer time will be required by covered entities that
produce de-identified information to make revisions in their procedures
to eliminate additional identifiers. Entities that de-identify
information will have to review existing and future data flows to assure
compliance with the final rule. For example, an automated system may
need to be re-programmed to remove additional identifiers from otherwise
protected health information. (The costs of educating staff about the
de-identification requirements are included in the cost estimate for
training staff on privacy policies.)

The Department was not able to obtain any reliable information on the
volume of medical data that is currently de-identified. To provide some
measure of the potential magnitude, we assumed that health plans and
hospitals would have an average of two existing agreements that would
need to be reviewed and modified. Based on information provided by our
consultants, we estimate that these agreements would require an average
of 152 hours by hospitals and 116 hours by health plans to review and
revise existing agreements to conform to the final rule. Using the
weighted average wage of \$47.28, the initial costs will be \$124
million. Using our standard growth rates for wages, patients, and
covered entities, the total cost of the provision is \$1.1 billion over
ten years.

The Department expects that the final rule and the increasing trend
toward computerization of large record sets will result over time in
de-identification being performed by relatively few firms or
associations. Whether the covered entity is a small provider with
relatively few files or a hospital or health plan with large record
files, it will be more efficient to contract with specialists in these
firms or associations (as Abusiness associates@ of the covered entity)
to de-identify files. The process will be different but the ultimate
cost is likely to be the same or only slightly higher, if at all, than
the costs for de-identification today. The estimate is for the costs
required to conform existing and future agreements to the provisions of
the rule. The Department has not quantified the benefits that might
arise from changes in the market for de-identified information because
the centralization and efficiency that will come from it will not be
fully realized for several years, and we do not have a reliable means of
estimating such changes.

***Policy and Procedures Development***

The final regulation imposes a variety of requirements which
collectively will necessitate entities to develop policies and
procedures (henceforth in this section to be referred to as policies) to
establish and maintain compliance with the regulation. These include
policies such as those for inspection and copying, amending records, and
receiving complaints.[^50] In developing the final regulations,
simplifying the administrative burden was a significant consideration.
To the extent practical, consistent with maintaining adequate protection
of protected health information, the final rule is designed to encourage
the development of policies by professional associations and others,
that will reduce costs and facilitate greater consistency across
providers and other covered entities.

The development of policies will occur at two levels: first, at the
association or other large scale levels; and second, at the entity
level. Because of the generic nature of many of the final rule=s
provisions, the Department anticipates that trade, professional
associations, and other groups serving large numbers of members or
clients will develop materials that can be used broadly. These will
likely include the model privacy practice notice that all covered
entities will have to provide patients; general descriptions of the
regulation=s requirements appropriate for various types of health care
providers; checklists of steps entities will have to take to comply;
training materials; and recommended procedures or guidelines. The
Department spoke with a number of professional associations, and they
confirmed that they would expect to provide such materials for their
members at either the federal or state level.

Using Faulkner and Gray=s *Health Data Directory 2000*, we identified
216 associations that would be likely to provide guidance to members. In
addition, we assume three organizations (i.e., one for hospitals, health
plans, and other health care providers) in each state would also provide
some additional services to help covered entities coordinate the
requirements of this rule with state laws and requirements. The
Department assumed that these associations would each provide 320 hours
of legal analysis at \$150 per hour, and 640 hours of senior analysts
time at \$50 per hour. This equals \$17.3 million. Hourly rates for
legal council are the average billing rate for a staff attorney.[^51]
The senior analysts rates are based on a salary of \$75,000 per year,
plus benefits, which was provided by a major professional association.

For larger health care entities such as hospitals and health plans, the
Department assumed that the complexity of their operations would require
them to seek more customized assistance from outside council or
consultants. Therefore, the Department assumes that each hospital and
health plan (including self-administered, self-insured health plans)
will, on average, require 40 hours of outside assistance. The resulting
cost for external policy development is estimated to be \$112 million.

All covered entities are expected to require some time for internal
policy development beyond what is provided by associations or outside
consultants. For most non-hospital providers, the external assistance
will provide most of the necessary information. Therefore, we expect
these health care providers will need only eight hours to adapt these
policies for their specific use (training cost is estimated separately
in the impact analysis). Hospitals and health plans, which employ more
individuals and are involved in a wider array of endeavors, are likely
to require more specific policies tailored to their operations to comply
with the final rule. For these entities, we assume an average of 320
hours of policy development per institution. The total cost for internal
policy development is estimated to be \$468 million.

The total cost for policy, plan, and procedures development for the
final regulation is estimated to be \$598 million. All of these costs
are initial costs.

***Training***

The final regulation=s requirements provide covered entities with
considerable flexibility in how to best fulfill the necessary training
of their workforce. As a result, the actual practices may vary
substantially based on such factors as the number of members of the
workforce, the types of operations, worker turnover, and experience of
the workforce. Training is estimated to cost \$737 million over ten
years. The Department estimates that at the time of the effective date,
approximately 6.7 million health care workers will have to be trained,
and in the subsequent ten years, 7 million more will have to be trained
because of worker turnover. The estimate of employee numbers are based
on 2000 CPS data regarding the number of health care workers who
indicated they worked for a health care institution. To estimate a
workforce turnover rate, the Department relied on a study submitted in
the public comments which used a turnover rate of ten percent or less,
depending on the labor category. To be conservative, the Department
assumed ten percent for all categories.

Covered entities will need to provide members of the workforce with
varying amounts of training depending on their responsibilities, but on
average, the Department estimates that each member of the workforce who
is likely to have access to protected health information will require
one hour of training in the policies and procedures of the covered
entity. The initial training cost estimate is based on teacher training
with an average class size of ten. After the initial training, the
Department expects some training (for example, new employees in larger
institutions) will be done by videotape, video conference, or computer,
all of which are likely to be less expensive. Training materials were
assumed to cost an average of \$2 per worker. The opportunity cost for
the training time is based on the average wage for each health care
labor category listed in the CPS, plus a 39 percent load for benefits.
Wages were increased based on the wage inflation factor utilized for the
short-term assumptions (which covers ten years) in the Medicare
Trustees= Annual Report for 1999.

***Notice***

This section describes only the cost associated with the production and
provision of a notice. The cost of developing the policy stated in the
notice is covered under policies and procedures, above.

Covered health care providers with direct treatment relationships are
required to provide a notice of privacy practices no later than the date
of the first service delivery to individuals after the compliance date
for the covered health care provider. The Department assumed that for
most types of health care providers (such as physicians, dentists, and
pharmacists) one notice would be distributed to each patient during his
or her first visit following the compliance date for the covered
provider, but not for subsequent visits. For hospitals, however, the
Department assumed that a notice would be provided at each admission,
regardless of how many visits an individual has in a given year. In
subsequent years, the Department assumed that non-hospital providers
would only provide notices to their new patients, because it is assumed
that providers can distinguish between new and old patients, although
hospitals will continue to provide a notice for each admission. The
total number of notices provided in the initial year is estimated to be
816 million.

Under the final rule, only providers that have direct treatment
relationships with individuals are required to provide notices to them.
To estimate the number of visits that trigger a notice in the initial
year and in subsequent years, the Department relied on the Medical
Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS, 1996 data) conducted by the Department=s
Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research. This data set provides
estimates for the number of total visits to a variety of health care
providers in a given year and estimates of the number of patients with
at least one visit to each type of each care provider. To estimate the
number of new patients in a given year, the Department used the National
Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and the National Hospital Ambulatory
Medical Care Survey, which indicate that for ambulatory care visits to
physician offices and hospital ambulatory care departments, 13 percent
of all patients are new. This data was used as a proxy for other types
of providers, such as dentists and nursing homes, because the Department
did not have estimates for new patients for other types of providers.
The number of new patients was increased over time to account for growth
in the patient population. Therefore, the number of notices provided in
years 2004 through 2012 is estimated to be 5.3 billion.

For health plans, the Department estimated the number of notices by
trending forward the average annual rate of growth from 1995 through
1998 (the most recent data available) of private policy holders using
the Census Bureau=s Current Population Survey, and also by using Health
Care Financing Administration Office of the Actuary=s estimates for
growth in Medicare and Medicaid enrollment. It should be noted that the
regulation does not require that the notice be mailed to individuals.
Therefore, the Department assumed that health plans would include their
privacy policy in the annual mailings they make to members, such as by
adding a page to an existing information booklet.

Since clinical laboratories generally do not have direct contact with
patients, they would not normally be required to provide notices.
However, there are some laboratory services that involve direct patient
contact, such as patients who have tests performed in a laboratory or at
a health fair. We found no data from which we could estimate the number
of such visits. Therefore, we have assumed that labs would incur no
costs as a result of this requirement.

The printing cost of the policy is estimated to be \$0.05, based on data
obtained from the Social Security Administration, which does a
significant number of printings for distribution. Some large bulk users,
such as health plans, can probably reproduce the document for less, and
small providers simply may copy the notice, which would also be less
than \$0.05. Nonetheless, at \$0.05, the total cost of the initial
notice is \$50.8 million.

Using our standard growth rate for patients, the total cost for notices
is estimated to be \$391 million for the ten-year period.

***Requirements on Use and Disclosure for Research***

The final regulation places certain requirements on covered entities
that supply individually identifiable health information to researchers.
As a result of these requirements, researchers who seek such health
information and the Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) that review
research projects will have additional responsibilities. Moreover, a
covered entity doing research, or another entity requesting disclosure
of protected health information for research that is not currently
subject to IRB review (research that is 100 percent privately funded and
which takes place in institutions which do not have Amultiple project
assurances@) may need to seek IRB or privacy board approval if they want
to avoid the requirement to obtain authorization for use or disclosure
of protected health information for research, thereby creating the need
for additional IRBs and privacy boards that do not currently exist.

To estimate the additional requirements placed on existing IRBs, the
Department relied on a survey of IRBs conducted by James Bell Associates
on behalf of NIH and on estimates of the total number of existing IRBs
provided by NIH staff. Based on this information, the Department
concluded that of the estimated 4,000 IRBs in existence, the median
number of initial current research project reviews is 133 per IRB, of
which only ten percent do not receive direct consent for the use of
protected health information. (Obtaining consent nullifies the need for
IRB privacy scrutiny.) Therefore, in the first year of implementation,
there will be 76,609 initial reviews affected by the regulation, and the
Department assumes that the requirement to consider the privacy
protections in the research protocols under review will add an average
of 1 hour to each review. The cost to researchers for having to develop
protocols which protect protected health information is difficult to
estimate, but the Department assumes that each of the affected 76,609
studies will require an average of an additional 8 hours of time for
protocol development and implementation. At the average medical
scientist hourly wage of \$46.61, the initial cost is \$32.1 million;
the total ten-year cost of these requirements is \$468 million over ten
years.

As stated above, some privately funded research not subject to any IRB
review currently may need to obtain IRB or privacy board approval under
the final rule. Estimating how much research exists which does not
currently go through any IRB review is highly speculative, because the
experts consulted by the Department all agree that there is no data on
the volume of privately funded research. Likewise, public comments on
this subject provided no useful data. However, the Department assumed
that most research that takes place today is subject to IRB review,
given that so much research has some government funding and many large
research institutions have multiple project assurances. As a result, the
Department assumed that the total volume of non-IRB reviewed research is
equal to 25 percent of all IRB-reviewed research, leading to 19,152 new
IRB or privacy board reviews in the first year of the regulation. Using
the same assumptions as used above for wages, time spent developing
privacy protection protocols for researchers, and time spent by IRB and
privacy board members, the total one-year cost for new IRB and privacy
board reviews is \$8 million.

For estimating total ten-year costs, the Department used the Bell study,
which showed an average annual growth rate of 3.7 percent in the number
of studies reviewed by IRBs. Using this growth rate, the total ten-year
cost for the new research requirements is \$117 million.

***Consent***

Under the final rule, a covered health care provider with direct
treatment relationships must obtain an individual=s consent for use or
disclosure of protected health information for treatment, payment, or
health care operations. Covered providers with indirect treatment
relationships and health plans may obtain such consent if they so
choose. Providers and health plans that seek consent under this rule can
condition treatment or enrollment upon provision of such consent. Based
on public comments and discussions with a wide array of health care
providers, it is apparent that most currently obtain written consent for
use and disclosure of individually identifiable health information for
payment. Under the final rule, they will have to obtain consent for
treatment and health care operations, as well, but this may entail only
minor changes in the language of the consent to incorporate these other
categories and to conform to the rule.

Although the Department was unable to obtain any systematic data, the
anecdotal evidence suggests that most non-hospital providers and
virtually all hospitals follow this practice. For the cost analysis, the
Department assumes that 90 percent of the non-hospital providers and all
hospitals currently obtain some consent for use and disclosure of
individually identifiable health information. For providers that
currently obtain written consent, there is only a nominal cost for
changing the language on the document to conform to the rule. For this
activity, we assumed \$0.05 cost per document for revising existing
consent documents.

For the ten percent of treating providers who currently do not obtain
consent, there is the cost of creating consent documents (which will be
standardized), which is also assumed to be \$0.05 per document. It is
assumed that all providers required to obtain consent under the rule
will do so upon the first visit, so there will be no mailing cost. For
non-hospital providers, we assume the consent will be maintained in
paper form, which is what most providers currently do (electronic form,
if available, is cheaper to maintain). There is no new cost for records
maintenance because the consent will be kept in active files (paper or
electronic).

The initial cost of the consent requirement is estimated to be \$166
million. Using our standard assumptions for patient growth, the total
costs for the ten years is estimated to be \$227 million.

***Authorizations***

Patient authorizations are required for uses or disclosures of protected
health information that are not otherwise explicitly permitted under the
final rule with or without consent. In addition to uses and disclosures
of protected health information for treatment, payment, and health care
operations with or without consent, the rule also permits certain uses
of protected health information, such as fund-raising for the covered
entity and certain types of marketing activity, without prior consent or
authorization. Authorizations are generally required if a covered entity
wants to provide protected health information to third party for use by
the third party for marketing or for research that is not approved by an
IRB or privacy board.

The requirement for obtaining authorizations for use or disclosure of
protected health information for most marketing activity will make
direct third-party marketing more difficult because covered entities may
not want to obtain and track such authorizations, or they may obtain too
few to make the effort economically worthwhile. However, the final rule
permits an alternative arrangement: the covered entity can engage in
health-related marketing on behalf of a third party, presumably for a
fee. Moreover, the covered entity could retain another party, through a
business associate relationship, to conduct the actual health-related
marketing, such as mailings or telemarketing, under the covered entity=s
name. The Department is unable to estimate the cost of these changes
because there is no credible data on the extent of current third party
marketing practices or the price that third party marketers currently
pay for information from covered entities. The effect of the final rule
is to change the arrangement of practices to enhance accountability of
protected health information by the covered entity and its business
associates; however, there is nothing inherently costly in these
changes.

Examples of other circumstances in which authorizations are required
under the final rule include disclosure of protected health information
to an employer for an employment physical, pre-enrollment underwriting
for insurance, or the sharing of protected health insurance information
by an insurer with an employer. The Department assumes there is no new
cost associated with these requirements because providers have said that
obtaining authorization under such circumstances is current practice.

To use or disclose psychotherapy notes for most purposes (including for
treatment, payment, or health care operations), a covered entity must
obtain specific authorization by the individual that is distinct from
any authorization for use and disclosure of other protected health
information. This is current practice, so there is no new cost
associated with this provision.

***Confidential Communications***

The final rule permits individuals to receive communications of
protected health information from a covered health care provider or a
health plan by an alternative means or at an alternative address. A
covered provider and a health plan must accommodate reasonable requests;
however, a health plan may require the individual to state that
disclosure of such information may endanger the individual. A number of
providers and health plans indicated that they currently provide this
service for patients who request it. For providers and health plans with
electronic records system, maintaining separate addresses for certain
information is simple and inexpensive, requiring little or no change in
the system. For providers with paper records, the cost may be higher
because they will have to manually check records to determine which
information must be treated in accordance with such requests. Although
some providers currently provide this service, the Department was unable
to obtain any reliable estimate of the number of such requests today or
the number of providers who perform this service. The cost attributable
to this requirement to send materials to alternate addresses does not
appear to be significant.

***Employers With Insured Group Health Plans***

Some group health plans will use or maintain protected health
information, particularly group health plans that are self-insured.
Also, some plan sponsors that perform administrative functions on behalf
of their group health plans, may need protected health information. The
final rule permits a group health plan, or a health insurance issuer or
HMO that provides benefits on behalf of the group health plan, to
disclose protected health information to a plan sponsor who performs
administrative functions on its behalf for certain purposes and if
certain requirements are met. The plan documents must be amended to:
describe the permitted uses and disclosures of protected health
information by the plan sponsor; specify that disclosure is permitted
only upon receipt of a certification by the plan sponsor that the plan
documents have been amended and the plan sponsor agrees to certain
restrictions on the use of protected health information; and provide for
adequate firewalls to assure unauthorized personnel do not have access
to individually identifiable health information.

Some plan sponsors may need information, not to administer the group
health plan, but to amend, modify, or terminate the plan. ERISA case law
describes such activities as settlor functions. For example, a plan
sponsor may want to change its contract from a preferred provider
organization to a health maintenance organization (HMO). In order to
obtain premium information, the plan sponsor may need to provide the HMO
with aggregate claims information. Under the rule, the plan sponsor can
obtain summary information with certain identifiers removed, in order to
provide it to the HMO and receive a premium rate.

The Department assumes that most plan sponsors who are small employers
(those with 50 or fewer employees) will elect not to receive protected
health information because they will have little, if any, need for such
data. Any needs that plan sponsors of small group health plans may have
for information can be accomplished by receiving the information in
summary form. The Department has assumed that only 5 percent of plan
sponsors of small group health plans that provide coverage through a
contract with an issuer will actually take the steps necessary to
receive protected health information. This is approximately 96,900
firms. For these firms, the Department assumes it will take one hour to
determine procedural and organization issues and an additional 1/3 hour
of an attorney=s time to make plan document changes, which will be
simple and essentially standardized. This will cost \$7.1 million.

Plan sponsors who are employers of medium (51-199 employees) and large
(over 200 employees) firms that provide health benefits through
contracts with issuers are more likely to want access to protected
health information for plan administration, for example to use it to
audit claims or perform quality assurance functions on behalf of the
group health plan. The Department assumes that 25 percent of plan
sponsors of medium sized firms and 75 percent of larger firms will want
to receive protected health information. This is approximately 38,000
medium size firms and 27,000 larger firms. To provided access to
protected health information by the group health plan, a plan sponsor
will have to assess the current flow of protected health information
from their issuer and determine what information is necessary and
appropriate. The plan sponsors may then have to make internal
organizational changes to assure adequate protection of protected health
information so that the relevant requirements are met for the group
health plan. We assume that medium size firms will take 16 work hours to
complete organizational changes, plus one hour of legal time to make
changes to plan documents and certify to the insurance carrier that the
firm is eligible to receive protected health information. We assume that
larger firms will require 32 hours of internal organizational work and
one hour of legal time. This will cost \$52.4 million and is a one-time
expense.

***Business Associates***

The final rule requires a covered entity to have a written contract or
other arrangement that documents satisfactory assurance that business
associate will appropriately safeguard protected health information in
order to disclose it to a business associate based on such an
arrangement. The Department expects business associate contracts to be
fairly standardized, except for language that will have to be tailored
to the specific arrangement between the parties, such as the allowable
uses and disclosures of information. The Department assumes the standard
language initially will be developed by trade and professional
associations for their members. Small providers are likely to simply
adopt the language or make minor modifications, while health plans and
hospitals may start with the prototype language but may make more
specific changes to meet their institutional needs. The regulation
includes a requirement that the covered entity take steps to correct,
and in some cases terminate, a contract, if necessary, if they know of
violations by a business associate. This oversight requirement is
consistent with standard oversight of a contract.

The Department could not derive a per entity cost for this work
directly. In lieu of this, we have assumed that the trade and
professional associations= work plus any minor tailoring of it by a
covered entity would amount to one hour per non-hospital provider and
two hours for hospitals and health plans. The larger figure for
hospitals and health plans reflects the fact that they are likely to
have a more extensive array of relationships with business associates.

The cost for the changes in business associate contracts is estimated to
be \$103 million. This will be an initial year cost only because the
Department assumes that this contract language will become standard in
future contracts.

In addition, the Department has estimated the cost for business
associates to comply with the minimum necessary provisions. As part of
the minimum necessary provisions, covered entities will have to
establish policies to ensure that only the minimum necessary protected
health information is shared with business associates. To the extent
that data are exchanged, covered entities will have to review the data
and systems programs to assure compliance.

For non-hospital providers, we estimate that the first year will require
an average of three hours to review existing agreements, and thereafter,
they will require an additional hour to assure business associate
compliance. We estimate that hospitals will require an additional 200
hours the first year and 16 hours in subsequent years; health plans will
require an additional 112 hours the first year and 8 hours in subsequent
years. As in other areas, we have assumed a weighted average wage for
the respective sectors.

The cost of the covered entities assuring business associates= complying
with the minimum necessary is \$197 million in the first year, and a
total of \$697 million over ten years. (These estimates include the both
the cost for the covered entity and the business associates.)

***Inspection and Copying***

In the NPRM estimate, inspection and copying were a major cost. Based on
data and information from the public comments and further fact-finding,
however, the Department has re-estimated these policies and found them
to be much less expensive.

The public comments demonstrate that copying of records is wide-spread
today. Records are routinely copied, in whole or in part, as part of
treatment or when patients change providers. In addition, copying occurs
as part of legal proceedings. The amount of inspection and copying of
medical records that occurs for these purposes is not expected to change
measurably as a result of the final regulation.

The final regulation establishes the right of individuals to access,
that is to inspect and obtain a copy of, protected health information
about them in designated record sets. Although this is an important
right, the Department does not expect it to result in dramatic increases
in requests from individuals. The Georgetown report on state privacy
laws indicates that 33 states currently give patients some right to
access medical information. The most common right of access granted by
state law is the right to inspect personal information held by
physicians and hospitals. In the process of developing estimates for the
cost of providing access, we assumed that most providers currently have
procedures for allowing patients to inspect and obtain a copy of
individually identifiable health information about themselves. The
economic impact of requiring entities to allow individuals to access
their records should be relatively small. One public commenter addressed
this issue and provided specific data which supports this conclusion.

Few studies address the cost of providing medical records to patients.
The most recent was a study in 1998 by the Tennessee Comptroller of the
Treasury. It found an average cost of \$9.96 per request, with an
average of 31 pages per request. The cost per page of providing copies
was \$0.32 per page. This study was performed on hospitals only. The
cost per request may be lower for other types of providers, since those
seeking hospital records are more likely to have more complicated
records than those in a primary care or other types of offices. An
earlier report showed much higher costs than the Tennessee study. In
1992, Rose Dunn published a report based on her experience as a manager
of medical records. She estimated a 10-page request would cost \$5.32 in
labor costs only, equaling labor cost per page of \$0.53. However, this
estimate appears to reflect costs before computerization. The expected
time spent per search was 30.6 minutes; 85 percent of this time could be
significantly reduced with computerization (this includes time taken for
file retrieval, photocopying, and re-filing; file retrieval is the only
time cost that would remain under computerization).

In estimating the cost of copying records, the Department relied on the
public comment from a medical records outsourcing industry
representative, which submitted specific volume and cost data from a
major firm that provides extensive medical record copying services.
According to these data, 900 million pages of medical records are copied
each year in the U.S., the average medical record is 31 pages, and
copying costs are \$0.50 per page. In addition, the commenter noted that
only 10 percent of all requests are made directly from patients, and of
those, the majority are for purposes of continuing care (transfer to
another provider), not for purposes of individual inspection. The
Department assumed that 25 percent of direct patient requests to copy
medical records are for purposes of inspecting their accuracy (i.e., 2.5
percent of all copy requests) or 850,000 in 2003 if the current practice
remained unchanged.

To estimate the marginal increase in copying that might result from the
regulation, the Department assumed that as patients gained more
awareness of their right to inspect and copy their records, more
requests will occur. As a result, the Department assumed a ten percent
increase in the number of requests to inspect and copy medical records
over the current baseline, which would amount to a little over 85,000
additional requests in 2003 at a cost of \$1.3 million. Allowing for a
5.3 percent increase in records based on the increase in ambulatory care
visits, the highest growth rate among health service sectors (the
National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, 1998), the total cost for the
ten-year period would be \$16.8 million.

The final rule allows a provider to deny an individual the right to
inspect or obtain a copy of protected health information in a designated
record set under certain circumstances, and it provides, in certain
circumstances, that the patient can request the denial to be reviewed by
another licensed health care professional. The initial provider can
choose a licensed health care professional to render the second review.

The Department assumes denials and subsequent requests for reviews will
be extremely rare. The Department estimates there are about 932,000
annual requests for inspections (i.e., base plus new requests resulting
from the regulation), or approximately 11 million over the ten-year
period. If one-tenth of one percent of these requests were to result in
a denial in accordance with the rule, the result would be 11,890 cases.
Not all these cases would be appealed. If 25 percent were appealed, the
result would be 2,972 cases. If a second provider were to spend 15
minutes reviewing the case, the cost would be \$6,000 in the first year
and \$86,360 over ten years.

***Amendments to Protected Health Information***

Many providers and health plans currently allow patients to amend the
information in their medical record, where appropriate. If an error
exists, both the patient and the provider or health plan benefit from
the correction. However, as with inspection and copying, many states do
not provide individuals with the right to request amendment to protected
health information about themselves. Based on these assumptions, the
Department concludes that the principal economic effect of the final
rule would be to expand the right to request amendments to protected
health information held by a health plan or provider to those who are
not currently covered by amendment requirements under state laws or
codes of conduct. In addition, the rule may draw additional attention to
the issue of inaccuracies in information and may stimulate patient
demand for amendment of medical records, including in those states that
currently provide a right to amend medical records.

Under the final regulation, if a patient requests an amendment to his or
her medical record, the provider must either accept the amendment or
provide the individual with the opportunity to submit a statement
disagreeing with the denial. The provider must acknowledge the request
and inform the patient of his action.

The cost calculations assume that individuals who request an opportunity
to amend their medical record have already obtained a copy of it.
Therefore, the administrative cost of amending the patient=s record is
completely separate from inspection and copying costs.

Based on fact-finding discussions with a variety of providers, the
Department assumes that 25 percent of the projected 850,000 people who
request to inspect their records will seek to amend them. This number is
the existing demand plus the additional requests resulting from the
rule. Over ten years, the number of expected amendment requests will be
2.7 million. Unlike inspections, which currently occur in a small
percentage of cases, our fact-finding suggests that patients very rarely
seek to amend their records, but that the establishment of this right in
the rule will spur more requests. The 25 percent appears to be high
based on our discussions with providers but it is being used to avoid an
underestimation of the cost.

As noted, the provider or health plan is not required to evaluate any
amendment requests, only to append or otherwise link to the request in
the record. We expect the responses will vary: sometimes an assistant
will only make the appropriate notation in the record, requiring only a
few minutes; other times a provider or manager will review the request
and make changes if appropriate, which may require as much as an hour.
To be conservative in its estimate, the Department has assumed, on
average, 30 minutes for each amendment request at a cost of \$47.28 per
hour (2000 CPS).

The first-year cost for the amendment policy is estimated to be \$5
million. The ten-year cost of this provision is \$78.8 million.

***Law Enforcement and Judicial and Administrative Proceedings***

The law enforcement provisions of the final rule allow disclosure of
protected health information without patient authorization under four
circumstances: (1) pursuant to legal process or as otherwise required by
law; (2) to locate or identify a suspect, fugitive, material witness, or
missing person; (3) under specified conditions regarding a victim of
crime; and (4) and when a covered entity believes the protected health
information constitutes evidence of a crime committed on its premises.
As under current law and practice, a covered entity may disclose
protected health information to a law enforcement official if such
official.

Based on our fact finding, we are not able to estimate any additional
costs from the final rule regarding disclosures to law enforcement
officials. The final rule makes clear that current court orders and
grand jury subpoenas will continue to provide a basis for covered
entities to disclose protected health information to law enforcement
officials. The three-part test, which covered entities must use to
decide whether to disclose information in response to an administrative
request such as an administrative subpoena, represents a change from
current practice. There will be only minimal costs to draft the standard
language for such subpoenas. We are unable to estimate other costs
attributable to the use of administrative subpoenas. We have not been
able to discover any specific information about the costs to law
enforcement of establishing the predicates for issuing the
administrative subpoena, nor have we been able to estimate the number of
such subpoenas that will likely be issued once the final rule is
implemented.

A covered entity may disclose protected health information in response
to an order in the course of a judicial or administrative proceeding if
reasonable efforts have been made to give the individual, who is the
subject of the protected health information, notice of and an
opportunity to object to the disclosure or to secure a qualified
protective order.

The Department was unable to estimate any additional costs due to
compliance with the final rule=s provisions regarding judicial and
administrative proceedings. The provision requiring a covered entity to
make efforts to notify an individual that his or her records will be
used in proceedings is similar to current practice; attorneys for
plaintiffs and defendants agreed that medical records are ordinarily
produced after the relevant party has been notified. With regard to
protective orders, we believe that standard language for such orders can
be created at minimal cost. The cost of complying with such protective
orders will also likely be minimal, because attorney\'s client files are
ordinarily already treated under safeguards comparable to those
contemplated under the qualified protective orders. The Department was
unable to make an estimate of how many such protective orders might be
created annually.

We thus do not make any estimate of the initial or ongoing costs for
judicial, administrative, or law enforcement proceedings.

***Costs to the Federal Government***

The rule will have a cost impact on various federal agencies that
administer programs that require the use of individual health
information. The federal costs of complying with the regulation and the
costs when federal government entities are serving as providers are
included in the regulation=s total cost estimate outlined in the impact
analysis. Federal agencies or programs clearly affected by the rule are
those that meet the definition of a covered entity. However, non-covered
agencies or programs that handle medical information, either under
permissible exceptions to the disclosure rules or through an
individual=s expressed authorization, will likely incur some costs
complying with provisions of this rule. A sample of federal agencies
encompassed by the broad scope of this rule include the: Department of
Health and Human Services, Department of Defense, Department of Veterans
Affairs, Department of State, and the Social Security Administration.

The greatest cost and administrative burden on the federal government
will fall to agencies and programs that act as covered entities, by
virtue of being either a health plan or provider. Examples include the
Medicare, Medicaid, Children=s Health Insurance and Indian Health
Service programs at the Department of Health and Human Services; the
CHAMPVA health program at the Department of Veterans Affairs; and the
TRICARE health program at the Department of Defense. These and other
health insurance or provider programs operated by the federal government
are subject to requirements placed on covered entities under this rule,
including, but not limited to, those outlined in Section D of the impact
analysis. While many of these federal programs already afford privacy
protections for individual health information through the Privacy Act
and standards set by the Departments and implemented through their
contracts with providers, this rule is nonetheless expected to create
additional requirements. Further, we anticipate that most federal health
programs will, to some extent, need to modify their existing practices
to comply fully with this rule. The cost to federal programs that
function as health plans will be generally the same as those for the
private sector.

A unique cost to the federal government will be in the area of
enforcement. The Office for Civil Rights (OCR), located at the
Department of Health and Human Services, has the primary responsibility
to monitor and audit covered entities. OCR will monitor and audit
covered entities in both the private and government sectors, will ensure
compliance with requirements of this rule, and will investigate
complaints from individuals alleging violations of their privacy rights.
In addition, OCR will be required to recommend penalties and other
remedies as part of their enforcement activities. These responsibilities
represent an expanded role for OCR. Beyond OCR, the enforcement
provisions of this rule may have additional costs to the federal
government through increased litigation, appeals, and inspector general
oversight.

Examples of other unique costs to the federal government may include
such activities as public health surveillance at the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, health research projects at the Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality, clinical trials at the National
Institutes of Health, and law enforcement investigations and
prosecutions by the Federal Bureau of Investigations. For these and
other activities, federal agencies will incur some costs to ensure that
protected health information is handled and tracked in ways that comply
with the requirements of this title.

We estimate that federal costs under this rule will be approximately
\$196 million in 2003 and \$1.8 billion over ten years. The ten-year
federal cost estimate represents about 10.2 percent of the privacy
regulation=s total cost. This estimate was derived in two steps.

First, we assumed that the proportion of the privacy regulation=s total
cost accruing to the federal government in a given year will be
equivalent to the proportion of projected federal costs as a percentage
of national health expenditures for that year. To estimate these
proportions, we used the Health Care Financing Administration=s November
1998 National Health Expenditure projections (the most recent data
available) of federal health expenditures as a percent of national
health expenditures from 2003 through 2008, trended forward to 2012. We
then adjusted these proportions to exclude Medicare and Medicaid
spending, reflecting the fact that the vast majority of participating
Medicare and Medicaid providers will not be able to pass through the
costs of complying with this rule to the federal government because they
are not reimbursed under cost-based payment systems. This calculation
yields a partial federal cost of \$166 million in 2003 and \$770 million
over ten years.

Second, we add the Medicare and federal Medicaid costs resulting from
the privacy regulation that HCFA=s Office of the Actuary project can be
passed through to the federal government. These costs reflect the
actuaries= assumption regarding how much of the total privacy regulation
cost burden will fall on participating Medicare and Medicaid providers,
based on the November 1998 National Health Expenditure data. Then the
actuaries estimate what percentage of the total Medicare and federal
Medicaid burden could be billed to the programs, assuming that 1) only 3
percent of Medicare providers and 5 percent of Medicaid providers are
still reimbursed under cost-based payment systems, and 2) over time,
some Medicaid costs will be incorporated into the state=s Medicaid
expenditure projections that are used to develop the federal cost share
of Medicaid spending. The results of this actuarial analysis add another
\$30 million in 2003 and \$1.0 billion over ten years to the federal
cost estimate. Together, these three steps constitute the total federal
cost estimate of \$236 million in 2003 and \$2.2 billion over ten years.

***Costs to State and Local Governments***

The rule will also have a cost effect on various state and local
agencies that administer programs requiring the use of individually
identifiable health information. State and local agencies or programs
clearly affected by the rule are those that meet the definition of a
covered entity. The costs when government entities are serving as
providers are included in the total cost estimates. However, non-covered
agencies or programs that handle individually identifiable health
information, either under permissible exceptions to the disclosure rules
or through an individual=s expressed authorization, will likely incur
some costs complying with provisions of this rule. Samples of state and
local agencies or programs encompassed by the broad scope of this rule
include: Medicaid, State Children=s Health Insurance Programs, county
hospitals, state mental health facilities, state or local nursing
facilities, local health clinics, and public health surveillance
activities, among others. We have included state and local costs in the
estimation of total costs in this section.

The greatest cost and administrative burden on the state and local
government will fall to agencies and programs that act as covered
entities, by virtue of being either a health plan or provider, such as
Medicaid, State Children=s Health Insurance Programs, and county
hospitals. These and other health insurance or provider programs
operated by state and local government are subject to requirements
placed on covered entities under this rule, including, but not limited
to, those outlined in this section (Section E) of the impact analysis.
Many of these state and local programs already afford privacy
protections for individually identifiable health information through the
Privacy Act. For example, state governments often become subject to
Privacy Act requirements when they contract with the federal government.
This rule is expected to create additional requirements beyond those
covered by the Privacy Act. Furthermore, we anticipate that most state
and local health programs will, to some extent, need to modify their
existing Privacy Act practices to fully comply with this rule. The cost
to state and local programs that function as health plans will be
different than the private sector, much as the federal costs vary from
private health plans.

A preliminary analysis suggests that state and local government costs
will be on the order of \$460 million in 2003 and \$2.4 billion over ten
years. We assume that the proportion of the privacy regulation=s total
cost accruing to state and local governments in a given year will be
equivalent to the proportion of projected state and local costs as a
percentage of national health expenditures for that year. To estimate
these proportions, we used the Health Care Financing Administration=s
November 1998 National Health Expenditure projections of state and local
health expenditures as a percent of national health expenditures from
2003 through 2008, trended forward to 2012. Based on this approach, we
assume that over the entire 2003 to 2012 period, 13.6 percent, or \$2.4
billion, of the privacy regulation=s total cost will accrue to state and
local governments. Of the \$2.4 billion state and local government cost,
19 percent will be incurred in the regulation=s first year (2003). In
each of the out-years (2004-2012), the average percent of the total cost
incurred will be about nine percent per year. These state and local
government costs are included in the total cost estimates discussed in
the regulatory impact analysis.

**F. Benefits**

There are important societal benefits associated with improving health
information privacy. Confidentiality is a key component of trust between
patients and providers, and some studies indicate that a lack of privacy
may deter patients from obtaining preventive care and treatment[^52].
For these reasons, traditional approaches to estimating the value of a
commodity cannot fully capture the value of personal privacy. It may be
difficult for individuals to assign value to privacy protection because
most individuals view personal privacy as a right. Therefore, the
benefits of the proposed regulation are impossible to estimate based on
the market value of health information alone. However, it is possible to
evaluate some of the benefits that may accrue to individuals as a result
of proposed regulation, and these benefits, alone, suggest that the
regulation is warranted. Added to these benefits is the intangible value
of privacy, the security that individuals feel when personal information
is kept confidential. This benefit is very real and very significant but
there are no reliable means of measuring dollar value of such benefit.

As noted in the comment and response section, a number of commenters
raised legitimate criticisms of the Department=s approach to estimating
benefits. The Department considered other approaches, including attempts
to measure benefits in the aggregate rather than the specific examples
set forth in the NPRM. However, we were unable to identify data or
models that would provide credible measures. Privacy has not been
studied empirically from an economic perspective, and therefore, we
concluded that the approach taken in the NPRM is still the most useful
means of illustrating that the benefits of the regulation are
significant in relation to the economic costs.

Before beginning the discussion of the benefits, it is important to
create a framework for how the costs and benefits may be viewed in terms
of individuals rather than societal aggregates. We have estimated the
value an insured individual would need to place on increased privacy to
make the privacy regulation a net benefit to those who receive health
insurance. Our estimates are derived from data produced by the 1998
Current Population Survey from the Census Bureau (the most recent
available at the time of the analysis), which show that 220 million
persons are covered by either private or public health insurance.
Joining the Census Bureau data with the costs calculated in Section E,
we have estimated the cost of the regulation to be approximately \$6.25
per year (or approximately \$0.52 per month) for each insured individual
(including people in government programs). If we assume that individuals
who use the health care system will be willing to pay more than this per
year to improve health information privacy, the benefits of the proposed
regulation will outweigh the cost.

This is a conservative estimate of the number of people who will benefit
from the regulation because it assumes that only those individuals who
have health insurance or are in government programs will use medical
services or benefit from the provisions of the proposed regulation.
Currently, there are 42 million Americans who do not have any form of
health care coverage. The estimates do not include those who pay for
medical care directly, without any insurance or government support. By
lowering the number of users in the system, we have inflated our
estimate of the per-person cost of the regulation; therefore, we assume
that our estimate represents the highest possible cost for an
individual.

An alternative approach to determining how people would have to value
increased privacy for this regulation to be beneficial is to look at the
costs divided by the number of encounters with health care professionals
annually. Data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) produced
by the Agency for Healthcare Policy Research (AHCPR) show approximately
776.3 million health care visits (e.g., office visits, hospital and
nursing home stays, etc.) in the first year (2003). As with the
calculation of average annual cost per insured patient, we divided the
total cost of complying with the regulation by the total annual number
of health care visits. The cost of instituting requirements of the
proposed regulation is \$0.19 per health care visit. If we assume that
individuals would be willing to pay more than \$0.19 per health care
visit to improve health information privacy, the benefits of the
proposed regulation outweigh the cost.

***Qualitative Discussion***

A well designed privacy standard can be expected to build confidence
among the public about the confidentiality of their medical records. The
seriousness of public concerns about privacy in general are shown in the
1994 Equifax-Harris Consumer Privacy Survey, where A84 percent of
Americans are either very or somewhat concerned about threats to their
personal privacy.@[^53] A 1999 report, APromoting Health and Protecting
Privacy@ notes A\...many people fear their personal health information
will be used against them: to deny insurance, employment, and housing,
or to expose them to unwanted judgements and scrutiny.\"[^54] These
concerns would be partly allayed by the privacy standard.

Fear of disclosure of treatment is an impediment to health care for many
Americans. In the 1993 Harris-Equifax Health Information Privacy Survey,
seven percent of respondents said they or a member of their immediate
family had chosen not to seek medical services due to fear of harm to
job prospects or other life opportunities. About two percent reported
having chosen not to file an insurance claim because of concerns of lack
of privacy or confidentiality.[^55] Increased confidence on the part of
patients that their privacy would be protected would lead to increased
treatment among people who delay or never begin care, as well as among
people who receive treatment but pay directly (to the extent that the
ability to use their insurance benefits will reduce cost barriers to
more complete treatment). It will also change the dynamic of current
payments. Insured patients currently paying out-of-pocket to protect
confidentiality will be more likely to file with their insurer and to
seek all necessary care. The increased utilization that would result
from increased confidence in privacy could be beneficial under many
circumstances. For many medical conditions, early and comprehensive
treatment can lead to lower costs.

The following are four examples of areas where increased confidence in
privacy would have significant benefits. They were chosen both because
they are representative of widespread and serious health problems, and
because they are areas where reliable and relatively complete data are
available for this kind of analysis. The logic of the analysis, however,
applies to any health condition, including relatively minor conditions.
We expect that some individuals might be concerned with maintaining
privacy even if they have no significant health problems because it is
likely that they will develop a medical condition in the future that
they will want to keep private.

[Cancer]{.underline}

The societal burden of disease imposed by cancer is indisputable. Cancer
is the second leading cause of death in the US[^56], exceeded only by
heart disease. In 2000, it is estimated that 1.22 million new cancer
cases will be diagnosed.[^57] The estimated prevalence of cancer cases
(both new and existing cases) in 1999 was 8.37 million.[^58] In addition
to mortality, incidence, and prevalence rates, the other primary methods
of assessing the burden of disease are cost-of-illness and quality of
life measures.[^59] Cost of illness measures the economic costs
associated with treating the disease (direct costs) and lost income
associated with morbidity and mortality (indirect costs). The National
Institutes of Health estimates that the overall annual cost of cancer in
1990 was \$96.1 billion; \$27.5 billion in direct medical costs and
\$68.7 billion for lost income due to morbidity and mortality.[^60]
Health-related quality of life measures integrate the mortality and
morbidity effects of disease to produce health status scores for an
individual or population. For example, the Quality Adjusted Life Year
(QALY) combines the pain, suffering, and productivity loss caused by
illness into a single measure. The Disability Adjusted Life Year (DALY)
is based on the sum of life years lost to premature mortality and years
that are lived, adjusted for disability.[^61] The analysis below is
based on the cost-of-illness measure for cancer, which is more developed
than the quality of life measure.

Among the most important elements in the fight against cancer are
screening, early detection and treatment of the disease. However, many
patients are concerned that cancer detection and treatment will make
them vulnerable to discrimination by insurers or employers. These
privacy concerns have been cited as a reason patients do not seek early
treatment for diseases such as cancer. As a result of forgoing early
treatment, cancer patients may ultimately face a more severe illness
and/or premature death.

Increasing people=s confidence in the privacy of their medical
information would encourage more people with cancer to seek cancer
treatment earlier, which would increase cancer survival rates and thus
reduce the lost wages associated with cancer. For example, only 24
percent of ovarian cancers are diagnosed in the early stages. Of these,
approximately 90 percent of patients survive treatment. The survival
rate of women who detect breast cancer early is similarly high; more
than 90 percent of women who detect and treat breast cancer in its early
stages will survive.[^62]

We have attempted to estimate the annual savings in foregone wages that
would result from earlier treatment due to enhanced protection of the
privacy of medical records. We do not assume there would be increased
medical costs from earlier treatment because the costs of earlier and
longer cancer treatment are probably offset by the costs of treating
late-stage cancer among people who would otherwise not be treated until
their cases had progressed.

Although figures on the number of individuals who avoid cancer treatment
due to privacy concerns do not exist, some indirect evidence is
available. A 1993 Harris-Equifax Health Information Privacy Survey
(noted earlier) found that seven percent of respondents reported that
they or a member of their immediate family had chosen not to seek
services for a physical or mental health condition due to fear of harm
to job prospects or other life opportunities. It should be noted that
this survey is somewhat dated and represents only one estimate.
Moreover, given the wording of the question, there are other reasons
aside from privacy concerns that led these individuals to respond
affirmatively. However, for the purposes of this estimate, we assume
that privacy concerns were responsible for the majority of positive
responses.

Based on the Harris-Equifax survey estimate that seven percent of people
did not seek services for physical or mental health conditions due to
fears about job prospects or other opportunities, we assume that the
proportion of people diagnosed with cancer who did not seek earlier
treatment due to these fears is also seven percent. Applying this seven
percent figure to the estimated number of total cancer cases (8.37
million) gives us an estimate of 586,000 people who did not seek earlier
cancer treatment due to privacy concerns. We estimate annual lost wages
due to cancer morbidity and mortality per cancer patient by dividing
total lost wages (\$68.7 billion) by the number of cancer patients (8.37
million), which rounds to \$8,200. We then assume that cancer patients
who seek earlier treatment would achieve a one-third reduction in cancer
mortality and morbidity due to earlier treatment. The assumption of a
one-third reduction in mortality and morbidity is derived from a study
showing a one-third reduction in colorectal cancer mortality due to
colorectal cancer screening.[^63] We could have chosen a lower or higher
treatment success rate. By multiplying 586,000 by \$8,200 by one-third,
we calculate that \$1.6 billion in lost wages could be saved each year
by encouraging more people to seek early cancer treatment through
enhanced privacy protections. This estimate illustrates the potential
savings in lost wages due to cancer that could be achieved with greater
privacy protections.

[HIV/AIDS]{.underline}

Early detection is essential for the survival of a person with HIV
(Human Immunodeficiency Virus). Concerns about the confidentiality of
HIV status would likely deter some people from getting tested. For this
reason, each state has passed some sort of legislation regarding
confidentiality of an individual=s HIV status. However, HIV status can
be revealed indirectly through disclosure of HAART (Highly Active
Anti-Retroviral Therapy) or similar HIV treatment drug use. In addition,
since HIV/AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) is often the only
specially protected condition, Ablacked out@ information on medical
charts could indicate HIV positive status.[^64] Strengthening privacy
protections beyond this disease could increase confidence in privacy
regarding HIV as well. Drug therapy for HIV positive persons has proven
to be a life-extending, cost-effective tool.[^65] A 1998 study showed
that beginning treatment with HAART in the early asymptomatic stage is
more cost-effective than beginning it late. After five years, only 15
percent of patients with early treatment are estimated to develop an ADE
(AIDS-defining event), whereas 29 percent would if treatment began
later. Early treatment with HAART prolongs survival (adjusted for
quality of life) by 6.2 percent. The overall cost of early HAART
treatment is estimated at \$23,700 per quality-adjusted year of life
saved.[^66]

[Other Sexually Transmitted Diseases]{.underline}

It is difficult to know how many people are avoiding testing for STDs
despite having a sexually transmitted disease. A 1998 study by the
Kaiser Family Foundation found that the incidence of disease was 15.3
million in 1996, though there is great uncertainty due to
under-reporting.[^67] For a potentially embarrassing disease such as an
STD, seeking treatment requires trust in both the provider and the
health care system for confidentiality of such information. Greater
trust should lead to more testing and greater levels of treatment.
Earlier treatment for curable STDs can mean a decrease in morbidity and
the costs associated with complications. These include expensive
fertility problems, fetal blindness, ectopic pregnancies, and other
reproductive complications.[^68] In addition, there could be greater
overall savings if earlier treatment translates into reduced spread of
infections.

[Mental Health Treatment]{.underline}

When individuals have a better understanding of the privacy practices
that we are requiring in this proposed rule, some will be less reluctant
to seek mental health treatment. One way that individuals will receive
this information is through the notice requirement. Increased use of
mental health and services would be expected to be beneficial to the
persons receiving the care, to their families, and to society at large.
The direct benefit to the individual from treatment would include
improved quality of life, reduced disability associated with mental
conditions, reduced mortality rate, and increased productivity
associated with reduced disability and mortality. The benefit to
families would include quality of life improvements and reduced medical
costs for other family members associated with abusive behavior by the
treated individual.

The potential economic benefits associated with improving privacy of
individually identifiable health information and thus encouraging some
portion of individuals to seek initial mental health treatment or
increase service use are difficult to quantify well. Nevertheless, using
a methodology similar to the one used above to estimate potential
savings in cancer costs, one can lay out a range of possible benefit
levels to illustrate the possibility of cost savings associated with an
expansion of mental health and treatment to individuals who, due to
protections offered by the privacy regulation, might seek treatment that
they otherwise would not have. This can be illustrated by drawing upon
existing data on the economic costs of mental illness and the treatment
effectiveness of interventions.

The 1998 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Statistics Source Book from
the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)
estimates that the economic cost to society of mental illness in 1994
was about \$204.4 billion. About \$91.7 billion was due to the cost of
treatment and medical care and \$112.6 billion (1994 dollars) was due to
loss of productivity associated with morbidity and mortality and other
related costs, such as crime.[^69] Evidence suggests that appropriate
treatment of mental health disorders can result in 50-80 percent of
individuals experiencing improvements in these types of conditions.
Improvements in patient functioning and reduced hospital stays could
result in hundreds of millions of dollars in cost savings annually.

Although figures on the number of individuals who avoid mental health
treatment due to privacy concerns do not exist, some indirect evidence
is available. As noted in the cancer discussion, the 1993 Harris-Equifax
Health Information Privacy Survey found that 7 percent of respondents
reported that they or a member of their immediate family had chosen not
to seek services for a physical or mental health condition due to fear
of harm to job prospects or other life opportunities. (See above for
limitations to this data).

We assume that the proportion of people with a mental health disorder
who did not seek treatment due to fears about job prospects or other
opportunities is the same as the proportion in the Harris-Equifax survey
sample who did not seek services for physical or mental health
conditions due to the same fears (7 percent). The 1999 Surgeon General=s
Report on Mental Health estimates that 28 percent of the U.S. adult
population has a diagnosable mental and/or substance abuse disorder and
20 percent of the population has a mental and/or substance abuse
disorder *for which they do not receive treatment*.[^70] Based on the
Surgeon General=s Report, we estimate that 15 percent of the adult
population has a mental disorder for which they do not seek
treatment.[^71] Assuming that 7 percent of those with mental disorders
did not seek treatment due to privacy concerns, we estimate that 1.05
percent of the adult population[^72] (15 percent multiplied by 7
percent), or 2.07 million people, did not seek treatment for mental
illness due to privacy fears.

The indirect (non-treatment) economic cost of mental illness per person
with mental illness is \$2,590 (\$112.6 billion divided by 43.4 million
people with mental illness).[^73] The treatment cost of mental illness
per person with mental illness is \$2,110 (\$91.7 billion divided by
43.4 million individuals). If we assume that indirect economic costs
saved by encouraging more individuals with mental illness to enter
treatment are offset by the additional treatment costs, the net savings
is about \$480 per person.

As stated above, appropriate treatment of mental health disorders can
result in 50-80 percent of individuals experiencing improvements in
these types of conditions. Therefore, we multiply the number of
individuals with mental disorders who would seek treatment with greater
privacy protections (2.07 million) by the treatment effectiveness rate
by the net savings per effective treatment (\$480). Assuming a 50
percent success rate, this equation yields annual savings of \$497
million. Assuming an 80 percent success rate, this yields annual savings
of \$795 million.

Given the existing data on the annual economic costs of mental illness
and the rates of treatment effectiveness for these disorders, coupled
with assumptions regarding the percentage of individuals who would seek
mental health treatment with greater privacy protections, the potential
net economic benefits could range from approximately \$497 million to
\$795 million annually.

**V. FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS**

**A. Introduction**

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U.S.C. 601 et.seq., the
Department must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis if the
Secretary certifies that a final rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.[^74]

This analysis addresses four issues: (1) the need for, and objective of,
the rule; (2) a summary of the public comments to the NPRM and the
Department=s response; (3) a description and estimate of the number of
small entities affected by the rule; and (4) a description of the steps
the agency has taken to minimize the economic impact on small entities,
consistent with the law and the intent of the rule. The following
sections provide details on each of these issues. A description of the
projected reporting and record keeping requirements of the rule are
included in Section IX, below.

**B. Reasons for Promulgating the Rule**

This proposed rule is being promulgated in response to a statutory
mandate to do so under section 264 of Public Law 104-191. Additional
information on the reasons for promulgating the rule can be found in
earlier preamble discussions (see Section I. B. above).

***1. Objectives and Legal Basis***

This information can be found in earlier preamble discussions (See I. C.
and IV., above).

***2. Relevant Federal Provisions***

This information can be found in earlier preamble discussions (See I.
C., above).

**C. Summary of Public Comments**

The Department received only a few comments regarding the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) contained in the NPRM. A number
of commenters argued that the estimates IRFA were too low or incomplete.
The estimates were incomplete to the extent that a number of significant
policy provisions in the proposal were not estimated because of too
little information at the time. In the final IRFA we have estimates for
these provisions. As for the estimates being too low, the Department has
sought as much information as possible. The methodology employed for
allocating costs to the small business sectors is explained in the
following section.

Most of the other comments pertaining to the IRFA criticized specific
estimates in the NPRM. Generally, the commenters argued that certain
cost elements were not included in the cost estimates presented in the
NPRM. The Department has expanded our description of our data and
methodology in both the final RIA and this final RFA to try to clarify
the data and assumptions made and the rationale for using them.

Finally, a number of commenters suggested that small entities be
exempted from coverage from the final rule, or that they be given more
time to comply. As the Department has explained in the Response to
Comment section above, such changes were considered but rejected. Small
entities constitute the vast majority of all entities that are covered;
to exempt them would essentially nullify the purpose of the rule.
Extensions were also considered but rejected. The rule does not take
effect for two years, which is ample time for small entities to learn
about the rule and make the necessary changes to come into compliance.

**D. Economic Effects on Small Entities**

***1. Number and Types of Small Entities Affected***

The Small Business Administration defines small businesses in the health
care sector as those organizations with less than \$5 million in annual
revenues. Nonprofit organizations are also considered small
entities;[^75] however, individuals and states are not included in the
definition of a small entity. Similarly, small government jurisdictions
with a population of less than 50,000 are considered small
entities.[^76]

Small businesses in the health care sector affected by this rule may
include such businesses as: nonprofit health plans, hospitals, and
skilled nursing facilities (SNFs); small businesses providing health
coverage; small physician practices; pharmacies; laboratories; durable
medical equipment (DME) suppliers; health care clearinghouses; billing
companies; and vendors that supply software applications to health care
entities.

The U.S. Small Business Administration reports that as of 1997, there
were 562,916 small health care entities[^77] classified within the SIC
codes we have identified as being covered establishments (Table A).

**Table A.\--Number of Health Care Establishments That Meet SBA Size
Standards, 1997^1^**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Standard          **Industry**                 **Total Number of  **Number of      **% of
  Industrial Code                                  Health Care        Establishments   Establishments
  (SIC)**                                          Establishments**   that Meet SBA    that Meet SBA
                                                                      Size             Size
                                                                      Standards^2^ or  Standards^2^ or
                                                                      RFA non- profit  RFA non-profit
                                                                      standard**       standard**
  ------------------- ---------------------------- ------------------ ---------------- ----------------
  5910                Drug Stores & Proprietary    48,147             23,923           49.7%
                      Stores                                                           

  6320                Accident & Health Insurance  8,083              665              8.2%
                      & Medical Service Plans (SIC                                     
                      6320), Self-Insured/ Self                                        
                      Administered (no SIC), Third                                     
                      Party Administrators (no                                         
                      SIC)^3^                                                          

  7352                Medical Equipment Rental and 3,346              1,836            54.9%
                      Leasing                                                          

  8010                Offices & Clinics Of Doctors 190,233            170,962          89.9%
                      Of Medicine                                                      

  8020                Offices & Clinics Of         115,020            113,864          99.0%
                      Dentists                                                         

  8030                Offices & Clinics Of Doctors 9,143              8,850            96.8%
                      Of Osteopathy                                                    

  8040                Offices & Clinics Of Other   89,482             86,596           96.8%
                      Health Practitioners                                             

  8050                Nursing & Personal Care      33,178             17,727           53.4%
                      Facilities                                                       

  8060                Hospitals                    6,991              3,485            49.8%

  8070                Medical & Dental             17,586             13,015           74.0%
                      Laboratories                                                     

  8080                Home Health Care Services    19,562             12,841           65.6%

  8090                Miscellaneous Health &       22,145             11,219           50.7%
                      Allied Services                                                  

  n/a                 Fully Insured ERISA^2^       2,125,000          0                NA

  n/a                 Institutional Review Boards  450,000            0                NA
                      (IRB)^2^                                                         

  n/a                 Total^2^                     562,916            464,983          82.6%

  1 Source: Office of                                                                  
  Advocacy, U.S.                                                                       
  Small Business                                                                       
  Administration,                                                                      
  from data provided                                                                   
  by the Bureau of                                                                     
  the Census,                                                                          
  Statistics of U.S.                                                                   
  Businesses, 1997.                                                                    
  Establishments that                                                                  
  have less than                                                                       
  \$5,000,000 in                                                                       
  annual revenue are                                                                   
  considered small                                                                     
  businesses here, as                                                                  
  are non-profit                                                                       
  establishments                                                                       
  (regardless of                                                                       
  revenue). We have                                                                    
  non-profit data for                                                                  
  the following SICs:                                                                  
  8050, 8060, and                                                                      
  8080 and have                                                                        
  included the number                                                                  
  of non-profits in                                                                    
  each category into                                                                   
  the table.                                                                           

  ^2^ We have not                                                                      
  included the number                                                                  
  of fully insured                                                                     
  ERISA plans or                                                                       
  institutional                                                                        
  review boards (IRB)                                                                  
  in the total number                                                                  
  of health care                                                                       
  establishments or                                                                    
  the number of                                                                        
  establishments that                                                                  
  meet SBA standards                                                                   
  for small entities,                                                                  
  since these are not                                                                  
  separate businesses                                                                  
  with SIC codes and                                                                   
  we do not have                                                                       
  sufficient data to                                                                   
  impute revenues to                                                                   
  them.                                                                                

  ^3^ We have                                                                          
  included                                                                             
  self-insured,                                                                        
  self-administered                                                                    
  plans and third                                                                      
  party                                                                                
  administrators in                                                                    
  the total number of                                                                  
  health plans, even                                                                   
  though neither has                                                                   
  individual SIC                                                                       
  codes because we                                                                     
  have the ability to                                                                  
  impute revenues to                                                                   
  them. Therefore,                                                                     
  the number of                                                                        
  health plans in SIC                                                                  
  6320 is greater                                                                      
  than the figure                                                                      
  usually reported in                                                                  
  the Statistics of                                                                    
  U.S. Businesses.                                                                     
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These small businesses represent 82.6% of all health care establishments
examined.[^78] Small businesses represent a significant portion of the
total number of health care establishments but a small portion of the
revenue stream for all health care establishments. In 1997, the small
health care businesses represented generated approximately \$430 billion
in annual receipts, or 30.2% of the total revenue generated by health
care establishments (Table B).[^79] The following sections provide
estimates of the number of small health care establishments that will be
required to comply with the rule. Note, however, that the SBA=s
published annual receipts of health care industries differ from the
National Health Expenditure data that the Health Care Financing
Administration (HCFA) maintains. These data do not provide the specific
revenue data required for a RFA; only the SBA data has the requisite
establishment and revenue data for this analysis.

**Table B.\--Annual Receipts of Health Care Entities, 1997^1^**

  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Standard Industrial Code       **Industry**                 **Total Revenue**     **Revenue Generated **% of Total
  (SIC)**                                                                             by Small Entities** Revenue
                                                                                                          Generated by
                                                                                                          Small
                                                                                                          Entities**
  -------------------------------- ---------------------------- --------------------- ------------------- ------------
  5910                             Drug Stores & Proprietary    \$100,302,441,000     \$25,620,978,000    25.5%
                                   Stores                                                                 

  6320                             Accident & Health Insurance  \$512,111,493,027     \$657,074,000       0.1%
                                   & Medical Service Plans (SIC                                           
                                   6320), Self-Insured/ Self                                              
                                   Administered (no SIC), Third                                           
                                   Party Administrators (no                                               
                                   SIC)2                                                                  

  *7352*                           Medical Equipment Rental &   \$4,040,646,000       \$1,193,345,000     29.5%
                                   Leasing                                                                

  *8010*                           Offices & Clinics Of Doctors \$182,148,148,000     \$105,334,031,000   57.8%
                                   Of Medicine                                                            

  *8020*                           Offices & Clinics Of         \$48,766,434,000      \$47,218,844,000    96.8%
                                   Dentists                                                               

  *8030*                           Offices & Clinics Of Doctors \$4,613,192,000       \$4,039,868,000     87.6%
                                   Of Osteopathy                                                          

  *8040*                           Offices & Clinics Of Other   \$28,110,189,000      \$23,170,899,000    82.4%
                                   Health Practitioners                                                   

  *8050*                           Nursing & Personal Care      \$77,166,537,000      \$24,484,098,431    31.7%
                                   Facilities                                                             

  *8060*                           Hospitals                    \$382,540,791,000     \$172,552,388,454   45.1%

  *8070*                           Medical & Dental             \$19,872,150,000      \$6,862,628,000     34.5%
                                   Laboratories                                                           

  *8080*                           Home Health Care Services    \$31,061,036,000      \$12,085,755,906    38.9%

  *8090*                           Miscellaneous Health &       \$35,034,774,000      \$6,812,006,000     19.4%
                                   Allied Services                                                        

  *N/A*                            Total Receipts               \$1,425,767,831,027   \$430,031,915,791   30.2%

  1 Source: Office of Advocacy,                                                                           
  U.S. Small Business                                                                                     
  Administration, from data                                                                               
  provided by the Bureau of the                                                                           
  Census, Statistics of U.S.                                                                              
  Businesses, 1997. Entities that                                                                         
  have less than \$5,000,000 in                                                                           
  annual revenue are considered                                                                           
  small businesses here, as are                                                                           
  non-profit entities (regardless                                                                         
  of revenue). We have non-profit                                                                         
  data for the following SICs:                                                                            
  8050, 8080, and 8060 and have                                                                           
  included the number of                                                                                  
  non-profits in each category                                                                            
  into the table.                                                                                         

  2 We have included                                                                                      
  self-insured/self-administered                                                                          
  plans and third party                                                                                   
  administrators in the total                                                                             
  number of health plans, even                                                                            
  though neither has individual                                                                           
  SIC codes because we have the                                                                           
  ability to impute revenues to                                                                           
  them.                                                                                                   
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Small Business Administration reports that approximately 74 percent
of the 18,000 medical laboratories and dental laboratories in the U.S.
are small entities.[^80] Furthermore, based on SBA data, 55 percent of
the 3,300 durable medical equipment suppliers that are not part of drug
and proprietary stores in the U.S. are small entities. Over 90 percent
of health practitioner offices are small businesses.[^81] Doctor offices
(90%), dentist offices (99%), osteopathy (97%) and other health
practitioner offices (97%) are primarily considered small businesses.

There are also a number of hospitals, home health agencies, non-profit
nursing facilities, and skilled nursing facilities that will be affected
by the proposed rule. According to

the American Hospital Association, there are approximately 3,131
nonprofit hospitals nationwide. Additionally, there are 2,788 nonprofit
home health agencies in the U.S. and the Health Care Financing
Administration reports that there are 591 nonprofit nursing facilities
and 4,280 nonprofit skilled nursing facilities.[^82]

Some contractors that are not covered entities but that work with
covered health care entities will be required to adopt policies and
procedures to protect information. We do not expect that the additional
burden placed on contractors will be significant. We have not estimated
the effect of the proposed rule on these entities because we cannot
reasonably anticipate the number or type of contracts affected by the
proposed rule. We also do not know the extent to which contractors would
be required to modify their policy practices as a result of the rule.

***2. Activities and Costs Associated with Compliance***

This section summarizes specific activities that covered entities must
undertake to comply with the rule=s provisions and options considered by
the Department that would reduce the burden to small entities. In
developing this rule, the Department considered a variety of
alternatives for minimizing the economic burden that it will create for
small entities. We did not exempt small businesses from the rule because
they represent such a large and critical proportion of the health care
industry (82.6 percent); a significant portion of individually
identifiable health information is generated or held by these small
businesses.

The guiding principle in our considerations of how to address the burden
on small entities has been to make provisions performance rather than
specification orientedBthat is, the rule states the standard to be
achieved but allows institutions flexibility to determine how to achieve
the standard within certain parameters. Moreover, to the extent
possible, we have allowed entities to determine the extent to which they
will address certain issues. This ability to adapt provisions to
minimize burden has been addressed in the regulatory impact analysis
above, but it will be briefly discussed again in the following section.

Before discussing specific provisions, it is important to note some of
the broader questions that were addressed in formulating this rule. The
Department considered extending the compliance period for small entities
but concluded that it did not have the legal authority to do so (see
discussion above). The rule, pursuant to HIPAA, creates an extended
compliance time of 36 months (rather than 24 months) only for small
health plans and not for other small entities. The Department also
considered giving small entities longer response times for time limits
set forth in the rule, but decided to establish standard time limits
that we believe are reasonable for covered entities of all sizes, with
the understanding that larger entities may not need as much time as they
have been allocated in certain situations. This permits each covered
entity the flexibility to establish policies regarding time limits that
are consistent with the entity=s current practices.

Although we considered the needs of small entities during our
discussions of all provisions for this final rule, we are highlighting
the most significant discussions in the following sections:

***Scalability***

Wherever possible, the final rule provides a covered entity with
flexibility to create policies and procedures that are best suited to
the entity=s current practices in order to comply with the standards,
implementation specifications, and requirements of the rule. This allows
the covered entity to assess its own needs in devising, implementing,
and maintaining appropriate privacy policies, procedures, and
documentation to address these regulatory requirements. It also will
allow a covered entity to take advantage of developments and methods for
protecting privacy that will evolve over time in a manner that is best
suited to that institution. This approach allows covered entities to
strike a balance between protecting privacy of individually identifiable
health information and the economic cost of doing so within prescribed
boundaries set forth in the rule. Health care entities must consider
both factors when devising their privacy solutions. The Department
assumes that professional and trade associations will provide guidance
to their members in understanding the rule and providing guidance on how
they can best achieve compliance. This philosophy is similar to the
approach in the Transactions Rule.

The privacy standard must be implemented by all covered entities,
regardless of size. However, we believe that the flexible approach under
this rule is more efficient and appropriate then a single approach to
safeguarding health information privacy. For example, in a small
physician practice, the office manager might be designated to serve as
the privacy official as one of many of her duties. In a large health
plan, the privacy official position may require more time and greater
privacy experience, or the privacy official may have the regular support
and advice of a privacy staff or board. The entity can decide how to
implement this privacy official requirement based on the entity=s
structure and needs.

The Department decided to use this scaled approach to minimize the
burden on all entities, with an emphasis on small entities. The varying
needs and capacities of entities should be reflected in the policies and
procedures adopted by the organization and the overall approach it takes
to achieve compliance.

***Minimum Necessary***

> The Aminimum necessary@ policy in the final rule has essentially three
> components: first,

it does not pertain to certain uses and disclosures including
treatment-related exchange of information among health care providers;
second, for disclosures that are made on a routine basis, such as
insurance claims, a covered entity is required to have policies and
procedures governing such exchanges (but the rule does not require a
case-by-case determination in such cases); and third, providers must
have a process for reviewing non-routine requests on a case-by-case
basis to assure that only the minimum necessary information is
disclosed. The final rule makes changes to the NPRM that reduce the
burden of compliance on small businesses.

Based on public comments and subsequent fact-finding, the Department
sought to lessen the burden of this provision. The NPRM proposed
applying the minimum necessary standard to disclosures to providers for
treatment purposes and would have required individual review of all uses
of protected health information. The final rule exempts disclosures of
protected health information from a covered entity to a health care
provider for treatment from the minimum necessary provision and
eliminates the case-by-case determinations that would have been
necessary under the NPRM. The Department has concluded that the
requirements of the final rule are similar to the current practice of
most health care providers. For standard disclosure requests, for
example, providers generally have established procedures. Under the
final rule providers will have to have policies and procedures to
determine the minimum amount of protected health information to disclose
for standard disclosure requests as well, but may need to review and
revise existing procedures to make sure they are consistent with the
final rule. For non-routine disclosures, providers have indicated that
they currently ask questions to discern how much information should be
disclosed. In short, the minimum necessary requirements of this rule are
similar to current practice, particularly among small providers.

***Policy and Procedures***

The rule requires that covered entities develop and document policies
and procedures with respect to protected health information to establish
and maintain compliance with the regulation. Through the standards,
requirements, and implementation specifications, we are proposing a
framework for developing and documenting privacy policies and procedures
rather than adopting a rigid, prescriptive approach to accommodate
entities of different sizes, type of activities, and business practices.
Small providers will be able to develop more limited policies and
procedures under the rule, than will large providers and health plans,
based on the volume of protected health information. We also expect that
provider and health plan associations will develop model policies and
procedures for their members, which will reduce the burden on small
businesses.

***Privacy Official***

The rule requires covered entities to designate a privacy official who
will be responsible for the development and implementation of privacy
policies and procedures. The implementation of this requirement may vary
based on the size of the entity. For example, a small physician=s
practice might designate the office manager as the privacy official in
addition to her broader administrative responsibilities. Once the
privacy official has been trained, the time required to accomplish the
duties imposed on such person is not likely to be much more than under
current practice. Therefore, the requirement imposes a minimal burden on
small businesses.

***Internal Complaints***

The final rule requires covered entities to have an internal process for
individuals to make complaints regarding the covered entities= privacy
policies and procedures required by the rule and its compliance with
such policies. The requirement includes identifying a contact person or
office responsible for receiving complaints and documenting all
complaints received and the disposition of such complaints, if any. The
covered entity only is required to receive and document a complaint (the
complaint can be oral or in writing), which should take a short amount
of time. The Department believes that complaints about a covered
entity=s privacy policies and procedures will be uncommon. Thus, the
burden on small businesses should be minimal.

***Training***

In developing the NPRM, the Department considered a number of
alternatives for training, including requiring specific training
materials, training certification, and periodic retraining. In the NPRM,
the Department recommended flexibility in the materials and training
method used, but proposed recertification every three years and
retraining in the event of material changes in policy.

Based on public comment, particularly from small businesses, the
Department has lessened the burden in the final rule. As in the
proposal, the final rule requires all employees who are likely to have
contact with protected health information to be trained. Covered
entities will have to train employees by the compliance date specific to
the type of covered entity and train new employees within a reasonable
time of initial employment. In addition, a covered entity will have to
train each member of its workforce whose functions are affected by a
material change in the policies or procedures of such entity. However,
the final rule leaves to the employer the decisions regarding the nature
and method of training to achieve this requirement. The Department
expects a wide variety of options to be made available by associations,
professional groups, and vendors. Methods might include classroom
instruction, videos, booklets, or brochures tailored to particular
levels of need of workers and employers. Moreover, the recertification
requirement of the NPRM has been dropped to ease the burden on small
entities.

***Consent***

The NPRM proposed prohibiting covered entities from requiring
individuals to provide written consent for the use and disclosure of
protected health information for treatment, payment, and health care
operations purposes. The final rule requires certain health care
providers to obtain written consent before using or disclosing protected
health information for treatment, payment, and health care operations,
with a few exceptions. This requirement was included in the final rule
in response to comments that this reflects current practice of health
care providers health care providers with direct treatment
relationships. Because providers are already obtaining such consent,
this requirement represents a minimal burden.

***Notice of Privacy Rights***

The rule requires covered entities to prepare and make available a
notice that informs individuals about uses and disclosures of protected
health information that may be made by the covered entity and that
informs of the individual=s rights and covered entity=s legal duties
with respect to protected health information. The final rule makes
changes to the NPRM that reduce the burden of this provision on covered
entities and allows flexibility. The NPRM proposed that the notice
describe the uses and disclosures of information that the entity
*expected to make* without individual authorization. The final rule only
requires that the notice describe uses and disclosures that the entity
is *permitted or required to make under the rule* without an
individual=s written consent or authorization. This change will allow
entities to use standardized notice language within a given state, which
will minimize the burden of each covered entity preparing a notice.
Professional associations may develop model language to assist entities
in developing notices required by the rule. While the final rule
specifies minimum notice requirements, it allows entities flexibility to
add more detail about a covered entity=s privacy policies.

The NPRM also proposed that health plans distribute the notice every
three years. The final rule reduced this burden by requiring health
plans (in addition to providing notice to individuals at enrollment and
prior to the compliance date of this rule) to inform individuals at
least once every three years about the availability of the notice and
how to obtain a copy rather than to distribute a copy of the notice.

In discussing the requirement for covered entities to prepare and make
available a notice, we considered exempting small businesses (83 percent
of entities) or extremely small entities (fewer than 10 employees). The
Department decided that informing consumers of their privacy rights and
of the activities of covered entities with which they conduct business
was too important a goal of this rule to exempt any entities.

In addition to requiring a basic notice, we considered requiring a
longer more detailed notice that would be available to individuals on
request. However, we decided that it would be overly burdensome to all
entities, especially small entities, to require two notices.

We believe that the proposed rule appropriately balances the benefits of
providing individuals with information about uses and disclosures of
protected health information with covered entities= need for flexibility
in describing such information.

***Access to Protected Health Information***

The public comments demonstrate that inspection and copying of
individually identifiable health information is wide-spread today.
Individuals routinely request copies of such information, in whole or in
part, for purposes that include providing health information to another
health care provider or as part of legal proceedings. The amount of
inspection and copying of individually identifiable health information
that occurs for these purposes is not expected to change as a result of
the final regulation.

The final regulation establishes the right of individuals to inspect and
copy protected health information about them. Although this is an
important right, the Department does not expect it to result in dramatic
increases in requests from individuals. We assume that most health care
providers currently have procedures for allowing patients to inspect and
copy this information. The economic impact on small businesses of
requiring covered entities to provide individuals with access to
protected health information should be relatively small. Moreover,
entities can recoup the costs of copying such information by charging
reasonable cost-based fees.

***Amendments to Protected Health Information***

Many health care providers and health plans currently make provisions to
help patients expedite amendments and corrections of their medical
record where appropriate. If an error exists, both the patient and the
health care provider or health plan benefit from the correction.
However, as with inspection and copying, a person=s right to request
amendment and correction of individually identifiable health information
about them is not guaranteed by all states. Based on these assumptions,
the Department concludes that the principal economic effect of the final
rule will be to expand the right to request amendments to protected
health information held by health plans and covered health care
providers to those who are not currently granted such right by state
law. In addition, the rule may draw additional attention to the issue of
record inaccuracies and stimulate patient demand for amendment of
medical records.

Under the final regulation, if an individual requests an amendment to
protected health information about him or her, the health care provider
must either accept the amendment or provide the individual with the
opportunity to submit a statement disagreeing with the denial. We expect
the responses to requests will vary: sometimes an assistant will only
make the appropriate notation in the record, requiring only a few
minutes; other times a health care provider or manager will review the
request and make changes if appropriate, which may require as much as an
hour.

Unlike inspections, which currently occur in a small percentage of
cases, fact-finding suggests that individuals rarely seek to amend their
records today, but the establishment of this right in the rule may spur
more requests, including among those who in the past would have only
sought to inspect their records. Nevertheless, we expect that the
absolute number of additional amendment requests caused by the rule to
be small (about 200,000 per year spread over more than 600,000
entities), which will impose only a minor burden on small businesses.

***Accounting for Disclosures***

The rule grants individuals the right to receive an accounting of
disclosures made by a health care provider or plan for purposes other
than treatment, payment, or health care operations, with certain
exceptions such as disclosures to the individual. The individual may
request an accounting of disclosures made up to six years prior to the
request. In order to fulfill such requests, covered health care
providers and health plans may track disclosures by making a notation in
the individual=s medical record regarding the (manual or electronic)
when a disclosure is made. We have learned through fact-finding that
some health care providers currently track various types of disclosures.
Moreover, the Department does not expect many individuals will request
an accounting of disclosures. Thus, this requirement will impose a minor
burden on small businesses.

***De-Identification of Information***

In this rule, the Department allows covered entities to determine that
health information is de-identified (i.e. that it is not individually
identifiable health information), if certain conditions are met.
Moreover, information that has been de-identified in accordance with the
rule is not considered individually identifiable information and may be
used or disclosed without regard to the requirements of the regulation.
The covered entity may assign a code or other means of record
identification to allow de-identified information to be re-identified if
requirements regarding derivation and security are met.

As with other components of this rule, the approach used to remove
identifiers from data can be scaled to the size of the entity.
Individually identifiable health information can be de-identified in one
of two ways; by either removing each of the identifiers listed in the
rule or by engaging in a statistical and scientific analysis to
determine that information is very unlikely to identify an individual.
Small entities without the resources to conduct such an analysis t can
create de-identified information by removing the full list of possible
identifiers set forth in this regulation. Unless the covered entity
knows that the information could still identify an individual, the
requirement of this rule would be fulfilled. However, larger, more
sophisticated covered entities may choose to determine independently
what information needs to be removed based on sophisticated statistical
and scientific analysis.

Efforts to remove identifiers from information are optional. If a
covered entity can not use or disclose protected health information for
a particular purpose but believes that removing identifiers is
excessively burdensome, it can choose not to release the protected
health information, or it can seek an authorization from individuals for
the use or disclosure of protected health information including some or
all of the identifiers.

Finally, as discussed in the Regulatory Impact Analysis, the Department
believes that very few small entities engage in de-identification
currently. Fewer small entities are expected to engage in such activity
in the future because the increasing trend toward computerization of
large record sets will result in de-identification being performed by
relatively few firms or associations over time. We expect that a small
covered entity will find it more efficient to contract with specialists
in large firms to de-identify protected health information. Larger
entities are more likely to have both the electronic systems and the
volume of records that will make them attractive for this business.

***Monitoring Business Associates***

The final rule requires a covered entity with a business associate to
have a written contract or other arrangement that documents satisfactory
assurance that the business associate will appropriately safeguard
protected health information. The Department expects business associate
contracts to be fairly standardized, except for language that will have
to be tailored to the specific arrangement between the parties, such as
the allowable uses and disclosures of information. The Department
assumes the standard language initially will be developed by trade and
professional associations for their members. Small health care providers
are likely to simply adopt the language or make minor modifications. The
regulation includes a requirement that the covered entity take steps to
correct, and in some cases terminate, a contract, if necessary, if they
know of violations by a business associate. This oversight requirement
is consistent with standard oversight of a contract. The Department
expects that most entities, particularly smaller ones, will utilize
standard language that restricts uses and disclosures of individually
identifiable health information their contracts with business
associates. This will limit the burden on small businesses.

The NPRM proposed that covered entities be held accountable for the uses
and disclosures of individually identifiable health information by their
business associates. An entity would have been in violation of the rule
if it knew of a breach in the contract by a business associate and
failed to cure the breach or terminate the contract. The final rule
reduces the extent to which an entity must monitor the actions of its
business associates. The entity no longer has to Aensure@ that each
business associate complies with the rule=s requirements. Entities will
be required to cure a breach or terminate a contract for business
associate actions only if they knew about a contract violation. The
final rule is consistent with the oversight a business would provide for
any contract, and therefore, the changes in the final rule will impose
no new significant cost for small businesses in monitoring their
business associates= behavior.

***Employers With Insured Group Health Plans***

Some group health plans will use or maintain individually identifiable
health information, particularly group health plans that are
self-insured. Also, some plan sponsors that perform administrative
functions on behalf of their group health plans may need protected
health information. The final rule permits a group health plan, or a
health insurance issuer or HMO that provides benefits on behalf of the
group health plan, to disclose protected health information to a plan
sponsor who performs administrative functions on its behalf for certain
purposes and if certain requirements are met. The plan documents must be
amended to: describe the permitted uses and disclosures of protected
health information by the plan sponsor; specify that disclosure is
permitted only upon receipt of a certification by the plan sponsor that
the plan documents have been amended and the plan sponsor agrees to
certain restrictions on the use of protected health information; and
provide for adequate firewalls to assure unauthorized personnel do not
have access to individually identifiable health information.

Some plan sponsors may need information, not to administer the group
health plan, but to amend, modify, or terminate the health plan. ERISA
case law describes such activities as settlor functions. For example a
plan sponsor may want to change its contract from a preferred provider
organization to a health maintenance organization (HMO). In order to
obtain premium information, the health plan sponsor may need to provide
the HMO with aggregate claims information. Under the rule, the health
plan sponsor can obtain summary information with certain identifiers
removed, in order to provide it to the HMO and receive a premium rate.

The Department assumes that most health plan sponsors who are small
employers (those with 50 or fewer employees) will elect not to receive
individually identifiable health information because they will have
little, if any, need for such data. Any needs that sponsors of small
group health plans may have for information can be accomplished by
receiving the information in summary form from their health insurance
issuers.

***3. The Burden on a Typical Small Business***

The Department expects small entities to face a cost burden as a result
of complying with the proposed regulation. We estimate that the burden
of developing privacy policies and procedures is lower in dollar terms
for small businesses than for large businesses, but we recognize that
the cost of implementing privacy provisions could be a larger burden to
small entities as a proportion of total revenue. Due to these concerns,
we have relied on the principle of scalability throughout the rule, and
have based our cost estimates on the expectation that small entities
will develop less expensive and less complex privacy measures that
comply with the rule than large entities.

In many cases, we have specifically considered the impact that the rule
may have on solo practitioners or rural health care providers. If a
health care provider only maintains paper records and does not engage in
any electronic transactions, the regulation would not apply to such
provider. We assume that those providers will be small health care
providers. For small health care providers that are covered health care
providers, we expect that they will not be required to change their
business practices dramatically, because we based many of the standards,
implementation specifications, and requirements on current practice and
we have taken a flexible approach to allow scalability based on a
covered entity=s activities and size. In developing policies and
procedures to comply with the proposed regulation, scalability allows
entities to consider their basic functions and the ways in which
protected health information is used or disclosed. All covered entities
must take appropriate steps to address privacy concerns, and in
determining the scope and extent of their compliance activities,
businesses should weigh the costs and benefits of alternative approaches
and should scale their compliance activities to their structure,
functions, and capabilities within the requirements of the rule.

***Cost Assumptions***

To determine the cost burden to small businesses of complying with the
final rule, we used as a starting point the overall cost of the
regulation determined in the regulatory impact analysis (RIA). Then we
adopted a methodology that apportions the costs found in the RIA to
small business by using Census Bureau=s Statistics of U.S. Businesses.
This Census Bureau survey contains data on the number and proportion of
establishments, by Standard Industrial Classification Code (SIC code),
that have revenues of less than \$5 million, which meets the Small
Business Administration=s definition of a small business in the health
care sector. This data permitted us to calculate the proportion of the
cost of each requirement in the rule that is attributable to small
businesses. This methodology used for the regulatory flexibility
analysis (RFA) section is therefore based on the methodology used in the
(RIA), which was discussed earlier.

The businesses accounted for in the SIC codes contain three groups of
covered entities: non-hospital health care providers, hospitals, and
health plans. Non-hospital health care providers include: drug stores,
offices and clinics of doctors, dentists, osteopaths, and other health
practitioners, nursing and personal care facilities, medical and dental
laboratories, home health care services, miscellaneous health and allied
services, and medical equipment rental and leasing establishments.
Health plans include accident and health insurance and medical service
plans.

***Data Adjustments***

Several adjustments were made to the SIC code data to more accurately
determine the cost to small and non-profit businesses. For health plans
(SIC code 6320), we adjusted the SIC data to include self-insured,
self-administered health plans because these health plans are not
included in any SIC code, though they are covered entities under the
rule. Similarly, we have added third-party administrators (TPAs) into
this SIC. Although they are not covered entities, TPAs are likely to be
business associates of covered entities. For purposes of the regulatory
analyses, we have assumed that TPAs would bear many of the same costs of
the health plans to assure compliance for the covered entity. To make
this adjustment, we assumed the self-insured/self administered health
plans and TPAs have the average revenue of the health plans contained in
the SIC code, and then added those assumed revenues to the SIC code and
to the total of all health care expenditures. Moreover, we needed to
account for the cost to non-profit institutions that might receive more
than \$5 million in revenue, because all non-profit institutions are
small businesses regardless of revenue. To make this adjustment for
hospitals, nursing homes, and home health agencies, we used data on the
number of non-profit institutions from industry sources and from data
reported to HCFA. With this data, we assumed the current count of
establishments in the SIC codes includes these non-profit entities and
that non-profits have the same distribution of revenues as all
establishments reported in the applicable SIC codes. The proportions
discussed below, which determine the cost for small business, therefore
include these non-profit establishments in SIC codes 8030, 8060, and
8080.

The SIC code tables provided in this RFA do not include several
categories of businesses that are included in the total cost to small
businesses. Claims clearinghouses are not included in the table because
claims clearinghouses report their revenues under the SIC 7374 AComputer
Processing and Data Preparation,@ and the vast majority of businesses in
this SIC code are involved in non-medical claims data processing. In
addition, claims processing is often just one business-line of companies
that may be involved in multiple forms of data processing, and
therefore, even if the claims processing line of the business generates
less than \$5 million in revenue, the company in total may exceed the
SBA definition for a small business (the total firm revenue, not each
line of business, is the standard for inclusion). Similarly,
fully-insured ERISA health plans sponsored by employers are not
identified as a separate category in the SIC code tables because
employers in virtually all SIC codes may sponsor fully-insured health
plans. We have identified the cost for small fully-insured ERISA health
plans by using the Department of Labor definition of a small ERISA plan,
which is a plan with fewer than 100 insured participants. Using this
definition, the initial cost for small fully-insured ERISA health plans
is \$7.1 million. Finally, Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) will not
appear in a separate SIC code because IRBs are not Abusinesses@; rather,
they are committees of researchers who work for institutions where
medical research is conducted, such as universities or teaching
hospitals. IRB members usually serve as a professional courtesy or as
part of their employment duties and are not paid separately for their
IRB duties. Although IRBs are not Abusinesses@ that generate revenues,
we have treated them as small business for illustrative purposes in this
RFA to demonstrate the additional opportunity costs that will be faced
by those researchers who sit on IRBs. Therefore, assuming IRBs are small
businesses, the initial costs are \$.089 million and ongoing costs are
approximately \$84.2 million over 9 years.

***The Cost Model Methodology***

The RIA model employs two basic methodologies to determine the costs to
small businesses that are covered entities. As stated above, the RFA
determines the cost to small businesses by apportioning the total costs
in the RIA using SIC code data. In places where the cost of a given
provision of the final rule is a function of the number of covered
entities, we determined the proportion of entities in each SIC code that
have less than \$5 million in revenues (see Table A). We then multiplied
this proportion by the per-entity cost estimate of a given provision as
determined in the RIA. For example, the cost of the privacy official
provision is based on the fact that each covered entity will need to
have a privacy official. Therefore, we multiplied the total cost of the
privacy official, as determined in the RIA, by the proportion of small
businesses in each SIC code to determine the small business cost. Using
hospitals for illustrative purposes, because small and non-profit
hospitals account for 50 percent of all hospitals, our methodology
assigned 50 percent of the cost to small hospitals.

We used a second, though similar, method when the cost of a given
provision in the RIA did not depend on the number of covered entities.
For example, the requirement to provide notice of the privacy policy is
a direct function of the number of patients in the health care system
because the actual number of notices distributed depends on how many
patients are seen. Therefore, for provisions like the notice
requirement, we used SIC code revenue data in a two-step process. First,
we apportioned the cost of each provision among sectors of the health
care industry by SIC code. For example, because hospital revenue
accounts for 27 percent of all health care revenue, we multiplied the
total cost of each such provision by 27 percent to determine the cost
for the hospital sector in total. Then to determine the cost for small
hospitals specifically, we calculated the proportion of revenues within
the SIC code that are attributable to small business and multiplied that
proportion by the overall cost. For example, 45.1 percent of all
hospital revenue is generated by small hospitals, therefore, the cost to
small hospitals was assumed to account for 45.1 percent of all hospital
costs. Estimates, by nature are inexact. However, we feel this is a
reasonable way to determine the small business costs attributable to
this regulation given the limited data from which to work.

***Total Costs and Costs per Establishment for Small Business***

Based on the methodology described above, the total cost of complying
with the final rule in the initial year of 2003 is \$1.9 billion. The
ongoing costs to small business from 2004 to 2012 is \$9.3 billion.
Table C presents the initial and ongoing costs to small business by each
SIC code. According to this table, small doctors offices, small dentists
offices and small hospitals will face the highest cost of complying with
the final rule. However, much of the reason for the higher costs faced
by these three groups of small health care providers is explained by the
fact that there are a significant number of health care providers in
these categories.

**Table C.\--Annual Cost to Small Business of Implementing Provisions of
the Proposed Privacy Regulation**^1^

  -------------------------------- ---------------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------------------
  **SIC**                          **Industry**           **Initial Cost    **Ongoing Cost    **Total Costs**
                                                          (Year 1)^1^**     (Year 2-10)**     

  5910                             Drug Stores &          \$153,976,159     \$780,573,862     \$934,550,021
                                   Proprietary Stores                                         

  6320                             Accident & Health      \$41,348,527      \$169,540,638     \$210,889,164
                                   Insurance & Medical                                        
                                   Service Plans^2^                                           

  7353                             Medical Equipment      \$7,171,728       \$36,356,688      \$43,528,416
                                   Rental & Leasing                                           

  8010                             Offices & Clinics of   \$633,033,192     \$3,209,127,747   \$3,842,160,938
                                   Doctors of Medicine                                        

  8120                             Offices & Clinics of   \$283,774,344     \$1,438,578,786   \$1,722,353,130
                                   Dentists                                                   

  8030                             Offices & Clinics of   \$24,278,673      \$123,079,430     \$147,358,103
                                   Doctors of Osteopathy                                      

  8040                             Offices & Clinics of   \$139,251,750     \$705,929,263     \$845,181,013
                                   Other Health                                               
                                   Practitioners                                              

  8050                             Nursing & Personal     \$147,143,775     \$745,937,461     \$893,081,236
                                   Care Facilities                                            

  8060                             Hospitals              \$355,459,094     \$1,199,498,063   \$1,554,957,157

  8070                             Medical & Dental       \$41,242,809      \$209,078,203     \$250,321,012
                                   Laboratories                                               

  8080                             Home Health Care       \$72,632,601      \$368,207,067     \$440,839,668
                                   Services                                                   

  8090                             Misc Health & And      \$40,938,582      \$207,535,943     \$248,474,525
                                   Allied Services                                            

  n/a                              Fully Insured/ ERISA   \$7,137,028       \$0               \$7,137,028

  n/a                              IRBs                   \$88,813          \$84,162,446      \$84,251,259

  n/a                              Total Cost For Small   \$1,947,477,073   \$9,277,605,598   \$11,225,082,671
                                   Business                                                   

  ^1^ Source: Office of Advocacy,                                                             
  U.S. Small Business                                                                         
  Administration, from data                                                                   
  provided by the Bureau of the                                                               
  Census, Statistics of U.S.                                                                  
  Businesses, 1997. Entities that                                                             
  have less than \$5,000,000 in                                                               
  annual revenue are considered                                                               
  small businesses here, as are                                                               
  non-profit entities (regardless                                                             
  of revenue). We have non-profit                                                             
  data for the following SICs:                                                                
  8050, 8080, and 8060 and have                                                               
  included the number of                                                                      
  non-profits in each category                                                                
  into the table.                                                                             

  ^2^The initial costs include all                                                            
  costs in the first year,                                                                    
  including costs that recur in                                                               
  subsequent years.                                                                           

  ^3^ We have included                                                                        
  self-insured/self-administered                                                              
  health plans and third party                                                                
  administrators in the total                                                                 
  number of health plans, even                                                                
  though neither has individual                                                               
  SIC codes because we have the                                                               
  ability to impute revenues to                                                               
  them.                                                                                       
  -------------------------------- ---------------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------------------

On a per-establishment basis, Table D demonstrates that the average cost
for small business of complying with the proposed rule in the first year
is \$4,188 per-establishment. The ongoing costs of privacy compliance
are approximately \$2,217 each year thereafter. We estimate that the
average cost of compliance in the first year for each small non-hospital
health care provider is approximately 0.6 percent of per-establishment
revenues. In subsequent years, per-establishment costs about 0.3 percent
of per-establishment revenues. For small hospitals and health plans, the
per-establishment cost of compliance in the first year is 0.2 percent
and 6.3 percent of per-establishment revenues respectively. For
subsequent years, the cost is only 0.1 percent and 2.9 percent of
pre-establishment revenues respectively. These costs may be offset in
many firms by the savings realized through requirements of the
Transactions Rule.

**Table D.\--Average Annual per Establishment Privacy Costs^1^**

  -------------------------------- ------------------------ ------------------ -------------------
  **SIC**                          **Industry**             **Year 1 Privacy   **Average Year 2-10
                                                            Costs Per          Privacy Costs per
                                                            Establishment**    Establishment**

  5910                             Drug Stores &            \$6,436            \$3,625
                                   Proprietary Stores                          

  6320                             Accident & Health        \$62,162           \$28,320
                                   Insurance & Medical                         
                                   Service Plans^2^                            

  7353                             Medical Equipment Rental \$3,906            \$2,200
                                   & Leasing                                   

  8010                             Offices & Clinics of     \$3,703            \$2,086
                                   Doctors of Medicine                         

  8120                             Offices & Clinics of     \$2,492            \$1,404
                                   Dentists                                    

  8030                             Offices & Clinics of     \$2,743            \$1,545
                                   Doctors of Osteopathy                       

  8040                             Offices & Clinics of     \$1,608            \$906
                                   Other Health Practioners                    

  8050                             Nursing & Personal Care  \$8,301            \$4,676
                                   Facilities                                  

  8060                             Hospitals                \$101,999          \$38,244

  8070                             Medical & Dental         \$3,169            \$1,785
                                   Laboratories                                

  8080                             Home Health Care         \$5,656            \$3,186
                                   Services                                    

  8090                             Misc Health & And Allied \$3,649            \$2,055
                                   Services                                    

  n/a                              Fully Insured/ ERISA^3^  N/A                N/A

  n/a                              IRB^3^                   N/A                N/A

  n/a                              Average for All Small    \$4,188            \$2,217
                                   Business                                    

  ^1^ Source: Office of Advocacy,                                              
  U.S. Small Business                                                          
  Administration, from data                                                    
  provided by the Bureau of the                                                
  Census, Statistics of U.S.                                                   
  Businesses, 1997. Entities that                                              
  have less than \$5,000,000 in                                                
  annual revenue are considered                                                
  small businesses here, as are                                                
  non-profit entities (regardless                                              
  of revenue). We have non-profit                                              
  data for the following SICs:                                                 
  8050, 8080, and 8060 and have                                                
  included the number of                                                       
  non-profits in each category                                                 
  into the table.                                                              

  ^2^ We have included                                                         
  self-insured/self-administered                                               
  health plans and third party                                                 
  administrators in the total                                                  
  number of health plans, even                                                 
  though neither has individual                                                
  SIC codes because we have the                                                
  ability to impute revenues to                                                
  them.                                                                        

  ^2^We have not included the                                                  
  number of fully insured ERISA                                                
  health plans or institutional                                                
  review boards (IRB) in the total                                             
  number of health care entities                                               
  or the number of entities that                                               
  meet SMA standards for small                                                 
  entities, since these are not                                                
  separate businesses with SIC                                                 
  codes and we do not have                                                     
  sufficient data to impute                                                    
  revenues to them.                                                            
  -------------------------------- ------------------------ ------------------ -------------------

Table E shows the cost to each SIC code of the major cost items of the
final rule. Listed are the top-five most costly provisions of the rule
(to small business) and then the cost of all other remaining provisions.
The costs of the most expensive five provisions represent 90 percent of
the cost of the ongoing costs to small business, while the remaining
provisions only represent 7 percent.

**Table E.\--Average Annual Ongoing Cost to Small Business of
Implementing Provisions of the Privacy Regulation, After the First
Year**^1^

  ------------------- --------------- --------------- -------------- -------------------- -------------- ---------------
  **Industry**        **Average       **Average       **Average      **Average Annual     **Average      **Average
                      Annual Ongoing  Annual Ongoing  Annual Ongoing Ongoing Cost for     Annual Ongoing Annual Ongoing
                      Cost for        Cost for        Cost for       De-Identification,   Cost for       Cost for All
                      Privacy         Minimum         Disclosure     per Industry         Training, per  Other
                      Official, per   Necessary, per  Tracking, per  Sector**             Industry       Provisions, per
                      Industry        Industry        Industry                            Sector**       Industry
                      Sector**        Sector**        Sector**                                           Sector**

  Drug Stores &       \$37,997,168    \$30,008,085    \$3,597,262    \$3,751,011          \$4,083,677    \$7,293,227
  Proprietary Stores                                                                                     

  Accident & Health   \$5,920,267     \$5,395,070     \$985,072      \$3,614,697          \$59,086       \$2,863,657
  Insurance & Medical                                                                                    
  Service plans                                                                                          
  (including Self                                                                                        
  Insured/ Self                                                                                          
  Administered Health                                                                                    
  plans, & TPAs)^2^                                                                                      

  Medical Equipment   \$1,769,789     \$1,397,683     \$167,549      \$174,710            \$190,205      \$339,696
  Rental & Leasing                                                                                       

  Offices & clinics   \$156,215,538   \$123,370,486   \$14,789,213   \$15,421,311         \$16,788,984   \$29,984,217
  of Doctors of                                                                                          
  Medicine                                                                                               

  Offices & clinics   \$70,027,863    \$55,304,176    \$6,629,667    \$6,913,022          \$7,526,119    \$13,441,241
  of Doctors of                                                                                          
  Dentists                                                                                               

  Offices & clinics   \$5,991,323     \$4,731,619     \$567,210      \$591,452            \$643,907      \$1,149,982
  of Doctors of                                                                                          
  Osteopathy                                                                                             

  Offices & clinics   \$34,363,581    \$27,138,476    \$3,253,264    \$3,392,310          \$3,693,164    \$6,595,791
  of Other Health                                                                                        
  Practitioners                                                                                          

  Nursing & Personal  \$36,311,120    \$28,676,536    \$3,437,641    \$3,584,567          \$3,902,472    \$6,969,604
  care Facilities                                                                                        

  Hospitals           \$25,475,393    \$56,613,285    \$19,558,912   \$14,153,321         \$309,555      \$17,167,095

  Medical & Dental    \$10,177,614    \$8,037,723     \$963,534      \$1,004,715          \$1,093,821    \$1,953,505
  Laboratories                                                                                           

  Home Health care    \$17,923,769    \$14,155,212    \$1,696,876    \$1,769,402          \$1,926,325    \$3,440,312
  Services                                                                                               

  Misc Health &       \$10,102,539    \$7,978,433     \$956,426      \$997,304            \$1,085,752    \$1,939,095
  Allied Health                                                                                          
  Services                                                                                               

  Fully Insured/ERISA N/A             N/A             N/A            N/A                  N/A            \$9,351,383

  IRB                 N/A             N/A             N/A            N/A                  N/A            \$0

  Total               \$412,275,964   \$362,806,784   \$56,602,625   \$55,367,822         \$41,303,067   \$102,488,804

  ^1^ Source: Office                                                                                     
  of Advocacy, U.S.                                                                                      
  Small Business                                                                                         
  Administration,                                                                                        
  from data provided                                                                                     
  by the Bureau of                                                                                       
  the Census,                                                                                            
  Statistics of U.S.                                                                                     
  Businesses, 1997.                                                                                      
  Entities that have                                                                                     
  less than                                                                                              
  \$5,000,000 in                                                                                         
  annual revenue are                                                                                     
  considered small                                                                                       
  businesses here, as                                                                                    
  are non-profit                                                                                         
  entities                                                                                               
  (regardless of                                                                                         
  revenue). We have                                                                                      
  non-profit data for                                                                                    
  the following SICs:                                                                                    
  8050, 8080, and                                                                                        
  8060 and have                                                                                          
  included the number                                                                                    
  of non-profits in                                                                                      
  each category into                                                                                     
  the table.                                                                                             
  Businesses, 1997.                                                                                      
  Entities that have                                                                                     
  less than                                                                                              
  \$5,000,000 in                                                                                         
  annual revenue are                                                                                     
  considered small                                                                                       
  businesses here, as                                                                                    
  are non-profit                                                                                         
  entities                                                                                               
  (regardless of                                                                                         
  revenue). We have                                                                                      
  non-profit data for                                                                                    
  the following SICs:                                                                                    
  8050, 8080, and                                                                                        
  8060 and have                                                                                          
  included the number                                                                                    
  of non-profits in                                                                                      
  each category into                                                                                     
  the table.                                                                                             

  ^2^ We have                                                                                            
  included                                                                                               
  self-insured,                                                                                          
  self-administered                                                                                      
  health plans and                                                                                       
  third party                                                                                            
  administrators in                                                                                      
  the total number of                                                                                    
  health plans, even                                                                                     
  though neither has                                                                                     
  individual SIC                                                                                         
  codes because we                                                                                       
  have the ability to                                                                                    
  impute revenues to                                                                                     
  them.                                                                                                  
  ------------------- --------------- --------------- -------------- -------------------- -------------- ---------------

**VI. UNFUNDED MANDATES**

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-4) requires
cost-benefit and other analyses for rules that would cost more than
\$100 million in a single year. The rule qualifies as a significant rule
under the statute. The Department has carried out the cost-benefit
analysis in sections D and E of this document, which includes a
discussion of unfunded costs to state and local governments resulting
from this regulation. In developing this regulation, the Department
adopted the least burdensome alternatives, consistent with achieving the
rule=s goals.

**A. Future Costs**

The Department estimates some of the future costs of the rule in Section
E of the Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis of this document. The
estimates made include costs for the ten years after the effective date.
As discussed in Section E, state and local government costs will be in
the order of \$460 million in 2003 and \$2.4 billion over ten years.
Estimates for later years are not practical. The changes in technology
are likely to alter the nature of medical record-keeping, and the uses
of medical data are likely to vary dramatically over this period.
Therefore, any estimates for years beyond 2012 are not feasible.

**B. Particular regions, communities, or industrial sectors**

The rule applies to the health care industry and would, therefore,
affect that industry disproportionately. Any long-run increase in the
costs of health care services would largely be passed on to the entire
population of consumers. However, as discussed in the administrative
simplification regulation, the Transactions Rule is estimated to save
the health care industry nearly \$30 billion over essentially the same
time period. This more than offsets the costs of the Privacy Rule;
indeed, as discussed above, the establishment of consistent, national
standards for the protection of medical information is essential to
fully realize the savings from electronic transactions standards and
other advances that may be realized through Ae-health@ over the next
decade. Without strong privacy rules, patients and providers may be very
reluctant to fully participate in electronic and e-health opportunities.

**C. National productivity and economic growth**

The rule is not expected to substantially affect productivity or
economic growth. It is possible that productivity and growth in certain
sectors of the health care industry could be slightly lower than
otherwise because of the need to divert research and development
resources to compliance activities. The diversion of resources to
compliance activities would be temporary. Moreover, the Department
anticipates that, because the benefits of privacy are large, both
productivity and economic growth would be higher than in the absence of
the final rule. In section I.A. of this document, the Department
discusses its expectation that this rule will increase communication
among consumers, health plans, and providers and that implementation of
privacy protections will lead more people to seek health care. The
increased health of the population will lead to increased productivity
and economic growth.

**D. Full employment and job creation**

Some of the human resources devoted to delivery of health care services
will be redirected by the rule. The rule could lead to some short-run
changes in employment patterns as a result of the structural changes
within the health care industry. The growth of employment (job creation)
for the roles typically associated with the health care profession could
also temporarily change but be balanced by an increased need for those
who can assist entities with complying with this rule. Therefore, while
there could be a temporary slowing of growth in traditional health care
professions, that will be offset by a temporary increase in growth in
fields that may assist with compliance with this rule (e.g. worker
training, and management consultants).

**E. Exports**

Because the rule does not mandate any changes in products, current
export products will not be required to change in any way.

The Department consulted with state and local governments, and Tribal
governments. See sections X and XI, below.

**VII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT**

The Department has determined under 21 CFR 25.30(k) that this action is
of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

**VIII. COLLECTION OF INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS**

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), agencies are required
to provide a 30-day notice in the Federal Register and solicit public
comment before a collection of information requirement is submitted to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. In
order to fairly evaluate whether an information collection should be
approved by OMB, section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires that we
solicit comment on the following issues:

\$ Whether the information collection is necessary and useful to carry
out the proper functions of the agency;

\$ The accuracy of the agency\'s estimate of the information collection
burden;

\$ The quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
and

\$ Recommendations to minimize the information collection burden on the
affected public, including automated collection techniques.

Under the PRA, the time, effort, and financial resources necessary to
meet the information collection requirements referenced in this section
are to be considered. Due to the complexity of this regulation, and to
avoid redundancy of effort, we are referring readers to Section V (Final
Regulatory Impact Analysis) above, to review the detailed cost
assumptions associated with these PRA requirements. We explicitly seek,
and will consider, public comment on our assumptions as they relate to
the PRA requirements summarized in this section.

**Section 160.204CProcess for Requesting Exception Determinations**

Section 160.204 would require persons requesting to except a provision
of state law from preemption under \' 160.203(a) to submit a written
request, that meets the requirements of this section, to the Secretary
to except a provision of state law from preemption under \' 160.203. The
burden associated with these requirements is the time and effort
necessary for a state to prepare and submit the written request for an
exception determination to the Secretary for approval. On an annual
basis it is estimated that it will take 40 states 16 hours each to
prepare and submit a request. The total annual burden associated with
this requirement is 640 hours. The Department solicits public comment on
the number of requests and hours for others likely to submit requests.

**Section 160.306CComplaints to the Secretary**

A person who believes that a covered entity is not complying with the
applicable requirements of part 160 or the applicable standards,
requirements, and implementation specifications of Subpart E of part 164
of this subchapter may file a complaint with the Secretary. This
requirement is exempt from the PRA as stipulated under 5 CFR
1320.4(a)(2), an audit/ administrative action exemption.

**Section 160.310CResponsibilities of Covered Entities**

A covered entity must keep such records and submit such compliance
reports, in such time and manner and containing such information,
necessary to enable the Secretary to ascertain whether the covered
entity has complied or is complying with the applicable requirements of
part 160 and the applicable standards, requirements, and implementation
specifications of Subpart E of Part 164. Refer to \' 164.530 for
discussion.

**Section 164.502CUses and Disclosures of Protected Health Information:
General Rules**

A covered entity is permitted to disclose protected health information
to an individual, and is required to provide and individual with access
to protected health information, in accordance with the requirements set
forth under \' 164.524. Refer to \' 164.524 for discussion.

**Section 164.504CUses and Disclosures - Organizational Requirements**

Except for disclosures of protected health information by a covered
entity that is a health care provider to another health care provider
for treatment purposes, \' 164.504 requires a covered entity to maintain
documentation demonstrating that it meets the requirements set forth in
this section and to demonstrate that it has obtained satisfactory
assurance from business associates that meet the requirements of this
part with each of its business associates. The burden is 5 minutes per
entity times an annual average of 764,799 entities for a total burden of
63,733 burden hours.

**Section 164.506CConsent for Treatment, Payment, and Health Care
Operations**

Except in certain circumstances, a covered health care provider that has
a direct treatment relationship must obtain an individual=s consent for
use or disclosure of protected health information for treatment,
payment, or health care operations. While this requirement is subject to
the PRA, we believe that the burden associated with this requirement is
exempt from the PRA as stipulated under 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2).

**Section 164.508CUses and Disclosures for Which Individual
Authorization Is Required**

Under this section, a covered entity will need to obtain a written
authorization from an individual, before it uses or discloses protected
health information of the individual if the use or disclosure is not
otherwise permitted or required under the rule without authorization.
The burden associated with these requirements is the time and effort
necessary for a covered entity to obtain written authorization prior to
the disclosure of individually identifiable health information. On an
annual basis, we estimate that it will take 764,799 entities, an annual
average burden per entity of one hour for a total annual burden of
764,799 burden hours.

**Section 164.510CUses and Disclosures Requiring an Opportunity for the
Individual to Agree or to Object**

Section 164.510 allows, but does not require, covered entities to use or
disclose protected health information: (1) for health care institutions=
directories; and (2) to family members, close friends, or other persons
assisting in an individual=s care, as well as government agencies and
disaster relief organizations conducting disaster relief activities.
This section of the rule addresses situations in which the interaction
between the covered entity and the individual is relatively informal,
and agreements may be made orally, without written authorizations for
use or disclosure. In general, to disclose protected health information
for these purposes, covered entities must inform individuals in advance
and must provide a meaningful opportunity for the individual to prevent
or restrict the disclosure. In certain circumstances, such as in an
emergency , when this informal discussion cannot practicably occur,
covered entities can make decisions about disclosure or use, in
accordance with the requirements of this section based on their
professional judgement of what is in the patient=s best interest. While
these provisions are subject to the PRA, we believe that the burden
associated with this requirement is exempt from the PRA as stipulated
under 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2).

**Section 164.512CUses and Disclosures for which Consent, Individual
Authorization, or Opportunity to Agree or Object is Not Required**

Section 164.512 includes provisions that allow, but that do not require,
covered entities to disclose protected health information without
individual authorization for a variety of purposes which represent
important national priorities. Pursuant to \' 164.512, covered entities
may disclose protected health information for specified purposes as
follows: as required by law; for public health activities; to public
officials regarding victims of abuse, neglect, or domestic violence; for
health oversight; for judicial and administrative proceedings; for law
enforcement; for specified purposes regarding decedents; for organ
donation and transplantation; for research; to avert an imminent threat
to health or safety; for specialized government functions (such as for
intelligence and national security activities); and to comply with
workers= compensation laws. While these provisions are subject to the
PRA, we believe that the burden associated with this requirement is
exempt from the PRA as stipulated under 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2).

For research, if a covered entity wants to use or disclose protected
health information without individual authorization, it must obtain
documentation that a waiver, in whole or in part, of the individual
authorization required by \' 164.508 for use or disclosure of protected
health information has been approved by either an Institutional Review
Board (IRB), established in accordance with 7 CFR 1c.107, 10 CFR
745.107, 14 CFR 1230.107, 15 CFR 27.107, 16 CFR 1028.107, 21 CFR 56.107,
22 CFR 225.107, 28 CFR 46.107, 32 CFR 219.107, 34 CFR 97.107, 38 CFR
16.107, 40 CFR 26.107, 45 CFR 46.107, 45 CFR 690.107, or 49 CFR 11.107;
or a privacy board. The burden associated with these requirements is the
time and effort necessary for a covered entity to maintain documentation
demonstrating that they have obtained IRB or privacy board approval,
which meet the requirements of this section. On an annual basis it is
estimated that these requirements will affect 113,524 IRB reviews. We
further estimate that it will take an average of 5 minutes per review to
meet these requirements on an annual basis. Therefore, the total
estimated annual burden associated with this requirement is 9,460 hours.

**Section 164.514COther Procedural Requirements Relating to Uses and
Disclosures of Protected Health Information**

Prior to any disclosure permitted by this subpart, a covered entity must
verify the identity and authority of persons requesting protected health
information, if the identity or authority of such person is not known to
the covered entity, and obtain any documentation, statements, or
representations from the person requesting the protected health
information that is required as a condition of the disclosure. In
addition, a covered entity must retain any signed consent pursuant to \'
164.506 and any signed authorization pursuant to \' 164.508 for
documentation purposes as required by \' 164.530(j). This requirement is
exempt from the PRA as stipulated under 5 CFR 1320.4(a)(1) and (a)(2).

**Section 164.520CNotice of Privacy Practices for Protected Health
Information**

Except in certain circumstances set forth in this section, individuals
have a right to adequate notice of the uses and disclosures of protected
health information that may be made by the covered entity, and of the
individual=s rights and the covered entity=s legal duties with respect
to protected health information. To comply with this requirement a
covered entity must provide a notice, written in plain language, that
includes the elements set forth in this section. For health plans, there
will be an average of 160.2 million notices each year. We assume that
the most efficient means of distribution for health plans will be to
send them out annually as part of the materials they send to current and
potential enrollees, even though it is not required by the regulation.
The number of notices per health plan per year would be about 10,570. We
further estimate that it will require each health plan, on average, only
10 seconds to disseminate each notice. The total annual burden
associated with this requirement is calculated to be 267,000 hours.
Health care providers with direct treatment relationships would provide
a copy of the notice to an individual at the time of first service
delivery to the individual, make the notice available at the service
delivery site for individuals to request and take with them, whenever
the content of the notice is revised, make the notice available upon
request and post the notice, if required by this section, and post a
copy of the notice in a location where it is reasonable to expect
individuals seeking services from the provider to be able to read the
notice. The annual number of notices disseminated by all providers is
613 million. We further estimate that it will require each health care
provider, on average, 10 seconds to disseminate each notice. This
estimate is based upon the assumption that the required notice will be
incorporated into and disseminated with other patient materials. The
total annual burden associated with this requirement is calculated to be
1 million hours.

In addition, a covered entity must document compliance with the notice
requirements by retaining copies of the notices issued by the covered
entity. Refer to \' 164.530 for discussion.

**Section 164.522CRights to Request Privacy Protection for Protected
Health Information**

Given that the burden associated with the following information
collection requirements will differ significantly, by the type and size
of health plan or health care provider, we are explicitly soliciting
comment on the burden associated with the following requirements: as
outlined and required by this section, covered entities must provide
individuals with the opportunity to request restrictions related to the
uses or disclosures of protected health information for treatment,
payment, or health care operations. In addition, covered entities must
accommodate requests for confidential communications in certain
situations.

**Section 164.524CAccess of Individuals to Protected Health
Information**

As set forth in this section, covered entities must provide individuals
with access to inspect and obtain a copy of protected health information
about them in designated record sets, for so long as the protected
health information is maintained in the designated record sets. This
includes such information in a business associate=s designated record
set that is not a duplicate of the information held by the health care
provider or health plan for so long as the information is maintained.
Where the request is denied in whole or in part, the covered entity must
provide the individual with a written statement of the basis for the
denial and a description of how the individual may complain to the
covered entity pursuant to the complaint procedures established in \'
164.530 or to the Secretary pursuant to the procedures established in \'
160.306 of this subpart. In certain cases, the covered entity must
provide the individual the opportunity to have another health care
professional review the denial. Pursuant to public comment, we estimate
that each disclosure will contain 31 pages and that 150,000 disclosures
will be made on an annual basis at three minutes per disclosure for a
total burden of 7,500 hours. Refer to section V.E. for detailed
discussion related to the costs associated with meeting these
requirements.

**Section 164.526CAmendment of Protected Health Information**

Given that burden associated with the following information collection
requirements will differ significantly, by the type and size of health
plan or health care provider, we are explicitly soliciting comment on
the burden associated with the following requirements: Individuals have
the right to request amendment of protected health information about
them in designated record sets created by a covered entity. Where the
request is denied, a covered entity must provide the individual with a
written statement of the basis for the denial and an explanation of how
the individual may pursue the matter, including how to file a complaint
with the Secretary pursuant to \' 160.306 of this subpart. As
appropriate, a covered entity must identify the protected health
information in the designated record set that is the subject of the
disputed amendment and append or otherwise link the individual=s request
for an amendment, the covered entity=s denial of the request, the
individual=s statement of disagreement, if any, and the covered entity=s
rebuttal, if any, to the designated record set.

**Section 164.528CAccounting for Disclosures of Protected Health
Information**

Based upon public comment it is assumed that it will take 5 minutes per
request times 1,081,000 requests for an annual burden of 90,083 hours.
An individual may request that a covered entity provide an accounting
for disclosure for a period of time less than six years from the date of
the individual=s request, as outlined in this section.

**Section 164.530CAdministrative Requirements**

A covered entity must maintain such policies and procedures in written
or electronic form where policies or procedures with respect to
protected health information are required by this subpart. Where a
communication is required by this subpart to be in writing, a covered
entity must maintain such writing, or an electronic copy, as
documentation; and where an action or activity is required by this
subpart to be documented, it must maintain a written or electronic
record of such action or activity. While these requirements are subject
to the PRA, we believe the burden associated with these requirements is
exempt from the PRA as stipulated under 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2).

We have submitted a copy of this rule to OMB for its review of the
information collection requirements in Secs. 160.204, 160.306, 160.310,
164.502, 164.504, 164.506, 164.508, 164.510, 164.512, 164.514, 164.520,
164.522, 164.524, 164.526, 164.528, and Sec. 164.530. These requirements
are not effective until they have been approved by OMB. If you comment
on any of these information collection and record keeping requirements,
please mail copies directly to the following: Health Care Financing
Administration, Office of Information Services, Division of HCFA
Enterprise Standards, Room N2-14-26, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore,
MD 21244-1850. ATTN: John Burke and to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, New
Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. ATTN: Allison Herron
Eydt, HCFA Desk Officer.

**IX. EXECUTIVE ORDER 13132: FEDERALISM**

The Department has examined the effects of provisions in the final
privacy regulation on the relationship between the federal government
and the states, as required by Executive Order 13132 on \"Federalism.\"
Our conclusion is that the final rule does have federalism implications
because the rule has substantial direct effects on states, on the
relationship between the national government and states, and on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. The federalism implications of the rule, however, flow from
and are consistent with the underlying statute. The statute allows us to
preempt state or local rules that provide less stringent privacy
protection requirements than federal law is consistent with this
Executive Order. Overall, the final rule attempts to balance both the
autonomy of the states with the necessity to create a federal benchmark
to preserve the privacy of personally identifiable health information.

It is recognized that the states generally have laws that relate to the
privacy of individually identifiable health information. The HIPAA
statute dictates the relationship between state law and this final rule.
Except for laws that are specifically exempted by the HIPAA statute,
state laws continue to be enforceable, unless they are contrary to Part
C of Title XI of the standards, requirements, or implementation
specifications adopted or pursuant to subpart x. However, under section
264(c)(2), not all contrary provisions of state privacy laws are
preempted; rather, the law provides that contrary provisions of state
law relating to the privacy of individually identifiable health
information that are also Amore stringent@ than the federal regulatory
requirements or implementation specifications will continue to be
enforceable.

Section 3(b) of Executive Order 13132 recognizes that national action
limiting the policymaking discretion of states will be imposed A. . .
only where there is constitutional and statutory authority for the
action and the national activity is appropriate in light of the presence
of a problem of national significance.@ Personal privacy issues are
widely identified as a national concern by virtue of the scope of
interstate health commerce. HIPAA=s provisions reflect this position.
HIPAA attempts to facilitate the electronic exchange of financial and
administrative health plan transactions while recognizing challenges
that local, national, and international information sharing raise to
confidentiality and privacy of health information.

Section 3(d)(2) of the Executive Order 13132 requires the federal
government defer to the states to establish standards where possible.
HIPAA requires the Department to establish standards, and we have done
so accordingly. This approach is a key component of the final Privacy
Rule, and it adheres to Section 4(a) of Executive Order 13132, which
expressly contemplates preemption when there is a conflict between
exercising state and federal authority under federal statute. Section
262 of HIPAA enacted Section 1178 of the Social Security Act, developing
a Ageneral rule@ that state laws or provisions that are contrary to the
provisions or requirements of Part C of Title XI, or the standards or
implementation specifications adopted, or established thereunder are
preempted. Several exceptions to this rule exist, each of which is
designed to maintain a high degree of state autonomy.

Moreover, Section 4(b) of the Executive Order authorizes preemption of
state law in the federal rule making context when there is \"the
exercise of state authority is directly conflicts with the exercise of
federal authority under federal statute\*\*\*.\" Section 1178 (a)(2)(B)
of HIPAA specifically preempts state laws related to the privacy of
individually identifiable health information unless the state law is
more stringent. Thus, we have interpreted state and local laws and
regulations that would impose less stringent requirements for protection
of individually identifiable health information as undermining the
agency\'s goal of ensuring that all patients who receive medical
services are assured a minimum level of personal privacy. Particularly
where the absence of privacy protection undermines an individual=s
access to health care services, both the personal and public interest is
served by establishing federal rules.

The final rule would establish national minimum standards with respect
to the collection, maintenance, access, use, and disclosure of
individually identifiable health information. The federal law will
preempt state law only where state and federal laws are Acontradictory@
and the federal regulation is judged to establish Amore stringent@
privacy protections than state laws.

As required by the previous Executive Order (E.O.13132), states and
local governments were given, through the notice of proposed rule
making, an opportunity to participate in the proceedings to preempt
state and local laws (Section 4(e)). The Secretary also provided a
review of preemption issues upon requests from states. In addition,
anticipating the promulgation of the Executive Order, appropriate
officials and organizations were consulted before this proposed action
is implemented (Section 3(a) of Executive Order 13132).

The same section also includes some qualitative discussion of costs that
would occur beyond that time period. Most of the costs of the proposed
rule, however, would occur in the years immediately after the
publication of a final rule. Future costs beyond the ten year period
will continue but will not be as great as the initial compliance costs.

Finally, we have considered the cost burden that this proposed rule
would impose on state and local health care programs, such as Medicaid,
county hospitals, and other state health benefits programs. As discussed
in Section E of the Regulatory Impact Analysis of this document, we
estimate state and local government costs will be in the order of \$460
million in 2003 and \$2.4 billion over ten years.

The agency concludes that the policy in this final document has been
assessed in light of the principles, criteria, and requirements in
Executive Order 13132; that this policy is not inconsistent with that
Order; that this policy will not impose significant additional costs and
burdens on the states; and that this policy will not affect the ability
of the states to discharge traditional state governmental functions.

During our consultation with the states, representatives from various
state agencies and offices expressed concern that the final regulation
would preempt all state privacy laws. As explained in this section, the
regulation would only preempt state laws where there is a direct
conflict between state laws and the regulation, and where the regulation
provides more stringent privacy protection than state law. We discussed
this issue during our consultation with state representatives, who
generally accepted our approach to the preemption issue. During the
consultation, we requested further information from the states about
whether they currently have laws requiring that providers have a Aduty
to warn@ family members or third parties about a patient=s condition
other than in emergency circumstances. Since the consultation, we have
not received additional comments or questions from the states.

**X. EXECUTIVE ORDER 13086: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH INDIAN
TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS**

In drafting the proposed rule, the Department consulted with
representatives of the National Congress of American Indians and the
National Indian Health Board, as well as with a representative of the
self-governance Tribes. During the consultation, we discussed issues
regarding the application of Title II of HIPAA to the Tribes, and
potential variations based on the relationship of each Tribe with the
IHS for the purpose of providing health services. Participants raised
questions about the status of Tribal laws regarding the privacy of
health information.

**LIST OF SUBJECTS**

**45 CFR Part 160**

Electronic transactions, Employer benefit plan, Health, Health care,
Health facilities, Health insurance, Health records, Medicaid, Medical
research, Medicare, Privacy, Reporting and record keeping requirements.

**45 CFR Part 164**

Electronic transactions, Employer benefit plan, Health, Health care,
Health facilities, Health insurance, Health records, Medicaid, Medical
research, Medicare, Privacy, Reporting and record keeping requirements.

[Note to reader]{.underline}: This final rule is one of several proposed
and final rules that are being published to implement the Administrative
Simplification provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996. 45 CFR subchapter C, consisting of Parts 160
and 162 was added at 65 FR 50365, August 17, 2000. Part 160 consists of
general provisions, Part 162 consists of the various administrative
simplification regulations relating to transactions and identifiers, and
new Part 164 consists of the regulations implementing the security and
privacy requirements of the legislation.

Dated: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> Donna Shalala,
>
> [Secretary]{.underline}

**BILLING CODE 4150-04M**

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 45 CFR Subtitle A, Subchapter
C, is amended as follows:

1\. Part 160 is revised to read as follows:

**PART 160 B GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS**

**Subpart A B General Provisions**

160.101 Statutory basis and purpose.

160.102 Applicability.

160.103 Definitions.

160.104 Modifications.

**Subpart B B Preemption of State Law**

160.201 Applicability.

160.202 Definitions.

160.203 General rule and exceptions.

160.204 Process for requesting exception determinations.

160.205 Duration of effectiveness of exception determinations.

**Subpart C B Compliance and Enforcement**

160.300 Applicability.

160.302 Definitions.

160.304 Principles for achieving compliance.

160.306 Complaints to the Secretary.

160.308 Compliance reviews.

160.310 Responsibilities of covered entities.

160.312 Secretarial action regarding complaints and compliance reviews.

Authority: Sec. 1171 through 1179 of the Social Security Act, (42 U.S.C.
1320d-1329d-8) as added by sec. 262 of Pub. L. 104-191, 110 Stat.
2021-2031 and sec. 264 of Pub. L. 104-191 (42 U.S.C. 1320d-2(note)).

**Subpart A - General Provisions**

[\' 160.101 Statutory basis and purpose.]{.underline}

The requirements of this subchapter implement sections 1171 through 1179
of the Social Security Act (the Act), as added by section 262 of Public
Law 104-191, and section 264 of Public Law 104-191.

[\' 160.102 Applicability.]{.underline}

\(a\) Except as otherwise provided, the standards, requirements, and
implementation specifications adopted under this subchapter apply to the
following entities:

\(1\) A health plan.

\(2\) A health care clearinghouse.

\(3\) A health care provider who transmits any health information in
electronic form in connection with a transaction covered by this
subchapter.

\(b\) To the extent required under section 201(a)(5) of the Health
Insurance Portability Act of 1996, (Pub. L. 104-191), nothing in this
subchapter shall be construed to diminish the authority of any Inspector
General, including such authority as provided in the Inspector General
Act of 1978, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.).

[\' 160.103 Definitions.]{.underline}

Except as otherwise provided, the following definitions apply to this
subchapter:

*Act* means the Social Security Act.

*ANSI* stands for the American National Standards Institute.

*Business associate*: (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this
definition, *business associate* means, with respect to a covered
entity, a person who:

\(i\) On behalf of such covered entity or of an organized health care
arrangement (as defined in \' 164.501 of this subchapter) in which the
covered entity participates, but other than in the capacity of a member
of the workforce of such covered entity or arrangement, performs, or
assists in the performance of:

\(A\) A function or activity involving the use or disclosure of
individually identifiable health information, including claims
processing or administration, data analysis, processing or
administration, utilization review, quality assurance, billing, benefit
management, practice management, and repricing; or

\(B\) Any other function or activity regulated by this subchapter; or

\(ii\) Provides, other than in the capacity of a member of the workforce
of such covered entity, legal, actuarial, accounting, consulting, data
aggregation (as defined in \' 164.501 of this subchapter), management,
administrative, accreditation, or financial services to or for such
covered entity, or to or for an organized health care arrangement in
which the covered entity participates, where the provision of the
service involves the disclosure of individually identifiable health
information from such covered entity or arrangement, or from another
business associate of such covered entity or arrangement, to the person.

\(2\) A covered entity participating in an organized health care
arrangement that performs a function or activity as described by
paragraph (1)(i) of this definition for or on behalf of such organized
health care arrangement, or that provides a service as described in
paragraph (1)(ii) of this definition to or for such organized health
care arrangement, does not, simply through the performance of such
function or activity or the provision of such service, become a business
associate of other covered entities participating in such organized
health care arrangement.

\(3\) A covered entity may be a business associate of another covered
entity.

*Compliance date* means the date by which a covered entity must comply
with a standard, implementation specification, requirement, or
modification adopted under this subchapter.

*Covered entity* means:

\(1\) A health plan.

\(2\) A health care clearinghouse.

\(3\) A health care provider who transmits any health information in
electronic form in connection with a transaction covered by this
subchapter.

*Group health plan* (also see definition of *health plan* in this
section) means an employee welfare benefit plan (as defined in section
3(1) of the Employee Retirement Income and Security Act of 1974 (ERISA),
29 U.S.C. 1002(1)), including insured and self‑insured plans, to the
extent that the plan provides medical care (as defined in section
2791(a)(2) of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act), 42 U.S.C.
300gg-91(a)(2)), including items and services paid for as medical care,
to employees or their dependents directly or through insurance,
reimbursement, or otherwise, that:

\(1\) Has 50 or more participants (as defined in section 3(7) of ERISA,
29 U.S.C. 1002(7)); or

\(2\) Is administered by an entity other than the employer that
established and maintains the plan.

*HCFA* stands for Health Care Financing Administration within the
Department of Health and Human Services.

*HHS* stands for the Department of Health and Human Services.

*Health care* means care, services, or supplies related to the health of
an individual. *Health care* includes, but is not limited to, the
following:

\(1\) Preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic, rehabilitative, maintenance,
or palliative care, and counseling, service, assessment, or procedure
with respect to the physical or mental condition, or functional status,
of an individual or that affects the structure or function of the body;
and

\(2\) Sale or dispensing of a drug, device, equipment, or other item in
accordance with a prescription.

*Health care clearinghouse* means a public or private entity, including
a billing service, repricing company, community health management
information system or community health information system, and
Avalue-added@ networks and switches, that does either of the following
functions:

\(1\) Processes or facilitates the processing of health information
received from another entity in a nonstandard format or containing
nonstandard data content into standard data elements or a standard
transaction.

\(2\) Receives a standard transaction from another entity and processes
or facilitates the processing of health information into nonstandard
format or nonstandard data content for the receiving entity.

*Health care provider* means a provider of services (as defined in
section 1861(u) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 1395x(u)), a provider of medical
or health services (as defined in section 1861(s) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.
1395x(s)), and any other person or organization who furnishes, bills, or
is paid for health care in the normal course of business.

*Health information* means any information, whether oral or recorded in
any form or medium, that:

\(1\) Is created or received by a health care provider, health plan,
public health authority, employer, life insurer, school or university,
or health care clearinghouse; and

\(2\) Relates to the past, present, or future physical or mental health
or condition of an individual; the provision of health care to an
individual; or the past, present, or future payment for the provision of
health care to an individual.

*Health insurance issuer* (as defined in section 2791(b)(2) of the PHS
Act, 42 U.S.C. 300gg-91(b)(2) and used in the definition of *health
plan* in this section) means an insurance company, insurance service, or
insurance organization (including an HMO) that is licensed to engage in
the business of insurance in a State and is subject to State law that
regulates insurance. Such term does not include a group health plan.

*Health maintenance organization (HMO)* (as defined in section
2791(b)(3) of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300gg-91(b)(3) and used in the
definition of *health plan* in this section) means a federally qualified
HMO, an organization recognized as an HMO under State law, or a similar
organization regulated for solvency under State law in the same manner
and to the same extent as such an HMO.

*Health plan* means an individual or group plan that provides, or pays
the cost of, medical care (as defined in section 2791(a)(2) of the PHS
Act, 42 U.S.C. 300gg-91(a)(2)).

\(1\) *Health plan* includes the following, singly or in combination:

\(i\) A group health plan, as defined in this section.

\(ii\) A health insurance issuer, as defined in this section.

\(iii\) An HMO, as defined in this section.

\(iv\) Part A or Part B of the Medicare program under title XVIII of the
Act.

\(v\) The Medicaid program under title XIX of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 1396,
et seq.

\(vi\) An issuer of a Medicare supplemental policy (as defined in
section 1882(g)(1) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 1395ss(g)(1)).

\(vii\) An issuer of a long-term care policy, excluding a nursing home
fixed-indemnity policy.

\(viii\) An employee welfare benefit plan or any other arrangement that
is established or maintained for the purpose of offering or providing
health benefits to the employees of two or more employers.

\(ix\) The health care program for active military personnel under title
10 of the United States Code.

\(x\) The veterans health care program under 38 U.S.C. chapter 17.

\(xi\) The Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services
(CHAMPUS)(as defined in 10 U.S.C. 1072(4)).

\(xii\) The Indian Health Service program under the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act, 25 U.S.C. 1601, et seq.

\(xiii\) The Federal Employees Health Benefits Program under 5 U.S.C.
8902, et seq.

\(xiv\) An approved State child health plan under title XXI of the Act,
providing benefits for child health assistance that meet the
requirements of section 2103 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 1397, et seq.

\(xv\) The Medicare + Choice program under Part C of title XVIII of the
Act, 42 U.S.C. 1395w-21 through 1395w-28.

\(xvi\) A high risk pool that is a mechanism established under State law
to provide health insurance coverage or comparable coverage to eligible
individuals.

\(xvii\) Any other individual or group plan, or combination of
individual or group plans, that provides or pays for the cost of medical
care (as defined in section 2791(a)(2) of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C.
300gg-91(a)(2)).

\(2\) *Health plan* excludes:

\(i\) Any policy, plan, or program to the extent that it provides, or
pays for the cost of, excepted benefits that are listed in section
2791(c)(1) of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300gg-91(c)(1); and

\(ii\) A government-funded program (other than one listed in paragraph
(1)(i)-(xvi)of this definition):

\(A\) Whose principal purpose is other than providing, or paying the
cost of, health care; or

\(B\) Whose principal activity is:

(*1*) The direct provision of health care to persons; or

(*2*) The making of grants to fund the direct provision of health care
to persons.

*Implementation specification* means specific requirements or
instructions for implementing a standard.

*Modify* or *modification* refers to a change adopted by the Secretary,
through regulation, to a standard or an implementation specification.

*Secretary* means the Secretary of Health and Human Services or any
other officer or employee of HHS to whom the authority involved has been
delegated.

*Small health plan* means a health plan with annual receipts of \$5
million or less.

*Standard* means a rule, condition, or requirement:

\(1\) Describing the following information for products, systems,
services or practices:

\(i\) Classification of components.

\(ii\) Specification of materials, performance, or operations; or

\(iii\) Delineation of procedures; or

\(2\) With respect to the privacy of individually identifiable health
information.

*Standard setting organization* (SSO) means an organization accredited
by the American National Standards Institute that develops and maintains
standards for information transactions or data elements, or any other
standard that is necessary for, or will facilitate the implementation
of, this part.

*State* refers to one of the following:

\(1\) For a health plan established or regulated by Federal law, *State*
has the meaning set forth in the applicable section of the United States
Code for such health plan.

\(2\) For all other purposes, *State* means any of the several States,
the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, and Guam.

*Trading partner agreement* means an agreement related to the exchange
of information in electronic transactions, whether the agreement is
distinct or part of a larger agreement, between each party to the
agreement. (For example, a trading partner agreement may specify, among
other things, the duties and responsibilities of each party to the
agreement in conducting a standard transaction.)

*Transaction* means the transmission of information between two parties
to carry out financial or administrative activities related to health
care. It includes the following types of information transmissions:

\(1\) Health care claims or equivalent encounter information.

\(2\) Health care payment and remittance advice.

\(3\) Coordination of benefits.

\(4\) Health care claim status.

\(5\) Enrollment and disenrollment in a health plan.

\(6\) Eligibility for a health plan.

\(7\) Health plan premium payments.

\(8\) Referral certification and authorization.

\(9\) First report of injury.

\(10\) Health claims attachments.

\(11\) Other transactions that the Secretary may prescribe by
regulation.

*Workforce* means employees, volunteers, trainees, and other persons
whose conduct, in the performance of work for a covered entity, is under
the direct control of such entity, whether or not they are paid by the
covered entity.

[\' 160.104 Modifications.]{.underline}

\(a\) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the Secretary
may adopt a modification to a standard or implementation specification
adopted under this subchapter no more frequently than once every 12
months.

\(b\) The Secretary may adopt a modification at any time during the
first year after the standard or implementation specification is
initially adopted, if the Secretary determines that the modification is
necessary to permit compliance with the standard or implementation
specification.

\(c\) The Secretary will establish the compliance date for any standard
or implementation specification modified under this section.

\(1\) The compliance date for a modification is no earlier than 180 days
after the effective date of the final rule in which the Secretary adopts
the modification.

\(2\) The Secretary may consider the extent of the modification and the
time needed to comply with the modification in determining the
compliance date for the modification.

\(3\) The Secretary may extend the compliance date for small health
plans, as the Secretary determines is appropriate.

**Subpart B - Preemption of State Law**

[\'160.201 Applicability]{.underline}.

The provisions of this subpart implement section 1178 of the Act, as
added by section 262 of Public Law 104-191.

[\' 160.202 Definitions.]{.underline}

For purposes of this subpart, the following terms have the following
meanings:

*Contrary*, when used to compare a provision of State law to a standard,
requirement, or implementation specification adopted under this
subchapter, means:

\(1\) A covered entity would find it impossible to comply with both the
State and federal requirements; or

\(2\) The provision of State law stands as an obstacle to the
accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of part
C of title XI of the Act or section 264 of Pub. L. 104-191, as
applicable.

*More stringent* means, in the context of a comparison of a provision of
State law and a standard, requirement, or implementation specification
adopted under subpart E of part 164 of this subchapter, a State law that
meets one or more of the following criteria:

\(1\) With respect to a use or disclosure, the law prohibits or
restricts a use or disclosure in circumstances under which such use or
disclosure otherwise would be permitted under this subchapter, except if
the disclosure is:

\(i\) Required by the Secretary in connection with determining whether a
covered entity is in compliance with this subchapter; or

\(ii\) To the individual who is the subject of the individually
identifiable health information.

\(2\) With respect to the rights of an individual who is the subject of
the individually identifiable health information of access to or
amendment of individually identifiable health information, permits
greater rights of access or amendment, as applicable; provided that,
nothing in this subchapter may be construed to preempt any State law to
the extent that it authorizes or prohibits disclosure of protected
health information about a minor to a parent, guardian, or person acting
*in loco parentis* of such minor.

\(3\) With respect to information to be provided to an individual who is
the subject of the individually identifiable health information about a
use, a disclosure, rights, and remedies, provides the greater amount of
information.

\(4\) With respect to the form or substance of an authorization or
consent for use or disclosure of individually identifiable health
information, provides requirements that narrow the scope or duration,
increase the privacy protections afforded (such as by expanding the
criteria for), or reduce the coercive effect of the circumstances
surrounding the authorization or consent, as applicable.

\(5\) With respect to recordkeeping or requirements relating to
accounting of disclosures, provides for the retention or reporting of
more detailed information or for a longer duration.

\(6\) With respect to any other matter, provides greater privacy
protection for the individual who is the subject of the individually
identifiable health information.

*Relates to the privacy of individually identifiable health information*
means, with respect to a State law, that the State law has the specific
purpose of protecting the privacy of health information or affects the
privacy of health information in a direct, clear, and substantial way.

*State law* means a constitution, statute, regulation, rule, common law,
or other State action having the force and effect of law.

[\' 160.203 General rule and exceptions.]{.underline}

A standard, requirement, or implementation specification adopted under
this subchapter that is contrary to a provision of State law preempts
the provision of State law. This general rule applies, except if one or
more of the following conditions is met:

\(a\) A determination is made by the Secretary under \' 160.204 that the
provision of State law:

\(1\) Is necessary:

\(i\) To prevent fraud and abuse related to the provision of or payment
for health care;

\(ii\) To ensure appropriate State regulation of insurance and health
plans to the extent expressly authorized by statute or regulation;

\(iii\) For State reporting on health care delivery or costs; or

\(iv\) For purposes of serving a compelling need related to public
health, safety, or welfare, and, if a standard, requirement, or
implementation specification under part 164 of this subchapter is at
issue, if the Secretary determines that the intrusion into privacy is
warranted when balanced against the need to be served; or

\(2\) Has as its principal purpose the regulation of the manufacture,
registration, distribution, dispensing, or other control of any
controlled substances (as defined in 21 U.S.C. 802), or that is deemed a
controlled substance by State law.

\(b\) The provision of State law relates to the privacy of health
information and is more stringent than a standard, requirement, or
implementation specification adopted under subpart E of part 164 of this
subchapter.

\(c\) The provision of State law, including State procedures established
under such law, as applicable, provides for the reporting of disease or
injury, child abuse, birth, or death, or for the conduct of public
health surveillance, investigation, or intervention.

\(d\) The provision of State law requires a health plan to report, or to
provide access to, information for the purpose of management audits,
financial audits, program monitoring and evaluation, or the licensure or
certification of facilities or individuals.

[\' 160.204 Process for requesting exception
determinations.]{.underline}

\(a\) A request to except a provision of State law from preemption under
\' 160.203(a) may be submitted to the Secretary. A request by a State
must be submitted through its chief elected official, or his or her
designee. The request must be in writing and include the following
information:

\(1\) The State law for which the exception is requested;

\(2\) The particular standard, requirement, or implementation
specification for which the exception is requested;

\(3\) The part of the standard or other provision that will not be
implemented based on the exception or the additional data to be
collected based on the exception, as appropriate;

\(4\) How health care providers, health plans, and other entities would
be affected by the exception;

\(5\) The reasons why the State law should not be preempted by the
federal standard, requirement, or implementation specification,
including how the State law meets one or more of the criteria at \'
160.203(a); and

\(6\) Any other information the Secretary may request in order to make
the determination.

\(b\) Requests for exception under this section must be submitted to the
Secretary at an address that will be published in the [Federal
Register]{.underline}. Until the Secretary\'s determination is made, the
standard, requirement, or implementation specification under this
subchapter remains in effect.

\(c\) The Secretary\'s determination under this section will be made on
the basis of the extent to which the information provided and other
factors demonstrate that one or more of the criteria at \' 160.203(a)
has been met.

[\' 160.205 Duration of effectiveness of exception
determinations.]{.underline}

An exception granted under this subpart remains in effect until:

\(a\) Either the State law or the federal standard, requirement, or
implementation specification that provided the basis for the exception
is materially changed such that the ground for the exception no longer
exists; or

\(b\) The Secretary revokes the exception, based on a determination that
the ground supporting the need for the exception no longer exists.

**Subpart C - Compliance and Enforcement**

[\' 160.300 Applicability.]{.underline}

This subpart applies to actions by the Secretary, covered entities, and
others with respect to ascertaining the compliance by covered entities
with and the enforcement of the applicable requirements of this part 160
and the applicable standards, requirements, and implementation
specifications of subpart E of part 164 of this subchapter.

[\' 160.302 Definitions.]{.underline}

As used in this subpart, terms defined in \' 164.501 of this subchapter
have the same meanings given to them in that section.

[\' 160.304 Principles for achieving compliance.]{.underline}

\(a\) [Cooperation.]{.underline} The Secretary will, to the extent
practicable, seek the cooperation of covered entities in obtaining
compliance with the applicable requirements of this part 160 and the
applicable standards, requirements, and implementation specifications of
subpart E of part 164 of this subchapter.

\(b\) [Assistance.]{.underline} The Secretary may provide technical
assistance to covered entities to help them comply voluntarily with the
applicable requirements of this part 160 or the applicable standards,
requirements, and implementation specifications of subpart E of part 164
of this subchapter.

[\' 160.306 Complaints to the Secretary.]{.underline}

\(a\) [Right to file a complaint.]{.underline} A person who believes a
covered entity is not complying with the applicable requirements of this
part 160 or the applicable standards, requirements, and implementation
specifications of subpart E of part 164 of this subchapter may file a
complaint with the Secretary.

\(b\) [Requirements for filing complaints.]{.underline} Complaints under
this section must meet the following requirements:

\(1\) A complaint must be filed in writing, either on paper or
electronically.

\(2\) A complaint must name the entity that is the subject of the
complaint and describe the acts or omissions believed to be in violation
of the applicable requirements of this part 160 or the applicable
standards, requirements, and implementation specifications of subpart E
of part 164 of this subchapter.

\(3\) A complaint must be filed within 180 days of when the complainant
knew or should have known that the act or omission complained of
occurred, unless this time limit is waived by the Secretary for good
cause shown.

\(4\) The Secretary may prescribe additional procedures for the filing
of complaints, as well as the place and manner of filing, by notice in
the [Federal Register]{.underline}.

\(c\) [Investigation.]{.underline} The Secretary may investigate
complaints filed under this section. Such investigation may include a
review of the pertinent policies, procedures, or practices of the
covered entity and of the circumstances regarding any alleged acts or
omissions concerning compliance.

[\' 160.308 Compliance reviews.]{.underline}

The Secretary may conduct compliance reviews to determine whether
covered entities are complying with the applicable requirements of this
part 160 and the applicable standards, requirements, and implementation
specifications of subpart E of part 164 of this subchapter.

[\' 160.310 Responsibilities of covered entities.]{.underline}

\(a\) [Provide records and compliance reports.]{.underline} A covered
entity must keep such records and submit such compliance reports, in
such time and manner and containing such information, as the Secretary
may determine to be necessary to enable the Secretary to ascertain
whether the covered entity has complied or is complying with the
applicable requirements of this part 160 and the applicable standards,
requirements, and implementation specifications of subpart E of part 164
of this subchapter.

\(b\) [Cooperate with complaint investigations and compliance
reviews.]{.underline} A covered entity must cooperate with the
Secretary, if the Secretary undertakes an investigation or compliance
review of the policies, procedures, or practices of a covered entity to
determine whether it is complying with the applicable requirements of
this part 160 and the standards, requirements, and implementation
specifications of subpart E of part 164 of this subchapter.

\(c\) [Permit access to information.]{.underline} (1) A covered entity
must permit access by the Secretary during normal business hours to its
facilities, books, records, accounts, and other sources of information,
including protected health information, that are pertinent to
ascertaining compliance with the applicable requirements of this part
160 and the applicable standards, requirements, and implementation
specifications of subpart E of part 164 of this subchapter. If the
Secretary determines that exigent circumstances exist, such as when
documents may be hidden or destroyed, a covered entity must permit
access by the Secretary at any time and without notice.

\(2\) If any information required of a covered entity under this section
is in the exclusive possession of any other agency, institution, or
person and the other agency, institution, or person fails or refuses to
furnish the information, the covered entity must so certify and set
forth what efforts it has made to obtain the information.

\(3\) Protected health information obtained by the Secretary in
connection with an investigation or compliance review under this subpart
will not be disclosed by the Secretary, except if necessary for
ascertaining or enforcing compliance with the applicable requirements of
this part 160 and the applicable standards, requirements, and
implementation specifications of subpart E of part 164 of this
subchapter, or if otherwise required by law.

[\' 160.312 Secretarial action regarding complaints and compliance
reviews.]{.underline}

\(a\) [Resolution where noncompliance is indicated.]{.underline} (1) If
an investigation pursuant to \' 160.306 or a compliance review pursuant
to \' 160.308 indicates a failure to comply, the Secretary will so
inform the covered entity and, if the matter arose from a complaint, the
complainant, in writing and attempt to resolve the matter by informal
means whenever possible.

\(2\) If the Secretary finds the covered entity is not in compliance and
determines that the matter cannot be resolved by informal means, the
Secretary may issue to the covered entity and, if the matter arose from
a complaint, to the complainant written findings documenting the
non-compliance.

\(b\) [Resolution when no violation is found.]{.underline} If, after an
investigation or compliance review, the Secretary determines that
further action is not warranted, the Secretary will so inform the
covered entity and, if the matter arose from a complaint, the
complainant in writing.

2\. A new Part 164 is added to read as follows:

**PART 164 B SECURITY AND PRIVACY**

**Subpart A B General Provisions**

Sec.

164.102 Statutory basis.

164.104 Applicability.

164.106 Relationship to other parts.

**Subparts B-D B \[Reserved\]**

**Subpart E B Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information**

164.500 Applicability.

164.501 Definitions.

164.502 Uses and disclosures of protected health information: general
rules.

164.504 Uses and disclosures: organizational requirements.

164.506 Consent for uses or disclosures to carry out treatment, payment,
and health care operations

164.508 Uses and disclosures for which an authorization is required.

164.510 Uses and disclosures requiring an opportunity for the individual
to agree or to object.

164.512 Uses and disclosures for which consent, an authorization, or
opportunity to agree or object is not required.

164.514 Other requirements relating to uses and disclosures of protected
health information.

164.520 Notice of privacy practices for protected health information.

164.522 Rights to request privacy protection for protected health
information.

164.524 Access of individuals to protected health information.

164.526 Amendment of protected health information.

164.528 Accounting of disclosures of protected health information.

164.530 Administrative requirements.

164.532 Transition requirements.

164.534 Compliance dates for initial implementation of the privacy
standards.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1320d-2 and 1320d-4, sec. 264 of Pub. L. 104-191,
110 Stat. 2033-2034(42 U.S.C. 1320(d-2(note)).

**Subpart A\--General Provisions**

[\' 164.102 Statutory basis.]{.underline}

The provisions of this part are adopted pursuant to the Secretary\'s
authority to prescribe standards, requirements, and implementation
standards under part C of title XI of the Act and section 264 of Public
Law 104-191.

[\' 164.104 Applicability.]{.underline}

Except as otherwise provided, the provisions of this part apply to
covered entities: health plans, health care clearinghouses, and health
care providers who transmit health information in electronic form in
connection with any transaction referred to in section 1173(a)(1) of the
Act.

[\' 164.106 Relationship to other parts.]{.underline}

In complying with the requirements of this part, covered entities are
required to comply with the applicable provisions of parts 160 and 162
of this subchapter.

**Subpart B-D\--\[Reserved\]**

**Subpart E - Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information**

[\' 164.500 Applicability.]{.underline}

\(a\) Except as otherwise provided herein, the standards, requirements,
and implementation specifications of this subpart apply to covered
entities with respect to protected health information.

\(b\) Health care clearinghouses must comply with the standards,
requirements, and implementation specifications as follows:

\(1\) When a health care clearinghouse creates or receives protected
health information as a business associate of another covered entity,
the clearinghouse must comply with:

\(i\) Section 164.500 relating to applicability;

\(ii\) Section 164.501 relating to definitions;

\(iii\) Section 164.502 relating to uses and disclosures of protected
health information, except that a clearinghouse is prohibited from using
or disclosing protected health information other than as permitted in
the business associate contract under which it created or received the
protected health information;

\(iv\) Section 164.504 relating to the organizational requirements for
covered entities, including the designation of health care components of
a covered entity;

\(v\) Section 164.512 relating to uses and disclosures for which
consent, individual authorization or an opportunity to agree or object
is not required, except that a clearinghouse is prohibited from using or
disclosing protected health information other than as permitted in the
business associate contract under which it created or received the
protected health information;

\(vi\) Section 164.532 relating to transition requirements; and

\(vii\) Section 164.534 relating to compliance dates for initial
implementation of the privacy standards.

\(2\) When a health care clearinghouse creates or receives protected
health information other than as a business associate of a covered
entity, the clearinghouse must comply with all of the standards,
requirements, and implementation specifications of this subpart.

\(c\) The standards, requirements, and implementation specifications of
this subpart do not apply to the Department of Defense or to any other
federal agency, or non-governmental organization acting on its behalf,
when providing health care to overseas foreign national beneficiaries.

[\' 164.501 Definitions.]{.underline}

As used in this subpart, the following terms have the following
meanings:

*Correctional institution* means any penal or correctional facility,
jail, reformatory, detention center, work farm, halfway house, or
residential community program center operated by, or under contract to,
the United States, a State, a territory, a political subdivision of a
State or territory, or an Indian tribe, for the confinement or
rehabilitation of persons charged with or convicted of a criminal
offense or other persons held in lawful custody. *Other persons held in
lawful custody* includes juvenile offenders adjudicated delinquent,
aliens detained awaiting deportation, persons committed to mental
institutions through the criminal justice system, witnesses, or others
awaiting charges or trial.

*Covered functions* means those functions of a covered entity the
performance of which makes the entity a health plan, health care
provider, or health care clearinghouse.

*Data aggregation* means, with respect to protected health information
created or received by a business associate in its capacity as the
business associate of a covered entity, the combining of such protected
health information by the business associate with the protected health
information received by the business associate in its capacity as a
business associate of another covered entity, to permit data analyses
that relate to the health care operations of the respective covered
entities.

*Designated record set* means:

\(1\) A group of records maintained by or for a covered entity that is:

\(i\) The medical records and billing records about individuals
maintained by or for a covered health care provider;

\(ii\) The enrollment, payment, claims adjudication, and case or medical
management record systems maintained by or for a health plan; or

\(iii\) Used, in whole or in part, by or for the covered entity to make
decisions about individuals.

\(2\) For purposes of this paragraph, the term *record* means any item,
collection, or grouping of information that includes protected health
information and is maintained, collected, used, or disseminated by or
for a covered entity.

*Direct treatment relationship* means a treatment relationship between
an individual and a health care provider that is not an indirect
treatment relationship.

*Disclosure* means the release, transfer, provision of access to, or
divulging in any other manner of information outside the entity holding
the information.

*Health care operations* means any of the following activities of the
covered entity to the extent that the activities are related to covered
functions, and any of the following activities of an organized health
care arrangement in which the covered entity participates:

\(1\) Conducting quality assessment and improvement activities,
including outcomes evaluation and development of clinical guidelines,
provided that the obtaining of generalizable knowledge is not the
primary purpose of any studies resulting from such activities;
population-based activities relating to improving health or reducing
health care costs, protocol development, case management and care
coordination, contacting of health care providers and patients with
information about treatment alternatives; and related functions that do
not include treatment;

\(2\) Reviewing the competence or qualifications of health care
professionals, evaluating practitioner and provider performance, health
plan performance, conducting training programs in which students,
trainees, or practitioners in areas of health care learn under
supervision to practice or improve their skills as health care
providers, training of non-health care professionals, accreditation,
certification, licensing, or credentialing activities;

\(3\) Underwriting, premium rating, and other activities relating to the
creation, renewal or replacement of a contract of health insurance or
health benefits, and ceding, securing, or placing a contract for
reinsurance of risk relating to claims for health care (including
stop-loss insurance and excess of loss insurance), provided that the
requirements of \' 164.514(g) are met, if applicable;

\(4\) Conducting or arranging for medical review, legal services, and
auditing functions, including fraud and abuse detection and compliance
programs;

\(5\) Business planning and development, such as conducting
cost-management and planning-related analyses related to managing and
operating the entity, including formulary development and
administration, development or improvement of methods of payment or
coverage policies; and

\(6\) Business management and general administrative activities of the
entity, including, but not limited to:

\(i\) Management activities relating to implementation of and compliance
with the requirements of this subchapter;

\(ii\) Customer service, including the provision of data analyses for
policy holders, plan sponsors, or other customers, provided that
protected health information is not disclosed to such policy holder,
plan sponsor, or customer.

\(iii\) Resolution of internal grievances;

\(iv\) Due diligence in connection with the sale or transfer of assets
to a potential successor in interest, if the potential successor in
interest is a covered entity or, following completion of the sale or
transfer, will become a covered entity; and

\(v\) Consistent with the applicable requirements of \' 164.514,
creating de-identified health information, fundraising for the benefit
of the covered entity, and marketing for which an individual
authorization is not required as described in \' 164.514(e)(2).

*Health oversight agency* means an agency or authority of the United
States, a State, a territory, a political subdivision of a State or
territory, or an Indian tribe, or a person or entity acting under a
grant of authority from or contract with such public agency, including
the employees or agents of such public agency or its contractors or
persons or entities to whom it has granted authority, that is authorized
by law to oversee the health care system (whether public or private) or
government programs in which health information is necessary to
determine eligibility or compliance, or to enforce civil rights laws for
which health information is relevant.

*Indirect treatment relationship* means a relationship between an
individual and a health care provider in which:

\(1\) The health care provider delivers health care to the individual
based on the orders of another health care provider; and

\(2\) The health care provider typically provides services or products,
or reports the diagnosis or results associated with the health care,
directly to another health care provider, who provides the services or
products or reports to the individual.

*Individual* means the person who is the subject of protected health
information.

*Individually identifiable health information* is information that is a
subset of health information, including demographic information
collected from an individual, and:

\(1\) Is created or received by a health care provider, health plan,
employer, or health care clearinghouse; and

\(2\) Relates to the past, present, or future physical or mental health
or condition of an individual; the provision of health care to an
individual; or the past, present, or future payment for the provision of
health care to an individual; and

\(i\) That identifies the individual; or

\(ii\) With respect to which there is a reasonable basis to believe the
information can be used to identify the individual.

*Inmate* means a person incarcerated in or otherwise confined to a
correctional institution.

*Law enforcement official* means an officer or employee of any agency or
authority of the United States, a State, a territory, a political
subdivision of a State or territory, or an Indian tribe, who is
empowered by law to:

\(1\) Investigate or conduct an official inquiry into a potential
violation of law; or

\(2\) Prosecute or otherwise conduct a criminal, civil, or
administrative proceeding arising from an alleged violation of law.

*Marketing* means to make a communication about a product or service a
purpose of which is to encourage recipients of the communication to
purchase or use the product or service.

\(1\) *Marketing* does not include communications that meet the
requirements of paragraph (2) of this definition and that are made by a
covered entity:

\(i\) For the purpose of describing the entities participating in a
health care provider network or health plan network, or for the purpose
of describing if and the extent to which a product or service (or
payment for such product or service) is provided by a covered entity or
included in a plan of benefits; or

\(ii\) That are tailored to the circumstances of a particular individual
and the communications are:

\(A\) Made by a health care provider to an individual as part of the
treatment of the individual, and for the purpose of furthering the
treatment of that individual; or

\(B\) Made by a health care provider or health plan to an individual in
the course of managing the treatment of that individual, or for the
purpose of directing or recommending to that individual alternative
treatments, therapies, health care providers, or settings of care.

\(2\) A communication described in paragraph (1) of this definition is
not included in marketing if:

\(i\) The communication is made orally; or

\(ii\) The communication is in writing and the covered entity does not
receive direct or indirect remuneration from a third party for making
the communication.

*Organized health care arrangement* means:

\(1\) A clinically integrated care setting in which individuals
typically receive health care from more than one health care provider;

\(2\) An organized system of health care in which more than one covered
entity participates, and in which the participating covered entities:

\(i\) Hold themselves out to the public as participating in a joint
arrangement; and

\(ii\) Participate in joint activities that include at least one of the
following:

\(A\) Utilization review, in which health care decisions by
participating covered entities are reviewed by other participating
covered entities or by a third party on their behalf;

\(B\) Quality assessment and improvement activities, in which treatment
provided by participating covered entities is assessed by other
participating covered entities or by a third party on their behalf; or

\(C\) Payment activities, if the financial risk for delivering health
care is shared, in part or in whole, by participating covered entities
through the joint arrangement and if protected health information
created or received by a covered entity is reviewed by other
participating covered entities or by a third party on their behalf for
the purpose of administering the sharing of financial risk.

\(3\) A group health plan and a health insurance issuer or HMO with
respect to such group health plan, but only with respect to protected
health information created or received by such health insurance issuer
or HMO that relates to individuals who are or who have been participants
or beneficiaries in such group health plan;

\(4\) A group health plan and one or more other group health plans each
of which are maintained by the same plan sponsor; or

\(5\) The group health plans described in paragraph (4) of this
definition and health insurance issuers or HMOs with respect to such
group health plans, but only with respect to protected health
information created or received by such health insurance issuers or HMOs
that relates to individuals who are or have been participants or
beneficiaries in any of such group health plans.

*Payment* means:

\(1\) The activities undertaken by:

\(i\) A health plan to obtain premiums or to determine or fulfill its
responsibility for coverage and provision of benefits under the health
plan; or

\(ii\) A covered health care provider or health plan to obtain or
provide reimbursement for the provision of health care; and

\(2\) The activities in paragraph (1) of this definition relate to the
individual to whom health care is provided and include, but are not
limited to:

\(i\) Determinations of eligibility or coverage (including coordination
of benefits or the determination of cost sharing amounts), and
adjudication or subrogation of health benefit claims;

\(ii\) Risk adjusting amounts due based on enrollee health status and
demographic characteristics;

\(iii\) Billing, claims management, collection activities, obtaining
payment under a contract for reinsurance (including stop-loss insurance
and excess of loss insurance), and related health care data processing;

\(iv\) Review of health care services with respect to medical necessity,
coverage under a health plan, appropriateness of care, or justification
of charges;

\(v\) Utilization review activities, including precertification and
preauthorization of services, concurrent and retrospective review of
services; and

\(vi\) Disclosure to consumer reporting agencies of any of the following
protected health information relating to collection of premiums or
reimbursement:

\(A\) Name and address;

\(B\) Date of birth;

\(C\) Social security number;

\(D\) Payment history;

\(E\) Account number; and

\(F\) Name and address of the health care provider and/or health plan.

*Plan sponsor* is defined as defined at section 3(16)(B) of ERISA, 29
U.S.C. 1002(16)(B).

*Protected health information* means individually identifiable health
information:

\(1\) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this definition, that is:

\(i\) Transmitted by electronic media;

\(ii\) Maintained in any medium described in the definition of
*electronic media* at \' 162.103 of this subchapter; or

\(iii\) Transmitted or maintained in any other form or medium.

\(2\) *Protected health information* excludes individually identifiable
health information in:

\(i\) Education records covered by the Family Educational Right and
Privacy Act, as amended, 20 U.S.C. 1232g; and

\(ii\) Records described at 20 U.S.C. 1232g(a)(4)(B)(iv).

*Psychotherapy notes* means notes recorded (in any medium) by a health
care provider who is a mental health professional documenting or
analyzing the contents of conversation during a private counseling
session or a group, joint, or family counseling session and that are
separated from the rest of the individual=s medical record.
*Psychotherapy notes* excludes medication prescription and monitoring,
counseling session start and stop times, the modalities and frequencies
of treatment furnished, results of clinical tests, and any summary of
the following items: diagnosis, functional status, the treatment plan,
symptoms, prognosis, and progress to date.

*Public health authority* means an agency or authority of the United
States, a State, a territory, a political subdivision of a State or
territory, or an Indian tribe, or a person or entity acting under a
grant of authority from or contract with such public agency, including
the employees or agents of such public agency or its contractors or
persons or entities to whom it has granted authority, that is
responsible for public health matters as part of its official mandate.

*Required by law* means a mandate contained in law that compels a
covered entity to make a use or disclosure of protected health
information and that is enforceable in a court of law. *Required by law*
includes, but is not limited to, court orders and court-ordered
warrants; subpoenas or summons issued by a court, grand jury, a
governmental or tribal inspector general, or an administrative body
authorized to require the production of information; a civil or an
authorized investigative demand; Medicare conditions of participation
with respect to health care providers participating in the program; and
statutes or regulations that require the production of information,
including statutes or regulations that require such information if
payment is sought under a government program providing public benefits.

*Research* means a systematic investigation, including research
development, testing, and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute
to generalizable knowledge.

*Treatment* means the provision, coordination, or management of health
care and related services by one or more health care providers,
including the coordination or management of health care by a health care
provider with a third party; consultation between health care providers
relating to a patient; or the referral of a patient for health care from
one health care provider to another.

*Use* means, with respect to individually identifiable health
information, the sharing, employment, application, utilization,
examination, or analysis of such information within an entity that
maintains such information.

[\' 164.502 Uses and disclosures of protected health information:
general rules.]{.underline}

\(a\) [Standard.]{.underline} A covered entity may not use or disclose
protected health information, except as permitted or required by this
subpart or by subpart C of part 160 of this subchapter.

\(1\) [Permitted uses and disclosures.]{.underline} A covered entity is
permitted to use or disclose protected health information as follows:

\(i\) To the individual;

\(ii\) Pursuant to and in compliance with a consent that complies with
\' 164.506, to carry out treatment, payment, or health care operations;

\(iii\) Without consent, if consent is not required under \' 164.506(a)
and has not been sought under \' 164.506(a)(4), to carry out treatment,
payment, or health care operations, except with respect to psychotherapy
notes;

\(iv\) Pursuant to and in compliance with an authorization that complies
with \' 164.508;

\(v\) Pursuant to an agreement under, or as otherwise permitted by, \'
164.510; and

\(vi\) As permitted by and in compliance with this section, \' 164.512,
or \' 164.514(e), (f), and (g).

\(2\) [Required disclosures.]{.underline} A covered entity is required
to disclose protected health information:

\(i\) To an individual, when requested under, and as required by \'\'
164.524 or 164.528; and

\(ii\) When required by the Secretary under subpart C of part 160 of
this subchapter to investigate or determine the covered entity\'s
compliance with this subpart.

\(b\) [Standard: minimum necessary.]{.underline} (1) [Minimum necessary
applies.]{.underline} When using or disclosing protected health
information or when requesting protected health information from another
covered entity, a covered entity must make reasonable efforts to limit
protected health information to the minimum necessary to accomplish the
intended purpose of the use, disclosure, or request.

\(2\) [Minimum necessary does not apply.]{.underline} This requirement
does not apply to:

\(i\) Disclosures to or requests by a health care provider for
treatment;

\(ii\) Uses or disclosures made to the individual, as permitted under
paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, as required by paragraph (a)(2)(i)
of this section, or pursuant to an authorization under \' 164.508,
except for authorizations requested by the covered entity under \'
164.508(d), (e), or (f);

\(iii\) Disclosures made to the Secretary in accordance with subpart C
of part 160 of this subchapter;

\(iv\) Uses or disclosures that are required by law, as described by \'
164.512(a); and

\(v\) Uses or disclosures that are required for compliance with
applicable requirements of this subchapter.

\(c\) [Standard: uses and disclosures of protected health information
subject to an agreed upon restriction.]{.underline} A covered entity
that has agreed to a restriction pursuant to \' 164.522(a)(1) may not
use or disclose the protected health information covered by the
restriction in violation of such restriction, except as otherwise
provided in \' 164.522(a).

\(d\) [Standard: uses and disclosures of de-identified protected health
information.]{.underline}

\(1\) [Uses and disclosures to create de-identified
information.]{.underline} A covered entity may use protected health
information to create information that is not individually identifiable
health information or disclose protected health information only to a
business associate for such purpose, whether or not the de-identified
information is to be used by the covered entity.

\(2\) [Uses and disclosures of de-identified information.]{.underline}
Health information that meets the standard and implementation
specifications for de-identification under \' 164.514(a) and (b) is
considered not to be individually identifiable health information, i.e.,
de-identified. The requirements of this subpart do not apply to
information that has been de-identified in accordance with the
applicable requirements of \' 164.514, provided that:

\(i\) Disclosure of a code or other means of record identification
designed to enable coded or otherwise de-identified information to be
re-identified constitutes disclosure of protected health information;
and

\(ii\) If de-identified information is re-identified, a covered entity
may use or disclose such re-identified information only as permitted or
required by this subpart.

(e)(1) [Standard: disclosures to business associates.]{.underline} (i) A
covered entity may disclose protected health information to a business
associate and may allow a business associate to create or receive
protected health information on its behalf, if the covered entity
obtains satisfactory assurance that the business associate will
appropriately safeguard the information.

\(ii\) This standard does not apply:

\(A\) With respect to disclosures by a covered entity to a health care
provider concerning the treatment of the individual;

\(B\) With respect to disclosures by a group health plan or a health
insurance issuer or HMO with respect to a group health plan to the plan
sponsor, to the extent that the requirements of \' 164.504(f) apply and
are met; or

\(C\) With respect to uses or disclosures by a health plan that is a
government program providing public benefits, if eligibility for, or
enrollment in, the health plan is determined by an agency other than the
agency administering the health plan, or if the protected health
information used to determine enrollment or eligibility in the health
plan is collected by an agency other than the agency administering the
health plan, and such activity is authorized by law, with respect to the
collection and sharing of individually identifiable health information
for the performance of such functions by the health plan and the agency
other than the agency administering the health plan.

\(iii\) A covered entity that violates the satisfactory assurances it
provided as a business associate of another covered entity will be in
noncompliance with the standards, implementation specifications, and
requirements of this paragraph and \' 164.504(e).

\(2\) [Implementation specification: documentation.]{.underline} A
covered entity must document the satisfactory assurances required by
paragraph (e)(1) of this section through a written contract or other
written agreement or arrangement with the business associate that meets
the applicable requirements of \' 164.504(e).

\(f\) [Standard: deceased individuals.]{.underline} A covered entity
must comply with the requirements of this subpart with respect to the
protected health information of a deceased individual.

(g)(1) [Standard: personal representatives.]{.underline} As specified in
this paragraph, a covered entity must, except as provided in paragraphs
(g)(3) and (g)(5) of this section, treat a personal representative as
the individual for purposes of this subchapter.

\(2\) [Implementation specification: adults and emancipated
minors.]{.underline} If under applicable law a person has authority to
act on behalf of an individual who is an adult or an emancipated minor
in making decisions related to health care, a covered entity must treat
such person as a personal representative under this subchapter, with
respect to protected health information relevant to such personal
representation.

\(3\) [Implementation specification: unemancipated minors.]{.underline}
If under applicable law a parent, guardian, or other person acting *in
loco parentis* has authority to act on behalf of an individual who is an
unemancipated minor in making decisions related to health care, a
covered entity must treat such person as a personal representative under
this subchapter, with respect to protected health information relevant
to such personal representation, except that such person may not be a
personal representative of an unemancipated minor, and the minor has the
authority to act as an individual, with respect to protected health
information pertaining to a health care service, if:

\(i\) The minor consents to such health care service; no other consent
to such health care service is required by law, regardless of whether
the consent of another person has also been obtained; and the minor has
not requested that such person be treated as the personal
representative;

\(ii\) The minor may lawfully obtain such health care service without
the consent of a parent, guardian, or other person acting *in loco
parentis*, and the minor, a court, or another person authorized by law
consents to such health care service; or

\(iii\) A parent, guardian, or other person acting *in loco parentis*
assents to an agreement of confidentiality between a covered health care
provider and the minor with respect to such health care service.

\(4\) [Implementation specification: deceased individuals.]{.underline}
If under applicable law an executor, administrator, or other person has
authority to act on behalf of a deceased individual or of the
individual\'s estate, a covered entity must treat such person as a
personal representative under this subchapter, with respect to protected
health information relevant to such personal representation.

\(5\) [Implementation specification: abuse, neglect, endangerment
situations.]{.underline} Notwithstanding a State law or any requirement
of this paragraph to the contrary, a covered entity may elect not to
treat a person as the personal representative of an individual if:

\(i\) The covered entity has a reasonable belief that:

\(A\) The individual has been or may be subjected to domestic violence,
abuse, or neglect by such person; or

\(B\) Treating such person as the personal representative could endanger
the individual; and

\(ii\) The covered entity, in the exercise of professional judgment,
decides that it is not in the best interest of the individual to treat
the person as the individual=s personal representative.

\(h\) [Standard: confidential communications.]{.underline} A covered
health care provider or health plan must comply with the applicable
requirements of \' 164.522(b) in communicating protected health
information.

\(i\) [Standard: uses and disclosures consistent with
notice.]{.underline} A covered entity that is required by \' 164.520 to
have a notice may not use or disclose protected health information in a
manner inconsistent with such notice. A covered entity that is required
by \' 164.520(b)(1)(iii) to include a specific statement in its notice
if it intends to engage in an activity listed in \'
164.520(b)(1)(iii)(A)-(C), may not use or disclose protected health
information for such activities, unless the required statement is
included in the notice.

\(j\) [Standard: disclosures by whistleblowers and workforce member
crime victims.]{.underline}

\(1\) [Disclosures by whistleblowers.]{.underline} A covered entity is
not considered to have violated the requirements of this subpart if a
member of its workforce or a business associate discloses protected
health information, provided that:

\(i\) The workforce member or business associate believes in good faith
that the covered entity has engaged in conduct that is unlawful or
otherwise violates professional or clinical standards, or that the care,
services, or conditions provided by the covered entity potentially
endangers one or more patients, workers, or the public; and

\(ii\) The disclosure is to:

\(A\) A health oversight agency or public health authority authorized by
law to investigate or otherwise oversee the relevant conduct or
conditions of the covered entity or to an appropriate health care
accreditation organization for the purpose of reporting the allegation
of failure to meet professional standards or misconduct by the covered
entity; or

\(B\) An attorney retained by or on behalf of the workforce member or
business associate for the purpose of determining the legal options of
the workforce member or business associate with regard to the conduct
described in paragraph (j)(1)(i) of this section.

\(2\) [Disclosures by workforce members who are victims of a
crime.]{.underline} A covered entity is not considered to have violated
the requirements of this subpart if a member of its workforce who is the
victim of a criminal act discloses protected health information to a law
enforcement official, provided that:

\(i\) The protected health information disclosed is about the suspected
perpetrator of the criminal act; and

\(ii\) The protected health information disclosed is limited to the
information listed in \' 164.512(f)(2)(i).

[\' 164.504 Uses and disclosures: organizational
requirements.]{.underline}

\(a\) [Definitions.]{.underline} As used in this section:

*Common control* exists if an entity has the power, directly or
indirectly, significantly to influence or direct the actions or policies
of another entity.

*Common ownership* exists if an entity or entities possess an ownership
or equity interest of 5 percent or more in another entity.

*Health care component* has the following meaning:

\(1\) Components of a covered entity that perform covered functions are
part of the health care component.

\(2\) Another component of the covered entity is part of the entity=s
health care component to the extent that:

\(i\) It performs, with respect to a component that performs covered
functions, activities that would make such other component a business
associate of the component that performs covered functions if the two
components were separate legal entities; and

\(ii\) The activities involve the use or disclosure of protected health
information that such other component creates or receives from or on
behalf of the component that performs covered functions.

*Hybrid entity* means a single legal entity that is a covered entity and
whose covered functions are not its primary functions.

*Plan administration functions* means administration functions performed
by the plan sponsor of a group health plan on behalf of the group health
plan and excludes functions performed by the plan sponsor in connection
with any other benefit or benefit plan of the plan sponsor.

*Summary health information* means information, that may be individually
identifiable health information, and:

\(1\) That summarizes the claims history, claims expenses, or type of
claims experienced by individuals for whom a plan sponsor has provided
health benefits under a group health plan; and

\(2\) From which the information described at \' 164.514(b)(2)(i) has
been deleted, except that the geographic information described in \'
164.514(b)(2)(i)(B) need only be aggregated to the level of a five digit
zip code.

\(b\) [Standard: health care component.]{.underline} If a covered entity
is a hybrid entity, the requirements of this subpart, other than the
requirements of this section, apply only to the health care component(s)
of the entity, as specified in this section.

(c)(1) [Implementation specification: application of other
provisions.]{.underline} In applying a provision of this subpart, other
than this section, to a hybrid entity:

\(i\) A reference in such provision to a Acovered entity@ refers to a
health care component of the covered entity;

\(ii\) A reference in such provision to a Ahealth plan,@ Acovered health
care provider,@ or Ahealth care clearinghouse@ refers to a health care
component of the covered entity if such health care component performs
the functions of a health plan, covered health care provider, or health
care clearinghouse, as applicable; and

\(iii\) A reference in such provision to Aprotected health information@
refers to protected health information that is created or received by or
on behalf of the health care component of the covered entity.

\(2\) [Implementation specifications: safeguard
requirements.]{.underline} The covered entity that is a hybrid entity
must ensure that a health care component of the entity complies with the
applicable requirements of this subpart. In particular, and without
limiting this requirement, such covered entity must ensure that:

\(i\) Its health care component does not disclose protected health
information to another component of the covered entity in circumstances
in which this subpart would prohibit such disclosure if the health care
component and the other component were separate and distinct legal
entities;

\(ii\) A component that is described by paragraph (2)(i) of the
definition of *health care component* in this section does not use or
disclose protected health information that is within paragraph (2)(ii)
of such definition for purposes of its activities other than those
described by paragraph (2)(i) of such definition in a way prohibited by
this subpart; and

\(iii\) If a person performs duties for both the health care component
in the capacity of a member of the workforce of such component and for
another component of the entity in the same capacity with respect to
that component, such workforce member must not use or disclose protected
health information created or received in the course of or incident to
the member=s work for the health care component in a way prohibited by
this subpart.

\(3\) [Implementation specifications: responsibilities of the covered
entity.]{.underline} A covered entity that is a hybrid entity has the
following responsibilities:

\(i\) For purposes of subpart C of part 160 of this subchapter,
pertaining to compliance and enforcement, the covered entity has the
responsibility to comply with this subpart.

\(ii\) The covered entity has the responsibility for complying with \'
164.530(i), pertaining to the implementation of policies and procedures
to ensure compliance with this subpart, including the safeguard
requirements in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.

\(iii\) The covered entity is responsible for designating the components
that are part of one or more health care components of the covered
entity and documenting the designation as required by \' 164.530(j).

(d)(1) [Standard: affiliated covered entities.]{.underline} Legally
separate covered entities that are affiliated may designate themselves
as a single covered entity for purposes of this subpart.

\(2\) [Implementation specifications: requirements for designation of an
affiliated covered entity.]{.underline} (i) Legally separate covered
entities may designate themselves (including any health care component
of such covered entity) as a single affiliated covered entity, for
purposes of this subpart, if all of the covered entities designated are
under common ownership or control.

\(ii\) The designation of an affiliated covered entity must be
documented and the documentation maintained as required by \'
164.530(j).

\(3\) [Implementation specifications: safeguard
requirements.]{.underline} An affiliated covered entity must ensure
that:

\(i\) The affiliated covered entity=s use and disclosure of protected
health information comply with the applicable requirements of this
subpart; and

\(ii\) If the affiliated covered entity combines the functions of a
health plan, health care provider, or health care clearinghouse, the
affiliated covered entity complies with paragraph (g) of this section.

(e)(1) [Standard: business associate contracts.]{.underline} (i) The
contract or other arrangement between the covered entity and the
business associate required by \' 164.502(e)(2) must meet the
requirements of paragraph (e)(2) or (e)(3) of this section, as
applicable.

\(ii\) A covered entity is not in compliance with the standards in \'
164.502(e) and paragraph (e) of this section, if the covered entity knew
of a pattern of activity or practice of the business associate that
constituted a material breach or violation of the business associate=s
obligation under the contract or other arrangement, unless the covered
entity took reasonable steps to cure the breach or end the violation, as
applicable, and, if such steps were unsuccessful:

\(A\) Terminated the contract or arrangement, if feasible; or

\(B\) If termination is not feasible, reported the problem to the
Secretary.

\(2\) [Implementation specifications: business associate
contracts.]{.underline} A contract between the covered entity and a
business associate must:

\(i\) Establish the permitted and required uses and disclosures of such
information by the business associate. The contract may not authorize
the business associate to use or further disclose the information in a
manner that would violate the requirements of this subpart, if done by
the covered entity, except that:

\(A\) The contract may permit the business associate to use and disclose
protected health information for the proper management and
administration of the business associate, as provided in paragraph
(e)(4) of this section; and

\(B\) The contract may permit the business associate to provide data
aggregation services relating to the health care operations of the
covered entity.

\(ii\) Provide that the business associate will:

\(A\) Not use or further disclose the information other than as
permitted or required by the contract or as required by law;

\(B\) Use appropriate safeguards to prevent use or disclosure of the
information other than as provided for by its contract;

\(C\) Report to the covered entity any use or disclosure of the
information not provided for by its contract of which it becomes aware;

\(D\) Ensure that any agents, including a subcontractor, to whom it
provides protected health information received from, or created or
received by the business associate on behalf of, the covered entity
agrees to the same restrictions and conditions that apply to the
business associate with respect to such information;

\(E\) Make available protected health information in accordance with \'
164.524;

\(F\) Make available protected health information for amendment and
incorporate any amendments to protected health information in accordance
with \'164.526;

\(G\) Make available the information required to provide an accounting
of disclosures in accordance with \' 164.528;

\(H\) Make its internal practices, books, and records relating to the
use and disclosure of protected health information received from, or
created or received by the business associate on behalf of, the covered
entity available to the Secretary for purposes of determining the
covered entity\'s compliance with this subpart; and

\(I\) At termination of the contract, if feasible, return or destroy all
protected health information received from, or created or received by
the business associate on behalf of, the covered entity that the
business associate still maintains in any form and retain no copies of
such information or, if such return or destruction is not feasible,
extend the protections of the contract to the information and limit
further uses and disclosures to those purposes that make the return or
destruction of the information infeasible.

\(iii\) Authorize termination of the contract by the covered entity, if
the covered entity determines that the business associate has violated a
material term of the contract.

\(3\) [Implementation specifications: other arrangements.]{.underline}
(i) If a covered entity and its business associate are both governmental
entities:

\(A\) The covered entity may comply with paragraph (e) of this section
by entering into a memorandum of understanding with the business
associate that contains terms that accomplish the objectives of
paragraph (e)(2) of this section.

\(B\) The covered entity may comply with paragraph (e) of this section,
if other law (including regulations adopted by the covered entity or its
business associate) contains requirements applicable to the business
associate that accomplish the objectives of paragraph (e)(2) of this
section.

\(ii\) If a business associate is required by law to perform a function
or activity on behalf of a covered entity or to provide a service
described in the definition of *business associate* in \' 160.103 of
this subchapter to a covered entity, such covered entity may disclose
protected health information to the business associate to the extent
necessary to comply with the legal mandate without meeting the
requirements of this paragraph (e), provided that the covered entity
attempts in good faith to obtain satisfactory assurances as required by
paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section, and, if such attempt fails,
documents the attempt and the reasons that such assurances cannot be
obtained.

\(iii\) The covered entity may omit from its other arrangements the
termination authorization required by paragraph (e)(2)(iii) of this
section, if such authorization is inconsistent with the statutory
obligations of the covered entity or its business associate.

\(4\) [Implementation specifications: other requirements for contracts
and other arrangements.]{.underline} (i) The contract or other
arrangement between the covered entity and the business associate may
permit the business associate to use the information received by the
business associate in its capacity as a business associate to the
covered entity, if necessary:

\(A\) For the proper management and administration of the business
associate; or

\(B\) To carry out the legal responsibilities of the business associate.

\(ii\) The contract or other arrangement between the covered entity and
the business associate may permit the business associate to disclose the
information received by the business associate in its capacity as a
business associate for the purposes described in paragraph (e)(4)(i) of
this section, if:

\(A\) The disclosure is required by law; or

(B)(*1*) The business associate obtains reasonable assurances from the
person to whom the information is disclosed that it will be held
confidentially and used or further disclosed only as required by law or
for the purpose for which it was disclosed to the person; and

(*2*) The person notifies the business associate of any instances of
which it is aware in which the confidentiality of the information has
been breached.

(f)(1)[Standard: requirements for group health plans.]{.underline} (i)
Except as provided under paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this section or as
otherwise authorized under \' 164.508, a group health plan, in order to
disclose protected health information to the plan sponsor or to provide
for or permit the disclosure of protected health information to the plan
sponsor by a health insurance issuer or HMO with respect to the group
health plan, must ensure that the plan documents restrict uses and
discloses of such information by the plan sponsor consistent with the
requirements of this subpart.

\(ii\) The group health plan, or a health insurance issuer or HMO with
respect to the group health plan, may disclose summary health
information to the plan sponsor, if the plan sponsor requests the
summary health information for the purpose of :

\(A\) Obtaining premium bids from health plans for providing health
insurance coverage under the group health plan; or

\(B\) Modifying, amending, or terminating the group health plan.

\(2\) [Implementation specifications: requirements for plan
documents.]{.underline} The plan documents of the group health plan must
be amended to incorporate provisions to:

\(i\) Establish the permitted and required uses and disclosures of such
information by the plan sponsor, provided that such permitted and
required uses and disclosures may not be inconsistent with this subpart.

\(ii\) Provide that the group health plan will disclose protected health
information to the plan sponsor only upon receipt of a certification by
the plan sponsor that the plan documents have been amended to
incorporate the following provisions and that the plan sponsor agrees
to:

\(A\) Not use or further disclose the information other than as
permitted or required by the plan documents or as required by law;

\(B\) Ensure that any agents, including a subcontractor, to whom it
provides protected health information received from the group health
plan agree to the same restrictions and conditions that apply to the
plan sponsor with respect to such information;

\(C\) Not use or disclose the information for employment-related actions
and decisions or in connection with any other benefit or employee
benefit plan of the plan sponsor;

\(D\) Report to the group health plan any use or disclosure of the
information that is inconsistent with the uses or disclosures provided
for of which it becomes aware;

\(E\) Make available protected health information in accordance with \'
164.524;

\(F\) Make available protected health information for amendment and
incorporate any amendments to protected health information in accordance
with \'164.526;

\(G\) Make available the information required to provide an accounting
of disclosures in accordance with \' 164.528;

\(H\) Make its internal practices, books, and records relating to the
use and disclosure of protected health information received from the
group health plan available to the Secretary for purposes of determining
compliance by the group health plan with this subpart;

\(I\) If feasible, return or destroy all protected health information
received from the group health plan that the sponsor still maintains in
any form and retain no copies of such information when no longer needed
for the purpose for which disclosure was made, except that, if such
return or destruction is not feasible, limit further uses and
disclosures to those purposes that make the return or destruction of the
information infeasible; and

\(J\) Ensure that the adequate separation required in paragraph
(f)(2)(iii) of this section is established.

\(iii\) Provide for adequate separation between the group health plan
and the plan sponsor. The plan documents must:

\(A\) Describe those employees or classes of employees or other persons
under the control of the plan sponsor to be given access to the
protected health information to be disclosed, provided that any employee
or person who receives protected health information relating to payment
under, health care operations of, or other matters pertaining to the
group health plan in the ordinary course of business must be included in
such description;

\(B\) Restrict the access to and use by such employees and other persons
described in paragraph (f)(2)(iii)(A) of this section to the plan
administration functions that the plan sponsor performs for the group
health plan; and

\(C\) Provide an effective mechanism for resolving any issues of
noncompliance by persons described in paragraph (f)(2)(iii)(A) of this
section with the plan document provisions required by this paragraph.

\(3\) [Implementation specifications: uses and disclosures.]{.underline}
A group health plan may:

\(i\) Disclose protected health information to a plan sponsor to carry
out plan administration functions that the plan sponsor performs only
consistent with the provisions of paragraph (f)(2) of this section;

\(ii\) Not permit a health insurance issuer or HMO with respect to the
group health plan to disclose protected health information to the plan
sponsor except as permitted by this paragraph;

\(iii\) Not disclose and may not permit a health insurance issuer or HMO
to disclose protected health information to a plan sponsor as otherwise
permitted by this paragraph unless a statement required by \'
164.520(b)(1)(iii)(C) is included in the appropriate notice; and

\(iv\) Not disclose protected health information to the plan sponsor for
the purpose of employment-related actions or decisions or in connection
with any other benefit or employee benefit plan of the plan sponsor.

\(g\) [Standard: requirements for a covered entity with multiple covered
functions.]{.underline}

\(1\) A covered entity that performs multiple covered functions that
would make the entity any combination of a health plan, a covered health
care provider, and a health care clearinghouse, must comply with the
standards, requirements, and implementation specifications of this
subpart, as applicable to the health plan, health care provider, or
health care clearinghouse covered functions performed.

\(2\) A covered entity that performs multiple covered functions may use
or disclose the protected health information of individuals who receive
the covered entity=s health plan or health care provider services, but
not both, only for purposes related to the appropriate function being
performed.

[\' 164.506 Consent for uses or disclosures to carry out treatment,
payment, or health care operations.]{.underline}

\(a\) [Standard: consent requirement.]{.underline} (1) Except as
provided in paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this section, a covered health
care provider must obtain the individual=s consent, in accordance with
this section, prior to using or disclosing protected health information
to carry out treatment, payment, or health care operations.

\(2\) A covered health care provider may, without consent, use or
disclose protected health information to carry out treatment, payment,
or health care operations, if:

\(i\) The covered health care provider has an indirect treatment
relationship with the individual; or

\(ii\) The covered health care provider created or received the
protected health information in the course of providing health care to
an individual who is an inmate.

(3)(i) A covered health care provider may, without prior consent, use or
disclose protected health information created or received under
paragraph (a)(3)(i)(A)-(C) of this section to carry out treatment,
payment, or health care operations:

\(A\) In emergency treatment situations, if the covered health care
provider attempts to obtain such consent as soon as reasonably
practicable after the delivery of such treatment;

\(B\) If the covered health care provider is required by law to treat
the individual, and the covered health care provider attempts to obtain
such consent but is unable to obtain such consent; or

\(C\) If a covered health care provider attempts to obtain such consent
from the individual but is unable to obtain such consent due to
substantial barriers to communicating with the individual, and the
covered health care provider determines, in the exercise of professional
judgment, that the individual=s consent to receive treatment is clearly
inferred from the circumstances.

\(ii\) A covered health care provider that fails to obtain such consent
in accordance with paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section must document its
attempt to obtain consent and the reason why consent was not obtained.

\(4\) If a covered entity is not required to obtain consent by paragraph
(a)(1) of this section, it may obtain an individual=s consent for the
covered entity=s own use or disclosure of protected health information
to carry out treatment, payment, or health care operations, provided
that such consent meets the requirements of this section.

\(5\) Except as provided in paragraph (f)(1) of this section, a consent
obtained by a covered entity under this section is not effective to
permit another covered entity to use or disclose protected health
information.

\(b\) [Implementation specifications: general requirements.]{.underline}
(1) A covered health care provider may condition treatment on the
provision by the individual of a consent under this section.

\(2\) A health plan may condition enrollment in the health plan on the
provision by the individual of a consent under this section sought in
conjunction with such enrollment.

\(3\) A consent under this section may not be combined in a single
document with the notice required by \' 164.520.

(4)(i) A consent for use or disclosure may be combined with other types
of written legal permission from the individual (e.g., an informed
consent for treatment or a consent to assignment of benefits), if the
consent under this section:

\(A\) Is visually and organizationally separate from such other written
legal permission; and

\(B\) Is separately signed by the individual and dated.

\(ii\) A consent for use or disclosure may be combined with a research
authorization under \' 164.508(f).

\(5\) An individual may revoke a consent under this section at any time,
except to the extent that the covered entity has taken action in
reliance thereon. Such revocation must be in writing.

\(6\) A covered entity must document and retain any signed consent under
this section as required by \' 164.530(j).

\(c\) [Implementation specifications: content requirements.]{.underline}
A consent under this section must be in plain language and:

\(1\) Inform the individual that protected health information may be
used and disclosed to carry out treatment, payment, or health care
operations;

\(2\) Refer the individual to the notice required by \' 164.520 for a
more complete description of such uses and disclosures and state that
the individual has the right to review the notice prior to signing the
consent;

\(3\) If the covered entity has reserved the right to change its privacy
practices that are described in the notice in accordance with \'
164.520(b)(1)(v)(C), state that the terms of its notice may change and
describe how the individual may obtain a revised notice;

\(4\) State that:

\(i\) The individual has the right to request that the covered entity
restrict how protected health information is used or disclosed to carry
out treatment, payment, or health care operations;

\(ii\) The covered entity is not required to agree to requested
restrictions; and

\(iii\) If the covered entity agrees to a requested restriction, the
restriction is binding on the covered entity;

\(5\) State that the individual has the right to revoke the consent in
writing, except to the extent that the covered entity has taken action
in reliance thereon; and

\(6\) Be signed by the individual and dated.

\(d\) [Implementation specifications: defective consents.]{.underline}
There is no consent under this section, if the document submitted has
any of the following defects:

\(1\) The consent lacks an element required by paragraph (c) of this
section, as applicable; or

\(2\) The consent has been revoked in accordance with paragraph (b)(5)
of this section.

\(e\) [Standard: resolving conflicting consents and
authorizations.]{.underline} (1) If a covered entity has obtained a
consent under this section and receives any other authorization or
written legal permission from the individual for a disclosure of
protected health information to carry out treatment, payment, or health
care operations, the covered entity may disclose such protected health
information only in accordance with the more restrictive consent,
authorization, or other written legal permission from the individual.

\(2\) A covered entity may attempt to resolve a conflict between a
consent and an authorization or other written legal permission from the
individual described in paragraph (e)(1) of this section by:

\(i\) Obtaining a new consent from the individual under this section for
the disclosure to carry out treatment, payment, or health care
operations; or

\(ii\) Communicating orally or in writing with the individual in order
to determine the individual=s preference in resolving the conflict. The
covered entity must document the individual=s preference and may only
disclose protected health information in accordance with the
individual=s preference.

(f)(1) [Standard: joint consents.]{.underline} Covered entities that
participate in an organized health care arrangement and that have a
joint notice under \' 164.520(d) may comply with this section by a joint
consent.

\(2\) [Implementation specifications: requirements for joint
consents.]{.underline} (i) A joint consent must:

\(A\) Include the name or other specific identification of the covered
entities, or classes of covered entities, to which the joint consent
applies; and

\(B\) Meet the requirements of this section, except that the statements
required by this section may be altered to reflect the fact that the
consent covers more than one covered entity.

\(ii\) If an individual revokes a joint consent, the covered entity that
receives the revocation must inform the other entities covered by the
joint consent of the revocation as soon as practicable.

[\'164.508 Uses and disclosures for which an authorization is
required.]{.underline}

\(a\) [Standard: authorizations for uses and disclosures.]{.underline}
(1) [Authorization required: general rule.]{.underline} Except as
otherwise permitted or required by this subchapter, a covered entity may
not use or disclose protected health information without an
authorization that is valid under this section. When a covered entity
obtains or receives a valid authorization for its use or disclosure of
protected health information, such use or disclosure must be consistent
with such authorization.

\(2\) [Authorization required: psychotherapy notes.]{.underline}
Notwithstanding any other provision of this subpart, other than
transition provisions provided for in \' 164.532, a covered entity must
obtain an authorization for any use or disclosure of psychotherapy
notes, except:

\(i\) To carry out the following treatment, payment, or health care
operations, consistent with consent requirements in \' 164.506:

\(A\) Use by originator of the psychotherapy notes for treatment;

\(B\) Use or disclosure by the covered entity in training programs in
which students, trainees, or practitioners in mental health learn under
supervision to practice or improve their skills in group, joint, family,
or individual counseling; or

\(C\) Use or disclosure by the covered entity to defend a legal action
or other proceeding brought by the individual; and

\(ii\) A use or disclosure that is required by \' 164.502(a)(2)(ii) or
permitted by \' 164.512(a); \' 164.512(d) with respect to the oversight
of the originator of the psychotherapy notes; \' 164.512(g)(1); or \'
164.512(j)(1)(i).

\(b\) [Implementation specifications: general requirements.]{.underline}
(1) [Valid authorizations.]{.underline}

\(i\) A valid authorization is a document that contains the elements
listed in paragraph (c) and, as applicable, paragraph (d), (e), or (f)
of this section.

\(ii\) A valid authorization may contain elements or information in
addition to the elements required by this section, provided that such
additional elements or information are not be inconsistent with the
elements required by this section.

\(2\) [Defective authorizations.]{.underline} An authorization is not
valid, if the document submitted has any of the following defects:

\(i\) The expiration date has passed or the expiration event is known by
the covered entity to have occurred;

\(ii\) The authorization has not been filled out completely, with
respect to an element described by paragraph (c), (d), (e), or (f) of
this section, if applicable;

\(iii\) The authorization is known by the covered entity to have been
revoked;

\(iv\) The authorization lacks an element required by paragraph (c),
(d), (e), or (f) of this section, if applicable;

\(v\) The authorization violates paragraph (b)(3) of this section, if
applicable;

\(vi\) Any material information in the authorization is known by the
covered entity to be false.

\(3\) [Compound authorizations.]{.underline} An authorization for use or
disclosure of protected health information may not be combined with any
other document to create a compound authorization, except as follows:

\(i\) An authorization for the use or disclosure of protected health
information created for research that includes treatment of the
individual may be combined as permitted by \' 164.506(b)(4)(ii) or
paragraph (f) of this section;

\(ii\) An authorization for a use or disclosure of psychotherapy notes
may only be combined with another authorization for a use or disclosure
of psychotherapy notes;

\(iii\) An authorization under this section, other than an authorization
for a use or disclosure of psychotherapy notes may be combined with any
other such authorization under this section, except when a covered
entity has conditioned the provision of treatment, payment, enrollment
in the health plan, or eligibility for benefits under paragraph (b)(4)
of this section on the provision of one of the authorizations.

\(4\) [Prohibition on conditioning of authorizations.]{.underline} A
covered entity may not condition the provision to an individual of
treatment, payment, enrollment in the health plan, or eligibility for
benefits on the provision of an authorization, except:

\(i\) A covered health care provider may condition the provision of
research-related treatment on provision of an authorization under
paragraph (f) of this section;

\(ii\) A health plan may condition enrollment in the health plan or
eligibility for benefits on provision of an authorization requested by
the health plan prior to an individual\'s enrollment in the health plan,
if:

\(A\) The authorization sought is for the health plan=s eligibility or
enrollment determinations relating to the individual or for its
underwriting or risk rating determinations; and

\(B\) The authorization is not for a use or disclosure of psychotherapy
notes under paragraph (a)(2) of this section;

\(iii\) A health plan may condition payment of a claim for specified
benefits on provision of an authorization under paragraph (e) of this
section, if:

\(A\) The disclosure is necessary to determine payment of such claim;
and

\(B\) The authorization is not for a use or disclosure of psychotherapy
notes under paragraph (a)(2) of this section; and

\(iv\) A covered entity may condition the provision of health care that
is solely for the purpose of creating protected health information for
disclosure to a third party on provision of an authorization for the
disclosure of the protected health information to such third party.

\(5\) [Revocation of authorizations.]{.underline} An individual may
revoke an authorization provided under this section at any time,
provided that the revocation is in writing, except to the extent that:

\(i\) The covered entity has taken action in reliance thereon; or

\(ii\) If the authorization was obtained as a condition of obtaining
insurance coverage, other law provides the insurer with the right to
contest a claim under the policy.

\(6\) [Documentation.]{.underline} A covered entity must document and
retain any signed authorization under this section as required by \'
164.530(j).

\(c\) [Implementation specifications: core elements and
requirements.]{.underline} (1) [Core elements.]{.underline} A valid
authorization under this section must contain at least the following
elements:

\(i\) A description of the information to be used or disclosed that
identifies the information in a specific and meaningful fashion;

\(ii\) The name or other specific identification of the person(s), or
class of persons, authorized to make the requested use or disclosure;

\(iii\) The name or other specific identification of the person(s), or
class of persons, to whom the covered entity may make the requested use
or disclosure;

\(iv\) An expiration date or an expiration event that relates to the
individual or the purpose of the use or disclosure;

\(v\) A statement of the individual=s right to revoke the authorization
in writing and the exceptions to the right to revoke, together with a
description of how the individual may revoke the authorization;

\(vi\) A statement that information used or disclosed pursuant to the
authorization may be subject to redisclosure by the recipient and no
longer be protected by this rule;

\(vii\) Signature of the individual and date; and

\(viii\) If the authorization is signed by a personal representative of
the individual, a description of such representative=s authority to act
for the individual.

\(2\) [Plain language requirement.]{.underline} The authorization must
be written in plain language.

\(d\) [Implementation specifications: authorizations requested by a
covered entity for its own uses and disclosures.]{.underline} If an
authorization is requested by a covered entity for its own use or
disclosure of protected health information that it maintains, the
covered entity must comply with the following requirements.

\(1\) [Required elements.]{.underline} The authorization for the uses or
disclosures described in this paragraph must, in addition to meeting the
requirements of paragraph (c) of this section, contain the following
elements:

\(i\) For any authorization to which the prohibition on conditioning in
paragraph (b)(4) of this section applies, a statement that the covered
entity will not condition treatment, payment, enrollment in the health
plan, or eligibility for benefits on the individual\'s providing
authorization for the requested use or disclosure;

\(ii\) A description of each purpose of the requested use or disclosure;

\(iii\) A statement that the individual may:

\(A\) Inspect or copy the protected health information to be used or
disclosed as provided in \' 164.524; and

\(B\) Refuse to sign the authorization; and

\(iv\) If use or disclosure of the requested information will result in
direct or indirect remuneration to the covered entity from a third
party, a statement that such remuneration will result.

\(2\) [Copy to the individual.]{.underline} A covered entity must
provide the individual with a copy of the signed authorization.

\(e\) [Implementation specifications: authorizations requested by a
covered entity for disclosures by others.]{.underline} If an
authorization is requested by a covered entity for another covered
entity to disclose protected health information to the covered entity
requesting the authorization to carry out treatment, payment, or health
care operations, the covered entity requesting the authorization must
comply with the following requirements.

\(1\) [Required elements.]{.underline} The authorization for the
disclosures described in this paragraph must, in addition to meeting the
requirements of paragraph (c) of this section, contain the following
elements:

\(i\) A description of each purpose of the requested disclosure;

\(ii\) Except for an authorization on which payment may be conditioned
under paragraph (b)(4)(iii) of this section, a statement that the
covered entity will not condition treatment, payment, enrollment in the
health plan, or eligibility for benefits on the individual\'s providing
authorization for the requested use or disclosure; and

\(iii\) A statement that the individual may refuse to sign the
authorization.

\(2\) [Copy to the individual.]{.underline} A covered entity must
provide the individual with a copy of the signed authorization.

\(f\) [Implementation specifications: authorizations for uses and
disclosures of protected health information created for research that
includes treatment of the individual.]{.underline} (1) [Required
elements.]{.underline} Except as otherwise permitted by \' 164.512(i), a
covered entity that creates protected health information for the
purpose, in whole or in part, of research that includes treatment of
individuals must obtain an authorization for the use or disclosure of
such information. Such authorization must:

\(i\) For uses and disclosures not otherwise permitted or required under
this subpart, meet the requirements of paragraphs (c) and (d) of this
section; and

\(ii\) Contain:

\(A\) A description of the extent to which such protected health
information will be used or disclosed to carry out treatment, payment,
or health care operations;

\(B\) A description of any protected health information that will not be
used or disclosed for purposes permitted in accordance with \'\' 164.510
and 164.512, provided that the covered entity may not include a
limitation affecting its right to make a use or disclosure that is
required by law or permitted by \' 164.512(j)(1)(i); and

\(C\) If the covered entity has obtained or intends to obtain the
individual=s consent under \' 164.506, or has provided or intends to
provide the individual with a notice under \' 164.520, the authorization
must refer to that consent or notice, as applicable, and state that the
statements made pursuant to this section are binding.

\(2\) [Optional procedure.]{.underline} An authorization under this
paragraph may be in the same document as:

\(i\) A consent to participate in the research;

\(ii\) A consent to use or disclose protected health information to
carry out treatment, payment, or health care operations under \'
164.506; or

\(iii\) A notice of privacy practices under \' 164.520.

[\' 164.510 Uses and disclosures requiring an opportunity for the
individual to agree or to object.]{.underline}

A covered entity may use or disclose protected health information
without the written consent or authorization of the individual as
described by \'\' 164.506 and 164.508, respectively, provided that the
individual is informed in advance of the use or disclosure and has the
opportunity to agree to or prohibit or restrict the disclosure in
accordance with the applicable requirements of this section. The covered
entity may orally inform the individual of and obtain the individual=s
oral agreement or objection to a use or disclosure permitted by this
section.

\(a\) [Standard: use and disclosure for facility
directories.]{.underline}

\(1\) [Permitted uses and disclosure.]{.underline} Except when an
objection is expressed in accordance with paragraphs (a)(2) or (3) of
this section, a covered health care provider may:

\(i\) Use the following protected health information to maintain a
directory of individuals in its facility:

\(A\) The individual=s name;

\(B\) The individual=s location in the covered health care provider=s
facility;

\(C\) The individual=s condition described in general terms that does
not communicate specific medical information about the individual; and

\(D\) The individual=s religious affiliation; and

\(ii\) Disclose for directory purposes such information:

\(A\) To members of the clergy; or

\(B\) Except for religious affiliation, to other persons who ask for the
individual by name.

\(2\) [Opportunity to object.]{.underline} A covered health care
provider must inform an individual of the protected health information
that it may include in a directory and the persons to whom it may
disclose such information (including disclosures to clergy of
information regarding religious affiliation) and provide the individual
with the opportunity to restrict or prohibit some or all of the uses or
disclosures permitted by paragraph (a)(1) of this section.

\(3\) [Emergency circumstances.]{.underline} (i) If the opportunity to
object to uses or disclosures required by paragraph (a)(2) of this
section cannot practicably be provided because of the individual=s
incapacity or an emergency treatment circumstance, a covered health care
provider may use or disclose some or all of the protected health
information permitted by paragraph (a)(1) of this section for the
facility=s directory, if such disclosure is:

\(A\) Consistent with a prior expressed preference of the individual, if
any, that is known to the covered health care provider; and

\(B\) In the individual=s best interest as determined by the covered
health care provider, in the exercise of professional judgment.

\(ii\) The covered health care provider must inform the individual and
provide an opportunity to object to uses or disclosures for directory
purposes as required by paragraph (a)(2) of this section when it becomes
practicable to do so.

\(b\) [Standard: uses and disclosures for involvement in the
individual=s care and notification purposes.]{.underline}

\(1\) [Permitted uses and disclosures.]{.underline} (i) A covered entity
may, in accordance with paragraphs (b)(2) or (3) of this section,
disclose to a family member, other relative, or a close personal friend
of the individual, or any other person identified by the individual, the
protected health information directly relevant to such person=s
involvement with the individual=s care or payment related to the
individual=s health care.

\(ii\) A covered entity may use or disclose protected health information
to notify, or assist in the notification of (including identifying or
locating), a family member, a personal representative of the individual,
or another person responsible for the care of the individual of the
individual=s location, general condition, or death. Any such use or
disclosure of protected health information for such notification
purposes must be in accordance with paragraphs (b)(2), (3), or (4) of
this section, as applicable.

\(2\) [Uses and disclosures with the individual present.]{.underline} If
the individual is present for, or otherwise available prior to, a use or
disclosure permitted by paragraph (b)(1) of this section and has the
capacity to make health care decisions, the covered entity may use or
disclose the protected health information if it:

\(i\) Obtains the individual=s agreement;

\(ii\) Provides the individual with the opportunity to object to the
disclosure, and the individual does not express an objection; or

\(iii\) Reasonably infers from the circumstances, based the exercise of
professional judgment, that the individual does not object to the
disclosure.

\(3\) [Limited uses and disclosures when the individual is not
present.]{.underline} If the individual is not present for, or the
opportunity to agree or object to the use or disclosure cannot
practicably be provided because of the individual=s incapacity or an
emergency circumstance, the covered entity may, in the exercise of
professional judgment, determine whether the disclosure is in the best
interests of the individual and, if so, disclose only the protected
health information that is directly relevant to the person=s involvement
with the individual=s health care. A covered entity may use professional
judgment and its experience with common practice to make reasonable
inferences of the individual=s best interest in allowing a person to act
on behalf of the individual to pick up filled prescriptions, medical
supplies, X-rays, or other similar forms of protected health
information.

\(4\) [Use and disclosures for disaster relief purposes.]{.underline} A
covered entity may use or disclose protected health information to a
public or private entity authorized by law or by its charter to assist
in disaster relief efforts, for the purpose of coordinating with such
entities the uses or disclosures permitted by paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of
this section. The requirements in paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this
section apply to such uses and disclosure to the extent that the covered
entity, in the exercise of professional judgment, determines that the
requirements do not interfere with the ability to respond to the
emergency circumstances.

[\' 164.512 Uses and disclosures for which consent, an authorization, or
opportunity to agree or object is not required.]{.underline}

A covered entity may use or disclose protected health information
without the written consent or authorization of the individual as
described in \'\' 164.506 and 164.508, respectively, or the opportunity
for the individual to agree or object as described in \' 164.510, in the
situations covered by this section, subject to the applicable
requirements of this section. When the covered entity is required by
this section to inform the individual of, or when the individual may
agree to, a use or disclosure permitted by this section, the covered
entity=s information and the individual=s agreement may be given orally.

\(a\) [Standard: uses and disclosures required by law.]{.underline} (1)
A covered entity may use or disclose protected health information to the
extent that such use or disclosure is required by law and the use or
disclosure complies with and is limited to the relevant requirements of
such law.

\(2\) A covered entity must meet the requirements described in paragraph
(c), (e), or (f) of this section for uses or disclosures required by
law.

\(b\) [Standard: uses and disclosures for public health
activities.]{.underline}

\(1\) [Permitted disclosures.]{.underline} A covered entity may disclose
protected health information for the public health activities and
purposes described in this paragraph to:

\(i\) A public health authority that is authorized by law to collect or
receive such information for the purpose of preventing or controlling
disease, injury, or disability, including, but not limited to, the
reporting of disease, injury, vital events such as birth or death, and
the conduct of public health surveillance, public health investigations,
and public health interventions; or, at the direction of a public health
authority, to an official of a foreign government agency that is acting
in collaboration with a public health authority;

\(ii\) A public health authority or other appropriate government
authority authorized by law to receive reports of child abuse or
neglect;

\(iii\) A person subject to the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug
Administration:

\(A\) To report adverse events (or similar reports with respect to food
or dietary supplements), product defects or problems (including problems
with the use or labeling of a product), or biological product deviations
if the disclosure is made to the person required or directed to report
such information to the Food and Drug Administration;

\(B\) To track products if the disclosure is made to a person required
or directed by the Food and Drug Administration to track the product;

\(C\) To enable product recalls, repairs, or replacement (including
locating and notifying individuals who have received products of product
recalls, withdrawals, or other problems); or

\(D\) To conduct post marketing surveillance to comply with requirements
or at the direction of the Food and Drug Administration;

\(iv\) A person who may have been exposed to a communicable disease or
may otherwise be at risk of contracting or spreading a disease or
condition, if the covered entity or public health authority is
authorized by law to notify such person as necessary in the conduct of a
public health intervention or investigation; or

\(v\) An employer, about an individual who is a member of the workforce
of the employer, if:

\(A\) The covered entity is a covered health care provider who is a
member of the workforce of such employer or who provides a health care
to the individual at the request of the employer:

(*1*) To conduct an evaluation relating to medical surveillance of the
workplace; or

(*2*) To evaluate whether the individual has a work‑related illness or
injury;

\(B\) The protected health information that is disclosed consists of
findings concerning a work‑related illness or injury or a
workplace-related medical surveillance;

\(C\) The employer needs such findings in order to comply with its
obligations, under 29 CFR parts 1904 through 1928, 30 CFR parts 50
through 90, or under state law having a similar purpose, to record such
illness or injury or to carry out responsibilities for workplace medical
surveillance;

\(D\) The covered health care provider provides written notice to the
individual that protected health information relating to the medical
surveillance of the workplace and work‑related illnesses and injuries is
disclosed to the employer:

(*1*) By giving a copy of the notice to the individual at the time the
health care is provided; or

(*2*) If the health care is provided on the work site of the employer,
by posting the notice in a prominent place at the location where the
health care is provided.

\(2\) [Permitted uses.]{.underline} If the covered entity also is a
public health authority, the covered entity is permitted to use
protected health information in all cases in which it is permitted to
disclose such information for public health activities under paragraph
(b)(1) of this section.

\(c\) [Standard: disclosures about victims of abuse, neglect or domestic
violence.]{.underline}

\(1\) [Permitted disclosures.]{.underline} Except for reports of child
abuse or neglect permitted by paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, a
covered entity may disclose protected health information about an
individual whom the covered entity reasonably believes to be a victim of
abuse, neglect, or domestic violence to a government authority,
including a social service or protective services agency, authorized by
law to receive reports of such abuse, neglect, or domestic violence:

\(i\) To the extent the disclosure is required by law and the disclosure
complies with and is limited to the relevant requirements of such law;

\(ii\) If the individual agrees to the disclosure; or

\(iii\) To the extent the disclosure is expressly authorized by statute
or regulation and:

\(A\) The covered entity, in the exercise of professional judgment,
believes the disclosure is necessary to prevent serious harm to the
individual or other potential victims; or

\(B\) If the individual is unable to agree because of incapacity, a law
enforcement or other public official authorized to receive the report
represents that the protected health information for which disclosure is
sought is not intended to be used against the individual and that an
immediate enforcement activity that depends upon the disclosure would be
materially and adversely affected by waiting until the individual is
able to agree to the disclosure.

\(2\) [Informing the individual.]{.underline} A covered entity that
makes a disclosure permitted by paragraph (c)(1) of this section must
promptly inform the individual that such a report has been or will be
made, except if:

\(i\) The covered entity, in the exercise of professional judgment,
believes informing the individual would place the individual at risk of
serious harm; or

\(ii\) The covered entity would be informing a personal representative,
and the covered entity reasonably believes the personal representative
is responsible for the abuse, neglect, or other injury, and that
informing such person would not be in the best interests of the
individual as determined by the covered entity, in the exercise of
professional judgment.

\(d\) [Standard: uses and disclosures for health oversight
activities.]{.underline}

\(1\) [Permitted disclosures.]{.underline} A covered entity may disclose
protected health information to a health oversight agency for oversight
activities authorized by law, including audits; civil, administrative,
or criminal investigations; inspections; licensure or disciplinary
actions; civil, administrative, or criminal proceedings or actions; or
other activities necessary for appropriate oversight of:

\(i\) The health care system;

\(ii\) Government benefit programs for which health information is
relevant to beneficiary eligibility;

\(iii\) Entities subject to government regulatory programs for which
health information is necessary for determining compliance with program
standards; or

\(iv\) Entities subject to civil rights laws for which health
information is necessary for determining compliance.

\(2\) [Exception to health oversight activities.]{.underline} For the
purpose of the disclosures permitted by paragraph (d)(1) of this
section, a health oversight activity does not include an investigation
or other activity in which the individual is the subject of the
investigation or activity and such investigation or other activity does
not arise out of and is not directly related to:

\(i\) The receipt of health care;

\(ii\) A claim for public benefits related to health; or

\(iii\) Qualification for, or receipt of, public benefits or services
when a patient=s health is integral to the claim for public benefits or
services.

\(3\) [Joint activities or investigations.]{.underline} Nothwithstanding
paragraph (d)(2) of this section, if a health oversight activity or
investigation is conducted in conjunction with an oversight activity or
investigation relating to a claim for public benefits not related to
health, the joint activity or investigation is considered a health
oversight activity for purposes of paragraph (d) of this section.

\(4\) [Permitted uses.]{.underline} If a covered entity also is a health
oversight agency, the covered entity may use protected health
information for health oversight activities as permitted by paragraph
(d) of this section.

\(e\) [Standard: disclosures for judicial and administrative
proceedings.]{.underline}

\(1\) [Permitted disclosures]{.underline}. A covered entity may disclose
protected health information in the course of any judicial or
administrative proceeding:

\(i\) In response to an order of a court or administrative tribunal,
provided that the covered entity discloses only the protected health
information expressly authorized by such order; or

\(ii\) In response to a subpoena, discovery request, or other lawful
process, that is not accompanied by an order of a court or
administrative tribunal, if:

\(A\) The covered entity receives satisfactory assurance, as described
in paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of this section, from the party seeking the
information that reasonable efforts have been made by such party to
ensure that the individual who is the subject of the protected health
information that has been requested has been given notice of the
request; or

\(B\) The covered entity receives satisfactory assurance, as described
in paragraph (e)(1)(iv) of this section, from the party seeking the
information that reasonable efforts have been made by such party to
secure a qualified protective order that meets the requirements of
paragraph (e)(1)(v) of this section.

\(iii\) For the purposes of paragraph (e)(1)(ii)(A) of this section, a
covered entity receives satisfactory assurances from a party seeking
protecting health information if the covered entity receives from such
party a written statement and accompanying documentation demonstrating
that:

\(A\) The party requesting such information has made a good faith
attempt to provide written notice to the individual (or, if the
individual=s location is unknown, to mail a notice to the individual=s
last known address);

\(B\) The notice included sufficient information about the litigation or
proceeding in which the protected health information is requested to
permit the individual to raise an objection to the court or
administrative tribunal; and

\(C\) The time for the individual to raise objections to the court or
administrative tribunal has elapsed, and:

(*1*) No objections were filed; or

(*2*) All objections filed by the individual have been resolved by the
court or the administrative tribunal and the disclosures being sought
are consistent with such resolution.

\(iv\) For the purposes of paragraph (e)(1)(ii)(B) of this section, a
covered entity receives satisfactory assurances from a party seeking
protected health information, if the covered entity receives from such
party a written statement and accompanying documentation demonstrating
that:

\(A\) The parties to the dispute giving rise to the request for
information have agreed to a qualified protective order and have
presented it to the court or administrative tribunal with jurisdiction
over the dispute; or

\(B\) The party seeking the protected health information has requested a
qualified protective order from such court or administrative tribunal.

\(v\) For purposes of paragraph (e)(1) of this section, a *qualified
protective order* means, with respect to protected health information
requested under paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section, an order of a
court or of an administrative tribunal or a stipulation by the parties
to the litigation or administrative proceeding that:

\(A\) Prohibits the parties from using or disclosing the protected
health information for any purpose other than the litigation or
proceeding for which such information was requested; and

\(B\) Requires the return to the covered entity or destruction of the
protected health information (including all copies made) at the end of
the litigation or proceeding.

\(vi\) Nothwithstanding paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section, a covered
entity may disclose protected health information in response to lawful
process described in paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section without
receiving satisfactory assurance under paragraph (e)(1)(ii)(A) or (B) of
this section, if the covered entity makes reasonable efforts to provide
notice to the individual sufficient to meet the requirements of
paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of this section or to seek a qualified protective
order sufficient to meet the requirements of paragraph (e)(1)(iv) of
this section.

\(2\) [Other uses and disclosures under this section.]{.underline} The
provisions of this paragraph do not supersede other provisions of this
section that otherwise permit or restrict uses or disclosures of
protected health information.

\(f\) [Standard: disclosures for law enforcement purposes.]{.underline}
A covered entity may disclose protected health information for a law
enforcement purpose to a law enforcement official if the conditions in
paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(6) of this section are met, as applicable.

\(1\) [Permitted disclosures: pursuant to process and as otherwise
required by law]{.underline}. A covered entity may disclose protected
health information:

\(i\) As required by law including laws that require the reporting of
certain types of wounds or other physical injuries, except for laws
subject to paragraph (b)(1)(ii) or (c)(1)(i) of this section; or

\(ii\) In compliance with and as limited by the relevant requirements
of:

\(A\) A court order or court-ordered warrant, or a subpoena or summons
issued by a judicial officer;

\(B\) A grand jury subpoena; or

\(C\) An administrative request, including an administrative subpoena or
summons, a civil or an authorized investigative demand, or similar
process authorized under law, provided that:

(*1*) The information sought is relevant and material to a legitimate
law enforcement inquiry;

(*2*) The request is specific and limited in scope to the extent
reasonably practicable in light of the purpose for which the information
is sought; and

(*3*) De-identified information could not reasonably be used.

\(2\) [Permitted disclosures: limited information for identification and
location purposes.]{.underline} Except for disclosures required by law
as permitted by paragraph (f)(1) of this section, a covered entity may
disclose protected health information in response to a law enforcement
official=s request for such information for the purpose of identifying
or locating a suspect, fugitive, material witness, or missing person,
provided that:

\(i\) The covered entity may disclose only the following information:

\(A\) Name and address;

\(B\) Date and place of birth;

\(C\) Social security number;

\(D\) ABO blood type and rh factor;

\(E\) Type of injury;

\(F\) Date and time of treatment;

\(G\) Date and time of death, if applicable; and

\(H\) A description of distinguishing physical characteristics,
including height, weight, gender, race, hair and eye color, presence or
absence of facial hair (beard or moustache), scars, and tattoos.

\(ii\) Except as permitted by paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section, the
covered entity may not disclose for the purposes of identification or
location under paragraph (f)(2) of this section any protected health
information related to the individual=s DNA or DNA analysis, dental
records, or typing, samples or analysis of body fluids or tissue.

\(3\) [Permitted disclosure: victims of a crime.]{.underline} Except for
disclosures required by law as permitted by paragraph (f)(1) of this
section, a covered entity may disclose protected health information in
response to a law enforcement official=s request for such information
about an individual who is or is suspected to be a victim of a crime,
other than disclosures that are subject to paragraph (b) or (c) of this
section, if:

\(ii\) The individual agrees to the disclosure; or

\(iii\) The covered entity is unable to obtain the individual=s
agreement because of incapacity or other emergency circumstance,
provided that:

\(A\) The law enforcement official represents that such information is
needed to determine whether a violation of law by a person other than
the victim has occurred, and such information is not intended to be used
against the victim;

\(B\) The law enforcement official represents that immediate law
enforcement activity that depends upon the disclosure would be
materially and adversely affected by waiting until the individual is
able to agree to the disclosure; and

\(C\) The disclosure is in the best interests of the individual as
determined by the covered entity, in the exercise of professional
judgment.

\(4\) [Permitted disclosure: decedents.]{.underline} A covered entity
may disclose protected health information about an individual who has
died to a law enforcement official for the purpose of alerting law
enforcement of the death of the individual if the covered entity has a
suspicion that such death may have resulted from criminal conduct.

\(5\) [Permitted disclosure: crime on premises.]{.underline} A covered
entity may disclose to a law enforcement official protected health
information that the covered entity believes in good faith constitutes
evidence of criminal conduct that occurred on the premises of the
covered entity.

\(6\) [Permitted disclosure: reporting crime in
emergencies.]{.underline} (i) A covered health care provider providing
emergency health care in response to a medical emergency, other than
such emergency on the premises of the covered health care provider, may
disclose protected health information to a law enforcement official if
such disclosure appears necessary to alert law enforcement to:

\(A\) The commission and nature of a crime;

\(B\) The location of such crime or of the victim(s) of such crime; and

\(C\) The identity, description, and location of the perpetrator of such
crime.

\(ii\) If a covered health care provider believes that the medical
emergency described in paragraph (f)(6)(i) of this section is the result
of abuse, neglect, or domestic violence of the individual in need of
emergency health care, paragraph (f)(6)(i) of this section does not
apply and any disclosure to a law enforcement official for law
enforcement purposes is subject to paragraph (c) of this section.

\(g\) [Standard: uses and disclosures about decedents.]{.underline} (1)
[Coroners and medical examiners.]{.underline} A covered entity may
disclose protected health information to a coroner or medical examiner
for the purpose of identifying a deceased person, determining a cause of
death, or other duties as authorized by law. A covered entity that also
performs the duties of a coroner or medical examiner may use protected
health information for the purposes described in this paragraph.

\(2\) [Funeral directors.]{.underline} A covered entity may disclose
protected health information to funeral directors, consistent with
applicable law, as necessary to carry out their duties with respect to
the decedent. If necessary for funeral directors carry out their duties,
the covered entity may disclose the protected health information prior
to, and in reasonable anticipation of, the individual=s death.

\(h\) [Standard: uses and disclosures for cadaveric organ, eye or tissue
donation purposes.]{.underline} A covered entity may use or disclose
protected health information to organ procurement organizations or other
entities engaged in the procurement, banking, or transplantation of
cadaveric organs, eyes, or tissue for the purpose of facilitating organ,
eye or tissue donation and transplantation.

\(i\) [Standard: uses and disclosures for research
purposes.]{.underline} (1) [Permitted uses and disclosures.]{.underline}
A covered entity may use or disclose protected health information for
research, regardless of the source of funding of the research, provided
that:

\(i\) [Board approval of a waiver of authorization.]{.underline} The
covered entity obtains documentation that an alteration to or waiver, in
whole or in part, of the individual authorization required by \'164.508
for use or disclosure of protected health information has been approved
by either:

\(A\) An Institutional Review Board (IRB), established in accordance
with 7 CFR 1c.107, 10 CFR 745.107, 14 CFR 1230.107, 15 CFR 27.107, 16
CFR 1028.107, 21 CFR 56.107, 22 CFR 225.107, 24 CFR 60.107, 28 CFR
46.107, 32 CFR 219.107, 34 CFR 97.107, 38 CFR 16.107, 40 CFR 26.107, 45
CFR 46.107, 45 CFR 690.107, or 49 CFR 11.107; or

\(B\) A privacy board that:

(*1*) Has members with varying backgrounds and appropriate professional
competency as necessary to review the effect of the research protocol on
the individual=s privacy rights and related interests;

(*2*) Includes at least one member who is not affiliated with the
covered entity, not affiliated with any entity conducting or sponsoring
the research, and not related to any person who is affiliated with any
of such entities; and

(*3*) Does not have any member participating in a review of any project
in which the member has a conflict of interest.

\(ii\) [Reviews preparatory to research.]{.underline} The covered entity
obtains from the researcher representations that:

\(A\) Use or disclosure is sought solely to review protected health
information as necessary to prepare a research protocol or for similar
purposes preparatory to research;

\(B\) No protected health information is to be removed from the covered
entity by the researcher in the course of the review; and

\(C\) The protected health information for which use or access is sought
is necessary for the research purposes.

\(iii\) [Research on decedent=s information.]{.underline} The covered
entity obtains from the researcher:

\(A\) Representation that the use or disclosure is sought is solely for
research on the protected health information of decedents;

\(B\) Documentation, at the request of the covered entity, of the death
of such individuals; and

\(C\) Representation that the protected health information for which use
or disclosure is sought is necessary for the research purposes.

\(2\) [Documentation of waiver approval.]{.underline} For a use or
disclosure to be permitted based on documentation of approval of an
alteration or waiver, under paragraph (i)(1)(i) of this section, the
documentation must include all of the following:

\(i\) [Identification and date of action.]{.underline} A statement
identifying the IRB or privacy board and the date on which the
alteration or waiver of authorization was approved;

\(ii\) [Waiver criteria.]{.underline} A statement that the IRB or
privacy board has determined that the alteration or waiver, in whole or
in part, of authorization satisfies the following criteria:

\(A\) The use or disclosure of protected health information involves no
more than minimal risk to the individuals;

\(B\) The alteration or waiver will not adversely affect the privacy
rights and the welfare of the individuals;

\(C\) The research could not practicably be conducted without the
alteration or waiver;

\(D\) The research could not practicably be conducted without access to
and use of the protected health information;

\(E\) The privacy risks to individuals whose protected health
information is to be used or disclosed are reasonable in relation to the
anticipated benefits if any to the individuals, and the importance of
the knowledge that may reasonably be expected to result from the
research;

\(F\) There is an adequate plan to protect the identifiers from improper
use and disclosure;

\(G\) There is an adequate plan to destroy the identifiers at the
earliest opportunity consistent with conduct of the research, unless
there is a health or research justification for retaining the
identifiers, or such retention is otherwise required by law; and

\(H\) There are adequate written assurances that the protected health
information will not be reused or disclosed to any other person or
entity, except as required by law, for authorized oversight of the
research project, or for other research for which the use or disclosure
of protected health information would be permitted by this subpart.

\(iii\) [Protected health information needed.]{.underline} A brief
description of the protected health information for which use or access
has been determined to be necessary by the IRB or privacy board has
determined, pursuant to paragraph (i)(2)(ii)(D) of this section;

\(iv\) [Review and approval procedures.]{.underline} A statement that
the alteration or waiver of authorization has been reviewed and approved
under either normal or expedited review procedures, as follows:

\(A\) An IRB must follow the requirements of the Common Rule, including
the normal review procedures (7 CFR 1c.108(b), 10 CFR 745.108(b), 14 CFR
1230.108(b), 15 CFR 27.108(b), 16 CFR 1028.108(b), 21 CFR 56.108(b), 22
CFR 225.108(b), 24 CFR 60.108(b), 28 CFR 46.108(b), 32 CFR 219.108(b),
34 CFR 97.108(b), 38 CFR 16.108(b), 40 CFR 26.108(b), 45 CFR 46.108(b),
45 CFR 690.108(b), or 49 CFR 11.108(b)) or the expedited review
procedures (7 CFR 1c.110, 10 CFR 745.110, 14 CFR 1230.110, 15 CFR
27.110, 16 CFR 1028.110, 21 CFR 56.110, 22 CFR 225.110, 24 CFR 60.110,
28 CFR 46.110, 32 CFR 219.110, 34 CFR 97.110, 38 CFR 16.110, 40 CFR
26.110, 45 CFR 46.110, 45 CFR 690.110, or 49 CFR 11.110);

\(B\) A privacy board must review the proposed research at convened
meetings at which a majority of the privacy board members are present,
including at least one member who satisfies the criterion stated in
paragraph (i)(1)(i)(B)(*2*) of this section, and the alteration or
waiver of authorization must be approved by the majority of the privacy
board members present at the meeting, unless the privacy board elects to
use an expedited review procedure in accordance with paragraph
(i)(2)(iv)(C) of this section;

\(C\) A privacy board may use an expedited review procedure if the
research involves no more than minimal risk to the privacy of the
individuals who are the subject of the protected health information for
which use or disclosure is being sought. If the privacy board elects to
use an expedited review procedure, the review and approval of the
alteration or waiver of authorization may be carried out by the chair of
the privacy board, or by one or more members of the privacy board as
designated by the chair; and

\(v\) [Required signature.]{.underline} The documentation of the
alteration or waiver of authorization must be signed by the chair or
other member, as designated by the chair, of the IRB or the privacy
board, as applicable.

\(j\) [Standard: uses and disclosures to avert a serious threat to
health or safety.]{.underline} (1) [Permitted disclosures.]{.underline}
A covered entity may, consistent with applicable law and standards of
ethical conduct, use or disclose protected health information, if the
covered entity, in good faith, believes the use or disclosure:

(i)(A) Is necessary to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat
to the health or safety of a person or the public; and

\(B\) Is to a person or persons reasonably able to prevent or lessen the
threat, including the target of the threat; or

\(ii\) Is necessary for law enforcement authorities to identify or
apprehend an individual:

\(A\) Because of a statement by an individual admitting participation in
a violent crime that the covered entity reasonably believes may have
caused serious physical harm to the victim; or

\(B\) Where it appears from all the circumstances that the individual
has escaped from a correctional institution or from lawful custody, as
those terms are defined in \' 164.501.

\(2\) [Use or disclosure not permitted..]{.underline} A use or
disclosure pursuant to paragraph (j)(1)(ii)(A) of this section may not
be made if the information described in paragraph (j)(1)(ii)(A) of this
section is learned by the covered entity:

\(i\) In the course of treatment to affect the propensity to commit the
criminal conduct that is the basis for the disclosure under paragraph
(j)(1)(ii)(A) of this section, or counseling or therapy; or

\(ii\) Through a request by the individual to initiate or to be referred
for the treatment, counseling, or therapy described in paragraph
(j)(2)(i) of this section.

\(3\) [Limit on information that may be disclosed.]{.underline} A
disclosure made pursuant to paragraph (j)(1)(ii)(A) of this section
shall contain only the statement described in paragraph (j)(1)(ii)(A) of
this section and the protected health information described in paragraph
(f)(2)(i) of this section.

\(4\) [Presumption of good faith belief.]{.underline} A covered entity
that uses or discloses protected health information pursuant to
paragraph (j)(1) of this section is presumed to have acted in good faith
with regard to a belief described in paragraph (j)(1)(i) or (ii) of this
section, if the belief is based upon the covered entity=s actual
knowledge or in reliance on a credible representation by a person with
apparent knowledge or authority.

\(k\) [Standard: uses and disclosures for specialized government
functions.]{.underline} (1) [Military and veterans
activities.]{.underline} (i) [Armed Forces personnel.]{.underline} A
covered entity may use and disclose the protected health information of
individuals who are Armed Forces personnel for activities deemed
necessary by appropriate military command authorities to assure the
proper execution of the military mission, if the appropriate military
authority has published by notice in the **Federal Register** the
following information:

\(A\) Appropriate military command authorities; and

\(B\) The purposes for which the protected health information may be
used or disclosed.

\(ii\) [Separation or discharge from military service.]{.underline} A
covered entity that is a component of the Departments of Defense or
Transportation may disclose to the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA)
the protected health information of an individual who is a member of the
Armed Forces upon the separation or discharge of the individual from
military service for the purpose of a determination by DVA of the
individual=s eligibility for or entitlement to benefits under laws
administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

\(iii\) [Veterans.]{.underline} A covered entity that is a component of
the Department of Veterans Affairs may use and disclose protected health
information to components of the Department that determine eligibility
for or entitlement to, or that provide, benefits under the laws
administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

\(iv\) [Foreign military personnel.]{.underline} A covered entity may
use and disclose the protected health information of individuals who are
foreign military personnel to their appropriate foreign military
authority for the same purposes for which uses and disclosures are
permitted for Armed Forces personnel under the notice published in the
**Federal Register** pursuant to paragraph (k)(1)(i) of this section.

\(2\) [National security and intelligence activities.]{.underline} A
covered entity may disclose protected health information to authorized
federal officials for the conduct of lawful intelligence,
counter-intelligence, and other national security activities authorized
by the National Security Act (50 U.S.C. 401, *et seq.*) and implementing
authority (e.g., Executive Order 12333).

\(3\) [Protective services for the President and others.]{.underline} A
covered entity may disclose protected health information to authorized
federal officials for the provision of protective services to the
President or other persons authorized by 18 U.S.C. 3056, or to foreign
heads of state or other persons authorized by 22 U.S.C. 2709(a)(3), or
to for the conduct of investigations authorized by 18 U.S.C. 871 and
879.

\(4\) [Medical suitability determinations.]{.underline} A covered entity
that is a component of the Department of State may use protected health
information to make medical suitability determinations and may disclose
whether or not the individual was determined to be medically suitable to
the officials in the Department of State who need access to such
information for the following purposes:

\(i\) For the purpose of a required security clearance conducted
pursuant to Executive Orders 10450 and 12698;

\(ii\) As necessary to determine worldwide availability or availability
for mandatory service abroad under sections 101(a)(4) and 504 of the
Foreign Service Act; or

\(iii\) For a family to accompany a Foreign Service member abroad,
consistent with section 101(b)(5) and 904 of the Foreign Service Act.

\(5\) [Correctional institutions and other law enforcement custodial
situations.]{.underline} (i) [Permitted disclosures.]{.underline} A
covered entity may disclose to a correctional institution or a law
enforcement official having lawful custody of an inmate or other
individual protected health information about such inmate or individual,
if the correctional institution or such law enforcement official
represents that such protected health information is necessary for:

\(A\) The provision of health care to such individuals;

\(B\) The health and safety of such individual or other inmates;

\(C\) The health and safety of the officers or employees of or others at
the correctional institution;

\(D\) The health and safety of such individuals and officers or other
persons responsible for the transporting of inmates or their transfer
from one institution, facility, or setting to another;

\(E\) Law enforcement on the premises of the correctional institution;
and

\(F\) The administration and maintenance of the safety, security, and
good order of the correctional institution.

\(ii\) [Permitted uses.]{.underline} A covered entity that is a
correctional institution may use protected health information of
individuals who are inmates for any purpose for which such protected
health information may be disclosed.

\(iii\) [No application after release.]{.underline} For the purposes of
this provision, an individual is no longer an inmate when released on
parole, probation, supervised release, or otherwise is no longer in
lawful custody.

\(6\) [Covered entities that are government programs providing public
benefits.]{.underline} (i) A health plan that is a government program
providing public benefits may disclose protected health information
relating to eligibility for or enrollment in the health plan to another
agency administering a government program providing public benefits if
the sharing of eligibility or enrollment information among such
government agencies or the maintenance of such information in a single
or combined data system accessible to all such government agencies is
required or expressly authorized by statute or regulation.

\(ii\) A covered entity that is a government agency administering a
government program providing public benefits may disclose protected
health information relating to the program to another covered entity
that is a government agency administering a government program providing
public benefits if the programs serve the same or similar populations
and the disclosure of protected health information is necessary to
coordinate the covered functions of such programs or to improve
administration and management relating to the covered functions of such
programs.

\(l\) [Standard: disclosures for workers= compensation.]{.underline} A
covered entity may disclose protected health information as authorized
by and to the extent necessary to comply with laws relating to workers=
compensation or other similar programs, established by law, that provide
benefits for work-related injuries or illness without regard to fault.

[\' 164.514 Other requirements relating to uses and disclosures of
protected health information.]{.underline}

\(a\) [Standard: de-identification of protected health
information.]{.underline} Health information that does not identify an
individual and with respect to which there is no reasonable basis to
believe that the information can be used to identify an individual is
not individually identifiable health information.

\(b\) [Implementation specifications: requirements for de-identification
of protected health information.]{.underline} A covered entity may
determine that health information is not individually identifiable
health information only if:

\(1\) A person with appropriate knowledge of and experience with
generally accepted statistical and scientific principles and methods for
rendering information not individually identifiable:

\(i\) Applying such principles and methods, determines that the risk is
very small that the information could be used, alone or in combination
with other reasonably available information, by an anticipated recipient
to identify an individual who is a subject of the information; and

\(ii\) Documents the methods and results of the analysis that justify
such determination; or

(2)(i) The following identifiers of the individual or of relatives,
employers, or household members of the individual, are removed:

\(A\) Names;

\(B\) All geographic subdivisions smaller than a State, including street
address, city, county, precinct, zip code, and their equivalent
geocodes, except for the initial three digits of a zip code if,
according to the current publicly available data from the Bureau of the
Census:

(*1*) The geographic unit formed by combining all zip codes with the
same three initial digits contains more than 20,000 people; and

(*2*) The initial three digits of a zip code for all such geographic
units containing 20,000 or fewer people is changed to 000.

\(C\) All elements of dates (except year) for dates directly related to
an individual, including birth date, admission date, discharge date,
date of death; and all ages over 89 and all elements of dates (including
year) indicative of such age, except that such ages and elements may be
aggregated into a single category of age 90 or older;

\(D\) Telephone numbers;

\(E\) Fax numbers;

\(F\) Electronic mail addresses;

\(G\) Social security numbers;

\(H\) Medical record numbers;

\(I\) Health plan beneficiary numbers;

\(J\) Account numbers;

\(K\) Certificate/license numbers;

\(L\) Vehicle identifiers and serial numbers, including license plate
numbers;

\(M\) Device identifiers and serial numbers;

\(N\) Web Universal Resource Locators (URLs);

\(O\) Internet Protocol (IP) address numbers;

\(P\) Biometric identifiers, including finger and voice prints;

\(Q\) Full face photographic images and any comparable images; and

\(R\) Any other unique identifying number, characteristic, or code; and

\(ii\) The covered entity does not have actual knowledge that the
information could be used alone or in combination with other information
to identify an individual who is a subject of the information.

\(c\) [Implementation specifications: re-identification.]{.underline} A
covered entity may assign a code or other means of record identification
to allow information de-identified under this section to be
re-identified by the covered entity, provided that:

\(1\) [Derivation.]{.underline} The code or other means of record
identification is not derived from or related to information about the
individual and is not otherwise capable of being translated so as to
identify the individual; and

\(2\) [Security.]{.underline} The covered entity does not use or
disclose the code or other means of record identification for any other
purpose, and does not disclose the mechanism for re-identification.

(d)(1) [Standard: minimum necessary requirements.]{.underline} A covered
entity must reasonably ensure that the standards, requirements, and
implementation specifications of \' 164.502(b) and this section relating
to a request for or the use and disclosure of the minimum necessary
protected health information are met.

\(2\) [Implementation specifications: minimum necessary uses of
protected health information.]{.underline} (i) A covered entity must
identify:

\(A\) Those persons or classes of persons, as appropriate, in its
workforce who need access to protected health information to carry out
their duties; and

\(B\) For each such person or class of persons, the category or
categories of protected health information to which access is needed and
any conditions appropriate to such access.

\(ii\) A covered entity must make reasonable efforts to limit the access
of such persons or classes identified in paragraph (d)(2)(i)(A) of this
section to protected health information consistent with paragraph
(d)(2)(i)(B) of this section.

\(3\) [Implementation specification: minimum necessary disclosures of
protected health information.]{.underline} (i) For any type of
disclosure that it makes on a routine and recurring basis, a covered
entity must implement policies and procedures (which may be standard
protocols) that limit the protected health information disclosed to the
amount reasonably necessary to achieve the purpose of the disclosure.

\(ii\) For all other disclosures, a covered entity must:

\(A\) Develop criteria designed to limit the protected health
information disclosed to the information reasonably necessary to
accomplish the purpose for which disclosure is sought; and

\(B\) Review requests for disclosure on an individual basis in
accordance with such criteria.

\(iii\) A covered entity may rely, if such reliance is reasonable under
the circumstances, on a requested disclosure as the minimum necessary
for the stated purpose when:

\(A\) Making disclosures to public officials that are permitted under \'
164.512, if the public official represents that the information
requested is the minimum necessary for the stated purpose(s);

\(B\) The information is requested by another covered entity;

\(C\) The information is requested by a professional who is a member of
its workforce or is a business associate of the covered entity for the
purpose of providing professional services to the covered entity, if the
professional represents that the information requested is the minimum
necessary for the stated purpose(s); or

\(D\) Documentation or representations that comply with the applicable
requirements of \' 164.512(i) have been provided by a person requesting
the information for research purposes.

\(4\) [Implementation specifications: minimum necessary requests for
protected health information.]{.underline} (i) A covered entity must
limit any request for protected health information to that which is
reasonably necessary to accomplish the purpose for which the request is
made, when requesting such information from other covered entities.

\(ii\) For a request that is made on a routine and recurring basis, a
covered entity must implement policies and procedures (which may be
standard protocols) that limit the protected health information
requested to the amount reasonably necessary to accomplish the purpose
for which the request is made.

\(iii\) For all other requests, a covered entity must review the request
on an individual basis to determine that the protected health
information sought is limited to the information reasonably necessary to
accomplish the purpose for which the request is made.

\(5\) [Implementation specification: other content
requirement.]{.underline} For all uses, disclosures, or requests to
which the requirements in paragraph (d) of this section apply, a covered
entity may not use, discloses or request an entire medical record,
except when the entire medical record is specifically justified as the
amount that is reasonably necessary to accomplish the purpose of the
use, disclosure, or request.

(e)(1) [Standard: uses and disclosures of protected health information
for marketing.]{.underline} A covered entity may not use or disclose
protected health information for marketing without an authorization that
meets the applicable requirements of \' 164.508, except as provided for
by paragraph (e)(2) of this section.

\(2\) [Implementation specifications: requirements relating to
marketing.]{.underline} (i) A covered entity is not required to obtain
an authorization under \' 164.508 when it uses or discloses protected
health information to make a marketing communication to an individual
that:

\(A\) Occurs in a face-to-face encounter with the individual;

\(B\) Concerns products or services of nominal value; or

\(C\) Concerns the health-related products and services of the covered
entity or of a third party and the communication meets the applicable
conditions in paragraph (e)(3) of this section.

\(ii\) A covered entity may disclose protected health information for
purposes of such communications only to a business associate that
assists the covered entity with such communications.

\(3\) [Implementation specifications: requirements for certain marketing
communications.]{.underline} For a marketing communication to qualify
under paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section, the following conditions must
be met:

\(i\) The communication must:

\(A\) Identify the covered entity as the party making the communication;

\(B\) If the covered entity has received or will receive direct or
indirect remuneration for making the communication, prominently state
that fact; and

\(C\) Except when the communication is contained in a newsletter or
similar type of general communication device that the covered entity
distributes to a broad cross-section of patients, enrollees, or other
broad groups of individuals, contain instructions describing how the
individual may opt out of receiving future such communications.

\(ii\) If the covered entity uses or discloses protected health
information to target the communication to individuals based on their
health status or condition:

\(A\) The covered entity must make a determination prior to making the
communication that the product or service being marketed may be
beneficial to the health of the type or class of individual targeted;
and

\(B\) The communication must explain why the individual has been
targeted and how the product or service relates to the health of the
individual.

\(iii\) The covered entity must make reasonable efforts to ensure that
individuals who decide to opt out of receiving future marketing
communications, under paragraph (e)(3)(i)(C) of this section, are not
sent such communications.

(f)(1) [Standard: uses and disclosures for fundraising.]{.underline} A
covered entity may use, or disclose to a business associate or to an
institutionally related foundation, the following protected health
information for the purpose of raising funds for its own benefit,
without an authorization meeting the requirements of \' 164.508:

\(i\) Demographic information relating to an individual; and

\(ii\) Dates of health care provided to an individual.

\(2\) [Implementation specifications: fundraising
requirements.]{.underline} (i) The covered entity may not use or
disclose protected health information for fundraising purposes as
otherwise permitted by paragraph (f)(1) of this section unless a
statement required by \' 164.520(b)(1)(iii)(B) is included in the
covered entity=s notice;

\(ii\) The covered entity must include in any fundraising materials it
sends to an individual under this paragraph a description of how the
individual may opt out of receiving any further fundraising
communications.

\(iii\) The covered entity must make reasonable efforts to ensure that
individuals who decide to opt out of receiving future fundraising
communications are not sent such communications.

\(g\) [Standard: uses and disclosures for underwriting and related
purposes.]{.underline} If a health plan receives protected heath
information for the purpose of underwriting, premium rating, or other
activities relating to the creation, renewal, or replacement of a
contract of health insurance or health benefits, and if such health
insurance or health benefits are not placed with the health plan, such
health plan may not use or disclose such protected health information
for any other purpose, except as may be required by law.

(h)(1) [Standard: verification requirements]{.underline}. Prior to any
disclosure permitted by this subpart, a covered entity must:

\(i\) Except with respect to disclosures under \' 164.510, verify the
identity of a person requesting protected health information and the
authority of any such person to have access to protected health
information under this subpart, if the identity or any such authority of
such person is not known to the covered entity; and

\(ii\) Obtain any documentation, statements, or representations, whether
oral or written, from the person requesting the protected health
information when such documentation, statement, or representation is a
condition of the disclosure under this subpart.

\(2\) [Implementation specifications: verification]{.underline}. (i)
[Conditions on disclosures]{.underline}. If a disclosure is conditioned
by this subpart on particular documentation, statements, or
representations from the person requesting the protected health
information, a covered entity may rely, if such reliance is reasonable
under the circumstances, on documentation, statements, or
representations that, on their face, meet the applicable requirements.

\(A\) The conditions in \' 164.512(f)(1)(ii)(C) may be satisfied by the
administrative subpoena or similar process or by a separate written
statement that, on its face, demonstrates that the applicable
requirements have been met.

\(B\) The documentation required by \' 164.512(i)(2) may be satisfied by
one or more written statements, provided that each is appropriately
dated and signed in accordance with \' 164.512(i)(2)(i) and (v).

\(ii\) [Identity of public officials]{.underline}. A covered entity may
rely, if such reliance is reasonable under the circumstances, on any of
the following to verify identity when the disclosure of protected health
information is to a public official or a person acting on behalf of the
public official:

\(A\) If the request is made in person, presentation of an agency
identification badge, other official credentials, or other proof of
government status;

\(B\) If the request is in writing, the request is on the appropriate
government letterhead; or

\(C\) If the disclosure is to a person acting on behalf of a public
official, a written statement on appropriate government letterhead that
the person is acting under the government\'s authority or other evidence
or documentation of agency, such as a contract for services, memorandum
of understanding, or purchase order, that establishes that the person is
acting on behalf of the public official.

\(iii\) [Authority of public officials]{.underline}. A covered entity
may rely, if such reliance is reasonable under the circumstances, on any
of the following to verify authority when the disclosure of protected
health information is to a public official or a person acting on behalf
of the public official:

\(A\) A written statement of the legal authority under which the
information is requested, or, if a written statement would be
impracticable, an oral statement of such legal authority;

\(B\) If a request is made pursuant to legal process, warrant, subpoena,
order, or other legal process issued by a grand jury or a judicial or
administrative tribunal is presumed to constitute legal authority.

\(iv\) [Exercise of professional judgment.]{.underline} The verification
requirements of this paragraph are met if the covered entity relies on
the exercise of professional judgment in making a use or disclosure in
accordance with \' 164.510 or acts on a good faith belief in making a
disclosure in accordance with \' 164.512(j).

[\' 164.520 Notice of privacy practices for protected health
information.]{.underline}

\(a\) [Standard: notice of privacy practices.]{.underline} (1) [Right to
notice.]{.underline} Except as provided by paragraph (a)(2) or (3) of
this section, an individual has a right to adequate notice of the uses
and disclosures of protected health information that may be made by the
covered entity, and of the individual=s rights and the covered entity=s
legal duties with respect to protected health information.

\(2\) [Exception for group health plans.]{.underline} (i) An individual
enrolled in a group health plan has a right to notice:

\(A\) From the group health plan, if, and to the extent that, such an
individual does not receive health benefits under the group health plan
through an insurance contract with a health insurance issuer or HMO; or

\(B\) From the health insurance issuer or HMO with respect to the group
health plan though which such individuals receive their health benefits
under the group health plan.

\(ii\) A group health plan that provides health benefits solely through
an insurance contract with a health insurance issuer or HMO, and that
creates or receives protected health information in addition to summary
health information as defined in \' 164.504(a) or information on whether
the individual is participating in the group health plan, or is enrolled
in or has disenrolled from a health insurance issuer or HMO offered by
the plan, must:

\(A\) Maintain a notice under this section; and

\(B\) Provide such notice upon request to any person. The provisions of
paragraph (c)(1) of this section do not apply to such group health plan.

\(iii\) A group health plan that provides health benefits solely through
an insurance contract with a health insurance issuer or HMO, and does
not create or receive protected health information other than summary
health information as defined in \' 164.504(a) or information on whether
an individual is participating in the group health plan, or is enrolled
in or has disenrolled from a health insurance issuer or HMO offered by
the plan, is not required to maintain or provide a notice under this
section.

\(3\) [Exception for inmates.]{.underline} An inmate does not have a
right to notice under this section, and the requirements of this section
do not apply to a correctional institution that is a covered entity.

\(b\) [Implementation specifications: content of notice.]{.underline}

\(1\) [Required elements.]{.underline} The covered entity must provide a
notice that is written in plain language and that contains the elements
required by this paragraph.

\(i\) [Header.]{.underline} The notice must contain the following
statement as a header or otherwise prominently displayed: ATHIS NOTICE
DESCRIBES HOW MEDICAL INFORMATION ABOUT YOU MAY BE USED AND DISCLOSED
AND HOW YOU CAN GET ACCESS TO THIS INFORMATION. PLEASE REVIEW IT
CAREFULLY.@

\(ii\) [Uses and disclosures.]{.underline} The notice must contain:

\(A\) A description, including at least one example, of the types of
uses and disclosures that the covered entity is permitted by this
subpart to make for each of the following purposes: treatment, payment,
and health care operations.

\(B\) A description of each of the other purposes for which the covered
entity is permitted or required by this subpart to use or disclose
protected health information without the individual=s written consent or
authorization.

\(C\) If a use or disclosure for any purpose described in paragraphs
(b)(1)(ii)(A) or (B) of this section is prohibited or materially limited
by other applicable law, the description of such use or disclosure must
reflect the more stringent law as defined in \' 160.202.

\(D\) For each purpose described in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) or (B) of
this section, the description must include sufficient detail to place
the individual on notice of the uses and disclosures that are permitted
or required by this subpart and other applicable law.

\(E\) A statement that other uses and disclosures will be made only with
the individual\'s written authorization and that the individual may
revoke such authorization as provided by \' 164.508(b)(5).

\(iii\) [Separate statements for certain uses or
disclosures.]{.underline} If the covered entity intends to engage in any
of the following activities, the description required by paragraph
(b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section must include a separate statement, as
applicable, that:

\(A\) The covered entity may contact the individual to provide
appointment reminders or information about treatment alternatives or
other heath-related benefits and services that may be of interest to the
individual;

\(B\) The covered entity may contact the individual to raise funds for
the covered entity; or

\(C\) A group health plan, or a health insurance issuer or HMO with
respect to a group health plan, may disclose protected health
information to the sponsor of the plan.

\(iv\) [Individual rights.]{.underline} The notice must contain a
statement of the individual=s rights with respect to protected health
information and a brief description of how the individual may exercise
these rights, as follows:

\(A\) The right to request restrictions on certain uses and disclosures
of protected health information as provided by \' 164.522(a), including
a statement that the covered entity is not required to agree to a
requested restriction;

\(B\) The right to receive confidential communications of protected
health information as provided by \' 164.522(b), as applicable;

\(C\) The right to inspect and copy protected health information as
provided by \' 164.524;

\(D\) The right to amend protected health information as provided by \'
164.526;

\(E\) The right to receive an accounting of disclosures of protected
health information as provided by \' 164.528; and

\(F\) The right of an individual, including an individual who has agreed
to receive the notice electronically in accordance with paragraph (c)(3)
of this section, to obtain a paper copy of the notice from the covered
entity upon request.

\(v\) [Covered entity=s duties.]{.underline} The notice must contain:

\(A\) A statement that the covered entity is required by law to maintain
the privacy of protected health information and to provide individuals
with notice of its legal duties and privacy practices with respect to
protected health information;

\(B\) A statement that the covered entity is required to abide by the
terms of the notice currently in effect; and

\(C\) For the covered entity to apply a change in a privacy practice
that is described in the notice to protected health information that the
covered entity created or received prior to issuing a revised notice, in
accordance with \' 164.530(i)(2)(ii), a statement that it reserves the
right to change the terms of its notice and to make the new notice
provisions effective for all protected health information that it
maintains. The statement must also describe how it will provide
individuals with a revised notice.

\(vi\) [Complaints.]{.underline} The notice must contain a statement
that individuals may complain to the covered entity and to the Secretary
if they believe their privacy rights have been violated, a brief
description of how the individual may file a complaint with the covered
entity, and a statement that the individual will not be retaliated
against for filing a complaint.

\(vii\) [Contact.]{.underline} The notice must contain the name, or
title, and telephone number of a person or office to contact for further
information as required by \' 164.530(a)(1)(ii).

\(viii\) [Effective date.]{.underline} The notice must contain the date
on which the notice is first in effect, which may not be earlier than
the date on which the notice is printed or otherwise published.

\(2\) [Optional elements.]{.underline} (i) In addition to the
information required by paragraph (b)(1) of this section, if a covered
entity elects to limit the uses or disclosures that it is permitted to
make under this subpart, the covered entity may describe its more
limited uses or disclosures in its notice, provided that the covered
entity may not include in its notice a limitation affecting its right to
make a use or disclosure that is required by law or permitted by \'
164.512(j)(1)(i).

\(ii\) For the covered entity to apply a change in its more limited uses
and disclosures to protected health information created or received
prior to issuing a revised notice, in accordance with \'
164.530(i)(2)(ii), the notice must include the statements required by
paragraph (b)(1)(v)(C) of this section.

\(3\) [Revisions to the notice.]{.underline} The covered entity must
promptly revise and distribute its notice whenever there is a material
change to the uses or disclosures, the individual=s rights, the covered
entity=s legal duties, or other privacy practices stated in the notice.
Except when required by law, a material change to any term of the notice
may not be implemented prior to the effective date of the notice in
which such material change is reflected.

\(c\) [Implementation specifications: provision of notice.]{.underline}
A covered entity must make the notice required by this section available
on request to any person and to individuals as specified in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (c)(4) of this section, as applicable.

\(1\) [Specific requirements for health plans]{.underline}. (i) A health
plan must provide notice:

\(A\) No later than the compliance date for the health plan, to
individuals then covered by the plan;

\(B\) Thereafter, at the time of enrollment, to individuals who are new
enrollees; and

\(C\) Within 60 days of a material revision to the notice, to
individuals then

covered by the plan.

\(ii\) No less frequently than once every three years, the health plan
must notify individuals then covered by the plan of the availability of
the notice and how to obtain the notice.

\(iii\) The health plan satisfies the requirements of paragraph (c)(1)
of this section if notice is provided to the named insured of a policy
under which coverage is provided to the named insured and one or more
dependents.

\(iv\) If a health plan has more than one notice, it satisfies the
requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of this section by providing the notice
that is relevant to the individual or other person requesting the
notice.

\(2\) [Specific requirements for certain covered health care
providers.]{.underline} A covered health care provider that has a direct
treatment relationship with an individual must:

\(i\) Provide the notice no later than the date of the first service
delivery, including service delivered electronically, to such individual
after the compliance date for the covered health care provider;

\(ii\) If the covered health care provider maintains a physical service
delivery site:

\(A\) Have the notice available at the service delivery site for
individuals to request to take with them; and

\(B\) Post the notice in a clear and prominent location where it is
reasonable to expect individuals seeking service from the covered health
care provider to be able to read the notice; and

\(iii\) Whenever the notice is revised, make the notice available upon
request on or after the effective date of the revision and promptly
comply with the requirements of paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section, if
applicable.

\(3\) [Specific requirements for electronic notice.]{.underline} (i) A
covered entity that maintains a web site that provides information about
the covered entity=s customer services or benefits must prominently post
its notice on the web site and make the notice available electronically
through the web site.

\(ii\) A covered entity may provide the notice required by this section
to an individual by e-mail, if the individual agrees to electronic
notice and such agreement has not been withdrawn. If the covered entity
knows that the e-mail transmission has failed, a paper copy of the
notice must be provided to the individual. Provision of electronic
notice by the covered entity will satisfy the provision requirements of
paragraph (c) of this section when timely made in accordance with
paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section.

\(iii\) For purposes of paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section, if the
first service delivery to an individual is delivered electronically, the
covered health care provider must provide electronic notice
automatically and contemporaneously in response to the individual=s
first request for service.

\(iv\) The individual who is the recipient of electronic notice retains
the right to obtain a paper copy of the notice from a covered entity
upon request.

\(d\) [Implementation specifications: joint notice by separate covered
entities.]{.underline} Covered entities that participate in organized
health care arrangements may comply with this section by a joint notice,
provided that:

\(1\) The covered entities participating in the organized health care
arrangement agree to abide by the terms of the notice with respect to
protected health information created or received by the covered entity
as part of its participation in the organized health care arrangement;

\(2\) The joint notice meets the implementation specifications in
paragraph (b) of this section, except that the statements required by
this section may be altered to reflect the fact that the notice covers
more than one covered entity; and

\(i\) Describes with reasonable specificity the covered entities, or
class of entities, to which the joint notice applies;

\(ii\) Describes with reasonable specificity the service delivery sites,
or classes of service delivery sites, to which the joint notice applies;
and

\(iii\) If applicable, states that the covered entities participating in
the organized health care arrangement will share protected health
information with each other, as necessary to carry out treatment,
payment, or health care operations relating to the organized health care
arrangement.

\(3\) The covered entities included in the joint notice must provide the
notice to individuals in accordance with the applicable implementation
specifications of paragraph (c) of this section. Provision of the joint
notice to an individual by any one of the covered entities included in
the joint notice will satisfy the provision requirement of paragraph (c)
of this section with respect to all others covered by the joint notice.

\(e\) [Implementation specifications: documentation.]{.underline} A
covered entity must document compliance with the notice requirements by
retaining copies of the notices issued by the covered entity as required
by \' 164.530(j).

[\' 164.522 Rights to request privacy protection for protected health
information.]{.underline}

(a)(1) [Standard: right of an individual to request restriction of uses
and disclosures.]{.underline} (i) A covered entity must permit an
individual to request that the covered entity restrict:

\(A\) Uses or disclosures of protected health information about the
individual to carry out treatment, payment, or health care operations;
and

\(B\) Disclosures permitted under \' 164.510(b).

\(ii\) A covered entity is not required to agree to a restriction.

\(iii\) A covered entity that agrees to a restriction under paragraph
(a)(1)(i) of this section may not use or disclose protected health
information in violation of such restriction, except that, if the
individual who requested the restriction is in need of emergency
treatment and the restricted protected health information is needed to
provide the emergency treatment, the covered entity may use the
restricted protected health information, or may disclose such
information to a health care provider, to provide such treatment to the
individual.

\(iv\) If restricted protected health information is disclosed to a
health care provider for emergency treatment under paragraph (a)(1)(iii)
of this section, the covered entity must request that such health care
provider not further use or disclose the information.

\(v\) A restriction agreed to by a covered entity under paragraph (a) of
this section, is not effective under this subpart to prevent uses or
disclosures permitted or required under \'\' 164.502(a)(2)(i),
164.510(a) or 164.512.

\(2\) [Implementation specifications: terminating a
restriction.]{.underline} A covered entity may terminate its agreement
to a restriction, if :

\(i\) The individual agrees to or requests the termination in writing;

\(ii\) The individual orally agrees to the termination and the oral
agreement is documented; or

\(iii\) The covered entity informs the individual that it is terminating
its agreement to a restriction, except that such termination is only
effective with respect to protected health information created or
received after it has so informed the individual.

\(3\) [Implementation specification: documentation.]{.underline} A
covered entity that agrees to a restriction must document the
restriction in accordance with \' 164.530(j).

(b)(1) [Standard: confidential communications requirements.]{.underline}
(i) A covered health care provider must permit individuals to request
and must accommodate reasonable requests by individuals to receive
communications of protected health information from the covered health
care provider by alternative means or at alternative locations.

\(ii\) A health plan must permit individuals to request and must
accommodate reasonable requests by individuals to receive communications
of protected health information from the health plan by alternative
means or at alternative locations, if the individual clearly states that
the disclosure of all or part of that information could endanger the
individual,

\(2\) [Implementation specifications: conditions on providing
confidential communications.]{.underline}

\(i\) A covered entity may require the individual to make a request for
a confidential communication described in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section in writing.

\(ii\) A covered entity may condition the provision of a reasonable
accommodation on:

\(A\) When appropriate, information as to how payment, if any, will be
handled; and

\(B\) Specification of an alternative address or other method of
contact.

\(iii\) A covered health care provider may not require an explanation
from the individual as to the basis for the request as a condition of
providing communications on a confidential basis.

\(iv\) A health plan may require that a request contain a statement that
disclosure of all or part of the information to which the request
pertains could endanger the individual.

[\' 164.524 Access of individuals to protected health
information.]{.underline}

\(a\) [Standard: access to protected health information.]{.underline}
(1) [Right of access.]{.underline} Except as otherwise provided in
paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this section, an individual has a right of
access to inspect and obtain a copy of protected health information
about the individual in a designated record set, for as long as the
protected health information is maintained in the designated record set,
except for:

\(i\) Psychotherapy notes;

\(ii\) Information compiled in reasonable anticipation of, or for use
in, a civil, criminal, or administrative action or proceeding; and

\(iii\) Protected health information maintained by a covered entity that
is:

\(A\) Subject to the Clinical Laboratory Improvements Amendments of
1988, 42 U.S.C. 263a, to the extent the provision of access to the
individual would be prohibited by law; or

\(B\) Exempt from the Clinical Laboratory Improvements Amendments of
1988, pursuant to 42 CFR 493.3(a)(2).

\(2\) [Unreviewable grounds for denial.]{.underline} A covered entity
may deny an individual access without providing the individual an
opportunity for review, in the following circumstances.

\(i\) The protected health information is excepted from the right of
access by paragraph (a)(1) of this section.

\(ii\) A covered entity that is a correctional institution or a covered
health care provider acting under the direction of the correctional
institution may deny, in whole or in part, an inmate=s request to obtain
a copy of protected health information, if obtaining such copy would
jeopardize the health, safety, security, custody, or rehabilitation of
the individual or of other inmates, or the safety of any officer,
employee, or other person at the correctional institution or responsible
for the transporting of the inmate.

\(iii\) An individual=s access to protected health information created
or obtained by a covered health care provider in the course of research
that includes treatment may be temporarily suspended for as long as the
research is in progress, provided that the individual has agreed to the
denial of access when consenting to participate in the research that
includes treatment, and the covered health care provider has informed
the individual that the right of access will be reinstated upon
completion of the research.

\(iv\) An individual=s access to protected health information that is
contained in records that are subject to the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. \'
552a, may be denied, if the denial of access under the Privacy Act would
meet the requirements of that law.

\(v\) An individual=s access may be denied if the protected health
information was obtained from someone other than a health care provider
under a promise of confidentiality and the access requested would be
reasonably likely to reveal the source of the information.

\(3\) [Reviewable grounds for denial.]{.underline} A covered entity may
deny an individual access, provided that the individual is given a right
to have such denials reviewed, as required by paragraph (a)(4) of this
section, in the following circumstances:

\(i\) A licensed health care professional has determined, in the
exercise of professional judgment, that the access requested is
reasonably likely to endanger the life or physical safety of the
individual or another person;

\(ii\) The protected health information makes reference to another
person (unless such other person is a health care provider) and a
licensed health care professional has determined, in the exercise of
professional judgment, that the access requested is reasonably likely to
cause substantial harm to such other person; or

\(iii\) The request for access is made by the individual=s personal
representative and a licensed health care professional has determined,
in the exercise of professional judgment, that the provision of access
to such personal representative is reasonably likely to cause
substantial harm to the individual or another person.

\(4\) [Review of a denial of access.]{.underline} If access is denied on
a ground permitted under paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the
individual has the right to have the denial reviewed by a licensed
health care professional who is designated by the covered entity to act
as a reviewing official and who did not participate in the original
decision to deny. The covered entity must provide or deny access in
accordance with the determination of the reviewing official under
paragraph (d)(4) of this section.

\(b\) [Implementation specifications: requests for access and timely
action.]{.underline}

\(1\) [Individual=s request for access.]{.underline} The covered entity
must permit an individual to request access to inspect or to obtain a
copy of the protected health information about the individual that is
maintained in a designated record set. The covered entity may require
individuals to make requests for access in writing, provided that it
informs individuals of such a requirement.

\(2\) [Timely action by the covered entity.]{.underline} (i) Except as
provided in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, the covered entity
must act on a request for access no later than 30 days after receipt of
the request as follows.

\(A\) If the covered entity grants the request, in whole or in part, it
must inform the individual of the acceptance of the request and provide
the access requested, in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section.

\(B\) If the covered entity denies the request, in whole or in part, it
must provide the individual with a written denial, in accordance with
paragraph (d) of this section.

\(ii\) If the request for access is for protected health information
that is not maintained or accessible to the covered entity on-site, the
covered entity must take an action required by paragraph (b)(2)(i) of
this section by no later than 60 days from the receipt of such a
request.

\(iii\) If the covered entity is unable to take an action required by
paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A) or (B) of this section within the time required
by paragraph (b)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section, as applicable, the
covered entity may extend the time for such actions by no more than 30
days, provided that:

\(A\) The covered entity, within the time limit set by paragraph
(b)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section, as applicable, provides the
individual with a written statement of the reasons for the delay and the
date by which the covered entity will complete its action on the
request; and

\(B\) The covered entity may have only one such extension of time for
action on a request for access.

\(c\) [Implementation specifications: provision of access.]{.underline}
If the covered entity provides an individual with access, in whole or in
part, to protected health information, the covered entity must comply
with the following requirements.

\(1\) [Providing the access requested.]{.underline} The covered entity
must provide the access requested by individuals, including inspection
or obtaining a copy, or both, of the protected health information about
them in designated record sets. If the same protected health information
that is the subject of a request for access is maintained in more than
one designated record set or at more than one location, the covered
entity need only produce the protected health information once in
response to a request for access.

\(2\) [Form of access requested.]{.underline} (i) The covered entity
must provide the individual with access to the protected health
information in the form or format requested by the individual, if it is
readily producible in such form or format; or, if not, in a readable
hard copy form or such other form or format as agreed to by the covered
entity and the individual.

\(ii\) The covered entity may provide the individual with a summary of
the protected health information requested, in lieu of providing access
to the protected health information or may provide an explanation of the
protected health information to which access has been provided, if:

\(A\) The individual agrees in advance to such a summary or explanation;
and

\(B\) The individual agrees in advance to the fees imposed, if any, by
the covered entity for such summary or explanation.

\(3\) [Time and manner of access.]{.underline} The covered entity must
provide the access as requested by the individual in a timely manner as
required by paragraph (b)(2) of this section, including arranging with
the individual for a convenient time and place to inspect or obtain a
copy of the protected health information, or mailing the copy of the
protected health information at the individual=s request. The covered
entity may discuss the scope, format, and other aspects of the request
for access with the individual as necessary to facilitate the timely
provision of access.

\(4\) [Fees.]{.underline} If the individual requests a copy of the
protected health information or agrees to a summary or explanation of
such information, the covered entity may impose a reasonable, cost-based
fee, provided that the fee includes only the cost of:

\(i\) Copying, including the cost of supplies for and labor of copying,
the protected health information requested by the individual;

\(ii\) Postage, when the individual has requested the copy, or the
summary or explanation, be mailed; and

\(iii\) Preparing an explanation or summary of the protected health
information, if agreed to by the individual as required by paragraph
(c)(2)(ii) of this section.

\(d\) [Implementation specifications: denial of access.]{.underline} If
the covered entity denies access, in whole or in part, to protected
health information, the covered entity must comply with the following
requirements.

\(1\) [Making other information accessible.]{.underline} The covered
entity must, to the extent possible, give the individual access to any
other protected health information requested, after excluding the
protected health information as to which the covered entity has a ground
to deny access.

\(2\) [Denial.]{.underline} The covered entity must provide a timely,
written denial to the individual, in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of
this section. The denial must be in plain language and contain:

\(i\) The basis for the denial;

\(ii\) If applicable, a statement of the individual=s review rights
under paragraph (a)(4) of this section, including a description of how
the individual may exercise such review rights; and

\(iii\) A description of how the individual may complain to the covered
entity pursuant to the complaint procedures in \' 164.530(d) or to the
Secretary pursuant to the procedures in \' 160.306. The description must
include the name, or title, and telephone number of the contact person
or office designated in \' 164.530(a)(1)(ii).

\(3\) [Other responsibility.]{.underline} If the covered entity does not
maintain the protected health information that is the subject of the
individual=s request for access, and the covered entity knows where the
requested information is maintained, the covered entity must inform the
individual where to direct the request for access.

\(4\) [Review of denial requested.]{.underline} If the individual has
requested a review of a denial under paragraph (a)(4) of this section,
the covered entity must designate a licensed health care professional,
who was not directly involved in the denial to review the decision to
deny access. The covered entity must promptly refer a request for review
to such designated reviewing official. The designated reviewing official
must determine, within a reasonable period of time, whether or not to
deny the access requested based on the standards in paragraph (a)(3) of
this section. The covered entity must promptly provide written notice to
the individual of the determination of the designated reviewing official
and take other action as required by this section to carry out the
designated reviewing official=s determination.

\(e\) [Implementation specification: documentation.]{.underline} A
covered entity must document the following and retain the documentation
as required by \' 164.530(j):

\(1\) The designated record sets that are subject to access by
individuals; and

\(2\) The titles of the persons or offices responsible for receiving and
processing requests for access by individuals.

[\' 164.526 Amendment of protected health information.]{.underline}

\(a\) [Standard: right to amend.]{.underline}

\(1\) [Right to amend.]{.underline} An individual has the right to have
a covered entity amend protected health information or a record about
the individual in a designated record set for as long as the protected
health information is maintained in the designated record set.

\(2\) [Denial of amendment.]{.underline} A covered entity may deny an
individual=s request for amendment, if it determines that the protected
health information or record that is the subject of the request:

\(i\) Was not created by the covered entity, unless the individual
provides a reasonable basis to believe that the originator of protected
health information is no longer available to act on the requested
amendment;

\(ii\) Is not part of the designated record set;

\(iii\) Would not be available for inspection under \' 164.524; or

\(iv\) Is accurate and complete.

\(b\) [Implementation specifications: requests for amendment and timely
action.]{.underline}

\(1\) [Individual=s request for amendment.]{.underline} The covered
entity must permit an individual to request that the covered entity
amend the protected health information maintained in the designated
record set. The covered entity may require individuals to make requests
for amendment in writing and to provide a reason to support a requested
amendment, provided that it informs individuals in advance of such
requirements.

\(2\) [Timely action by the covered entity.]{.underline} (i) The covered
entity must act on the individual=s request for an amendment no later
than 60 days after receipt of such a request, as follows.

\(A\) If the covered entity grants the requested amendment, in whole or
in part, it must take the actions required by paragraphs (c)(1) and (2)
of this section.

\(B\) If the covered entity denies the requested amendment, in whole or
in part, it must provide the individual with a written denial, in
accordance with paragraph (d)(1) of this section.

\(ii\) If the covered entity is unable to act on the amendment within
the time required by paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, the covered
entity may extend the time for such action by no more than 30 days,
provided that:

\(A\) The covered entity, within the time limit set by paragraph
(b)(2)(i) of this section, provides the individual with a written
statement of the reasons for the delay and the date by which the covered
entity will complete its action on the request; and

\(B\) The covered entity may have only one such extension of time for
action on a request for an amendment.

\(c\) [Implementation specifications: accepting the
amendment.]{.underline} If the covered entity accepts the requested
amendment, in whole or in part, the covered entity must comply with the
following requirements.

\(1\) [Making the amendment.]{.underline} The covered entity must make
the appropriate amendment to the protected health information or record
that is the subject of the request for amendment by, at a minimum,
identifying the records in the designated record set that are affected
by the amendment and appending or otherwise providing a link to the
location of the amendment.

\(2\) [Informing the individual.]{.underline} In accordance with
paragraph (b) of this section, the covered entity must timely inform the
individual that the amendment is accepted and obtain the individual=s
identification of and agreement to have the covered entity notify the
relevant persons with which the amendment needs to be shared in
accordance with paragraph (c)(3) of this section.

\(3\) [Informing others.]{.underline} The covered entity must make
reasonable efforts to inform and provide the amendment within a
reasonable time to:

\(i\) Persons identified by the individual as having received protected
health information about the individual and needing the amendment; and

\(ii\) Persons, including business associates, that the covered entity
knows have the protected health information that is the subject of the
amendment and that may have relied, or could foreseeably rely, on such
information to the detriment of the individual.

\(d\) [Implementation specifications: denying the
amendment.]{.underline} If the covered entity denies the requested
amendment, in whole or in part, the covered entity must comply with the
following requirements.

\(1\) [Denial.]{.underline} The covered entity must provide the
individual with a timely, written denial, in accordance with paragraph
(b)(2) of this section. The denial must use plain language and contain:

\(i\) The basis for the denial, in accordance with paragraph (a)(2) of
this section;

\(ii\) The individual=s right to submit a written statement disagreeing
with the denial and how the individual may file such a statement;

\(iii\) A statement that, if the individual does not submit a statement
of disagreement, the individual may request that the covered entity
provide the individual=s request for amendment and the denial with any
future disclosures of the protected health information that is the
subject of the amendment; and

\(iv\) A description of how the individual may complain to the covered
entity pursuant to the complaint procedures established in \' 164.530(d)
or to the Secretary pursuant to the procedures established in \'
160.306. The description must include the name, or title, and telephone
number of the contact person or office designated in
\'164.530(a)(1)(ii).

\(2\) [Statement of disagreement.]{.underline} The covered entity must
permit the individual to submit to the covered entity a written
statement disagreeing with the denial of all or part of a requested
amendment and the basis of such disagreement. The covered entity may
reasonably limit the length of a statement of disagreement.

\(3\) [Rebuttal statement.]{.underline} The covered entity may prepare a
written rebuttal to the individual=s statement of disagreement. Whenever
such a rebuttal is prepared, the covered entity must provide a copy to
the individual who submitted the statement of disagreement.

\(4\) [Recordkeeping.]{.underline} The covered entity must, as
appropriate, identify the record or protected health information in the
designated record set that is the subject of the disputed amendment and
append or otherwise link the individual=s request for an amendment, the
covered entity=s denial of the request, the individual=s statement of
disagreement, if any, and the covered entity=s rebuttal, if any, to the
designated record set.

\(5\) [Future disclosures.]{.underline} (i) If a statement of
disagreement has been submitted by the individual, the covered entity
must include the material appended in accordance with paragraph (d)(4)
of this section, or, at the election of the covered entity, an accurate
summary of any such information, with any subsequent disclosure of the
protected health information to which the disagreement relates.

\(ii\) If the individual has not submitted a written statement of
disagreement, the covered entity must include the individual=s request
for amendment and its denial, or an accurate summary of such
information, with any subsequent disclosure of the protected health
information only if the individual has requested such action in
accordance with paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of this section.

\(iii\) When a subsequent disclosure described in paragraph (d)(5)(i) or
(ii) of this section is made using a standard transaction under part 162
of this subchapter that does not permit the additional material to be
included with the disclosure, the covered entity may separately transmit
the material required by paragraph (d)(5)(i) or (ii) of this section, as
applicable, to the recipient of the standard transaction.

\(e\) [Implementation specification: actions on notices of
amendment.]{.underline} A covered entity that is informed by another
covered entity of an amendment to an individual=s protected health
information, in accordance with paragraph (c)(3) of this section, must
amend the protected health information in designated record sets as
provided by paragraph (c)(1) of this section.

\(f\) [Implementation specification: documentation.]{.underline} A
covered entity must document the titles of the persons or offices
responsible for receiving and processing requests for amendments by
individuals and retain the documentation as required by \' 164.530(j).

[\' 164.528 Accounting of disclosures of protected health
information.]{.underline}

\(a\) [Standard: right to an accounting of disclosures of protected
health information.]{.underline}

\(1\) An individual has a right to receive an accounting of disclosures
of protected health information made by a covered entity in the six
years prior to the date on which the accounting is requested, except for
disclosures:

\(i\) To carry out treatment, payment and health care operations as
provided in \' 164.502;

\(ii\) To individuals of protected health information about them as
provided in \' 164.502;

\(iii\) For the facility=s directory or to persons involved in the
individual=s care or other notification purposes as provided in \'
164.510;

\(iv\) For national security or intelligence purposes as provided in \'
164.512(k)(2);

\(v\) To correctional institutions or law enforcement officials as
provided in \' 164.512(k)(5); or

\(vi\) That occurred prior to the compliance date for the covered
entity.

(2)(i) The covered entity must temporarily suspend an individual=s right
to receive an accounting of disclosures to a health oversight agency or
law enforcement official, as provided in \' 164.512(d) or (f),
respectively, for the time specified by such agency or official, if such
agency or official provides the covered entity with a written statement
that such an accounting to the individual would be reasonably likely to
impede the agency\'s activities and specifying the time for which such a
suspension is required.

\(ii\) If the agency or official statement in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of
this section is made orally, the covered entity must:

\(A\) Document the statement, including the identity of the agency or
official making the statement;

\(B\) Temporarily suspend the individual=s right to an accounting of
disclosures subject to the statement; and

\(C\) Limit the temporary suspension to no longer than 30 days from the
date of the oral statement, unless a written statement pursuant to
paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section is submitted during that time.

\(3\) An individual may request an accounting of disclosures for a
period of time less than six years from the date of the request.

\(b\) [Implementation specifications: content of the
accounting.]{.underline} The covered entity must provide the individual
with a written accounting that meets the following requirements.

\(1\) Except as otherwise provided by paragraph (a) of this section, the
accounting must include disclosures of protected health information that
occurred during the six years (or such shorter time period at the
request of the individual as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this
section) prior to the date of the request for an accounting, including
disclosures to or by business associates of the covered entity.

\(2\) The accounting must include for each disclosure:

\(i\) The date of the disclosure;

\(ii\) The name of the entity or person who received the protected
health information and, if known, the address of such entity or person;

\(iii\) A brief description of the protected health information
disclosed; and

\(iv\) A brief statement of the purpose of the disclosure that
reasonably informs the individual of the basis for the disclosure; or,
in lieu of such statement:

\(A\) A copy of the individual=s written authorization pursuant to \'
164.508; or

\(B\) A copy of a written request for a disclosure under \'\'
164.502(a)(2)(ii) or 164.512, if any.

\(3\) If, during the period covered by the accounting, the covered
entity has made multiple disclosures of protected health information to
the same person or entity for a single purpose under \'\'
164.502(a)(2)(ii) or 164.512, or pursuant to a single authorization
under \' 164.508, the accounting may, with respect to such multiple
disclosures, provide:

\(i\) The information required by paragraph (b)(2) of this section for
the first disclosure during the accounting period;

\(ii\) The frequency, periodicity, or number of the disclosures made
during the accounting period; and

\(iii\) The date of the last such disclosure during the accounting
period.

\(c\) [Implementation specifications: provision of the
accounting.]{.underline}

\(1\) The covered entity must act on the individual=s request for an
accounting, no later than 60 days after receipt of such a request, as
follows.

\(i\) The covered entity must provide the individual with the accounting
requested; or

\(ii\) If the covered entity is unable to provide the accounting within
the time required by paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the covered
entity may extend the time to provide the accounting by no more than 30
days, provided that:

\(A\) The covered entity, within the time limit set by paragraph (c)(1)
of this section, provides the individual with a written statement of the
reasons for the delay and the date by which the covered entity will
provide the accounting; and

\(B\) The covered entity may have only one such extension of time for
action on a request for an accounting.

\(2\) The covered entity must provide the first accounting to an
individual in any 12 month period without charge. The covered entity may
impose a reasonable, cost-based fee for each subsequent request for an
accounting by the same individual within the 12 month period, provided
that the covered entity informs the individual in advance of the fee and
provides the individual with an opportunity to withdraw or modify the
request for a subsequent accounting in order to avoid or reduce the fee.

\(d\) [Implementation specification: documentation.]{.underline} A
covered entity must document the following and retain the documentation
as required by \' 164.530(j):

\(1\) The information required to be included in an accounting under
paragraph (b) of this section for disclosures of protected health
information that are subject to an accounting under paragraph (a) of
this section;

\(2\) The written accounting that is provided to the individual under
this section; and

\(3\) The titles of the persons or offices responsible for receiving and
processing requests for an accounting by individuals.

[\' 164.530 Administrative requirements.]{.underline}

(a)(1) [Standard: personnel designations.]{.underline} (i) A covered
entity must designate a privacy official who is responsible for the
development and implementation of the policies and procedures of the
entity.

\(ii\) A covered entity must designate a contact person or office who is
responsible for receiving complaints under this section and who is able
to provide further information about matters covered by the notice
required by \' 164.520.

\(2\) [Implementation specification: personnel
designations.]{.underline} A covered entity must document the personnel
designations in paragraph (a)(1) of this section as required by
paragraph (j) of this section.

(b)(1) [Standard: training.]{.underline} A covered entity must train all
members of its workforce on the policies and procedures with respect to
protected health information required by this subpart, as necessary and
appropriate for the members of the workforce to carry out their function
within the covered entity.

\(2\) [Implementation specifications: training.]{.underline} (i) A
covered entity must provide training that meets the requirements of
paragraph (b)(1) of this section, as follows:

\(A\) To each member of the covered entity\'s workforce by no later than
the compliance date for the covered entity;

\(B\) Thereafter, to each new member of the workforce within a
reasonable period of time after the person joins the covered entity=s
workforce; and

\(C\) To each member of the covered entity=s workforce whose functions
are affected by a material change in the policies or procedures required
by this subpart, within a reasonable period of time after the material
change becomes effective in accordance with paragraph (i) of this
section.

\(ii\) A covered entity must document that the training as described in
paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section has been provided, as required by
paragraph (j) of this section.

(c)(1) [Standard: safeguards.]{.underline} A covered entity must have in
place appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to
protect the privacy of protected health information.

\(2\) [Implementation specification: safeguards.]{.underline} A covered
entity must reasonably safeguard protected health information from any
intentional or unintentional use or disclosure that is in violation of
the standards, implementation specifications or other requirements of
this subpart.

(d)(1) [Standard: complaints to the covered entity.]{.underline} A
covered entity must provide a process for individuals to make complaints
concerning the covered entity\'s policies and procedures required by
this subpart or its compliance with such policies and procedures or the
requirements of this subpart.

\(2\) [Implementation specification: documentation of
complaints.]{.underline} As required by paragraph (j) of this section, a
covered entity must document all complaints received, and their
disposition, if any.

(e)(1) [Standard: sanctions]{.underline}. A covered entity must have and
apply appropriate sanctions against members of its workforce who fail to
comply with the privacy policies and procedures of the covered entity or
the requirements of this subpart. This standard does not apply to a
member of the covered entity=s workforce with respect to actions that
are covered by and that meet the conditions of \' 164.502(j) or
paragraph (g)(2) of this section.

\(2\) [Implementation specification: documentation.]{.underline} As
required by paragraph (j) of this section, a covered entity must
document the sanctions that are applied, if any.

\(f\) [Standard: mitigation.]{.underline} A covered entity must
mitigate, to the extent practicable, any harmful effect that is known to
the covered entity of a use or disclosure of protected health
information in violation of its policies and procedures or the
requirements of this subpart by the covered entity or its business
associate.

\(g\) [Standard: refraining from intimidating or retaliatory
acts.]{.underline} A covered entity may not intimidate, threaten,
coerce, discriminate against, or take other retaliatory action against:

\(1\) [Individuals.]{.underline} Any individual for the exercise by the
individual of any right under, or for participation by the individual in
any process established by this subpart, including the filing of a
complaint under this section;

\(2\) [Individuals and others.]{.underline} Any individual or other
person for:

\(i\) Filing of a complaint with the Secretary under subpart C of part
160 of this subchapter;

\(ii\) Testifying, assisting, or participating in an investigation,
compliance review, proceeding, or hearing under Part C of Title XI; or

\(iii\) Opposing any act or practice made unlawful by this subpart,
provided the individual or person has a good faith belief that the
practice opposed is unlawful, and the manner of the opposition is
reasonable and does not involve a disclosure of protected health
information in violation of this subpart.

\(h\) [Standard: waiver of rights.]{.underline} A covered entity may not
require individuals to waive their rights under \' 160.306 of this
subchapter or this subpart as a condition of the provision of treatment,
payment, enrollment in a health plan, or eligibility for benefits.

(i)(1) [Standard: policies and procedures.]{.underline} A covered entity
must implement policies and procedures with respect to protected health
information that are designed to comply with the standards,
implementation specifications, or other requirements of this subpart.
The policies and procedures must be reasonably designed, taking into
account the size of and the type of activities that relate to protected
health information undertaken by the covered entity, to ensure such
compliance. This standard is not to be construed to permit or excuse an
action that violates any other standard, implementation specification,
or other requirement of this subpart.

\(2\) [Standard: changes to policies or procedures.]{.underline} (i) A
covered entity must change its policies and procedures as necessary and
appropriate to comply with changes in the law, including the standards,
requirements, and implementation specifications of this subpart;

\(ii\) When a covered entity changes a privacy practice that is stated
in the notice described in \' 164.520, and makes corresponding changes
to its policies and procedures, it may make the changes effective for
protected health information that it created or received prior to the
effective date of the notice revision, if the covered entity has, in
accordance with \' 164.520(b)(1)(v)(C), included in the notice a
statement reserving its right to make such a change in its privacy
practices; or

\(iii\) A covered entity may make any other changes to policies and
procedures at any time, provided that the changes are documented and
implemented in accordance with paragraph (i)(5) of this section.

\(3\) [Implementation specification: changes in law.]{.underline}
Whenever there is a change in law that necessitates a change to the
covered entity=s policies or procedures, the covered entity must
promptly document and implement the revised policy or procedure. If the
change in law materially affects the content of the notice required by
\' 164.520, the covered entity must promptly make the appropriate
revisions to the notice in accordance with \' 164.520(b)(3). Nothing in
this paragraph may be used by a covered entity to excuse a failure to
comply with the law.

\(4\) [Implementation specifications: changes to privacy practices
stated in the notice.]{.underline} (i) To implement a change as provided
by paragraph (i)(2)(ii) of this section, a covered entity must:

\(A\) Ensure that the policy or procedure, as revised to reflect a
change in the covered entity=s privacy practice as stated in its notice,
complies with the standards, requirements, and implementation
specifications of this subpart;

\(B\) Document the policy or procedure, as revised, as required by
paragraph (j) of this section; and

\(C\) Revise the notice as required by \' 164.520(b)(3) to state the
changed practice and make the revised notice available as required by \'
164.520(c). The covered entity may not implement a change to a policy or
procedure prior to the effective date of the revised notice.

\(ii\) If a covered entity has not reserved its right under \'
164.520(b)(1)(v)(C) to change a privacy practice that is stated in the
notice, the covered entity is bound by the privacy practices as stated
in the notice with respect to protected health information created or
received while such notice is in effect. A covered entity may change a
privacy practice that is stated in the notice, and the related policies
and procedures, without having reserved the right to do so, provided
that:

\(A\) Such change meets the implementation the requirements in
paragraphs (i)(4)(i)(A)-(C) of this section; and

\(B\) Such change is effective only with respect to protected health
information created or received after the effective date of the notice.

\(5\) [Implementation specification: changes to other policies or
procedures.]{.underline} A covered entity may change, at any time, a
policy or procedure that does not materially affect the content of the
notice required by \' 164.520, provided that:

\(i\) The policy or procedure, as revised, complies with the standards,
requirements, and implementation specifications of this subpart; and

\(ii\) Prior to the effective date of the change, the policy or
procedure, as revised, is documented as required by paragraph (j) of
this section.

(j)(1) [Standard: documentation.]{.underline} A covered entity must:

\(i\) Maintain the policies and procedures provided for in paragraph (i)
of this section in written or electronic form;

\(ii\) If a communication is required by this subpart to be in writing,
maintain such writing, or an electronic copy, as documentation; and

\(iii\) If an action, activity, or designation is required by this
subpart to be documented, maintain a written or electronic record of
such action, activity, or designation.

\(2\) [Implementation specification: retention period.]{.underline} A
covered entity must retain the documentation required by paragraph
(j)(1) of this section for six years from the date of its creation or
the date when it last was in effect, whichever is later.

\(k\) [Standard: group health plans.]{.underline} (1) A group health
plan is not subject to the standards or implementation specifications in
paragraphs (a) through (f) and (i) of this section, to the extent that:

\(i\) The group health plan provides health benefits solely through an
insurance contract with a health insurance issuer or an HMO; and

\(ii\) The group health plan does not create or receive protected health
information, except for:

\(A\) Summary health information as defined in \' 164.504(a); or

\(B\) Information on whether the individual is participating in the
group health plan, or is enrolled in or has disenrolled from a health
insurance issuer or HMO offered by the plan.

\(2\) A group health plan described in paragraph (k)(1) of this section
is subject to the standard and implementation specification in paragraph
(j) of this section only with respect to plan documents amended in
accordance with \' 164.504(f).

[\' 164.532 Transition provisions.]{.underline}

\(a\) [Standard: effect of prior consents and
authorizations.]{.underline} Notwithstanding other sections of this
subpart, a covered entity may continue to use or disclose protected
health information pursuant to a consent, authorization, or other
express legal permission obtained from an individual permitting the use
or disclosure of protected health information that does not comply with
\'\' 164.506 or 164.508 of this subpart consistent with paragraph (b) of
this section.

\(b\) [Implementation specification: requirements for retaining
effectiveness of prior consents and authorizations.]{.underline}
Notwithstanding other sections of this subpart, the following provisions
apply to use or disclosure by a covered entity of protected health
information pursuant to a consent, authorization, or other express legal
permission obtained from an individual permitting the use or disclosure
of protected health information, if the consent, authorization, or other
express legal permission was obtained from an individual before the
applicable compliance date of this subpart and does not comply with \'\'
164.506 or 164.508 of this subpart.

\(1\) If the consent, authorization, or other express legal permission
obtained from an individual permits a use or disclosure for purposes of
carrying out treatment, payment, or health care operations, the covered
entity may, with respect to protected health information that it created
or received before the applicable compliance date of this subpart and to
which the consent, authorization, or other express legal permission
obtained from an individual applies, use or disclose such information
for purposes of carrying out treatment, payment, or health care
operations, provided that:

\(i\) The covered entity does may not make any use or disclosure that is
expressly excluded from the a consent, authorization, or other express
legal permission obtained from an individual; and

\(ii\) The covered entity complies with all limitations placed by the
consent, authorization, or other express legal permission obtained from
an individual.

\(2\) If the consent, authorization, or other express legal permission
obtained from an individual specifically permits a use or disclosure for
a purpose other than to carry out treatment, payment, or health care
operations, the covered entity may, with respect to protected health
information that it created or received before the applicable compliance
date of this subpart and to which the consent, authorization, or other
express legal permission obtained from an individual applies, make such
use or disclosure, provided that:

\(i\) The covered entity does not make any use or disclosure that is
expressly excluded from the consent, authorization, or other express
legal permission obtained from an individual; and

\(ii\) The covered entity complies with all limitations placed by the
consent, authorization, or other express legal permission obtained from
an individual.

\(3\) In the case of a consent, authorization, or other express legal
permission obtained from an individual that identifies a specific
research project that includes treatment of individuals:

\(i\) If the consent, authorization, or other express legal permission
obtained from an individual specifically permits a use or disclosure for
purposes of the project, the covered entity may, with respect to
protected health information that it created or received either before
or after the applicable compliance date of this subpart and to which the
consent or authorization applies, make such use or disclosure for
purposes of that project, provided that the covered entity complies with
all limitations placed by the consent, authorization, or other express
legal permission obtained from an individual.

\(ii\) If the consent, authorization, or other express legal permission
obtained from an individual is a general consent to participate in the
project, and a covered entity is conducting or participating in the
research, such covered entity may, with respect to protected health
information that it created or received as part of the project before or
after the applicable compliance date of this subpart, make a use or
disclosure for purposes of that project, provided that the covered
entity complies with all limitations placed by the consent,
authorization, or other express legal permission obtained from an
individual.

\(4\) If, after the applicable compliance date of this subpart, a
covered entity agrees to a restriction requested by an individual under
\' 164.522(a), a subsequent use or disclosure of protected health
information that is subject to the restriction based on a consent,
authorization, or other express legal permission obtained from an
individual as given effect by paragraph (b) of this section, must comply
with such restriction.

[\' 164.534 Compliance dates for initial implementation of the privacy
standards.]{.underline}

\(a\) [Health care providers.]{.underline} A covered health care
provider must comply with the applicable requirements of this subpart no
later than \[OFR - insert date 24 months after the effective date of the
final rule in the **Federal Register**\].

\(b\) [Health plans.]{.underline} A health plan must comply with the
applicable requirements of this subpart no later than the following
date, as applicable:

\(1\) [Health plans other than small health plans B]{.underline} \[OFR -
insert date 24 months after the effective date of the final rule in the
**Federal Register**\].

\(2\) [Small health plans B]{.underline} \[OFR - insert date 36 months
after the effective date of the final rule in the **Federal
Register**\].

\(c\) [Health care clearinghouses.]{.underline} A health care
clearinghouse must comply with the applicable requirements of this
subpart no later than \[OFR - insert date 24 months after the effective
date of the final rule in the **Federal Register**\].

[^1]: The Principles are: (1) Notice; (2) Choice (*i.e.,* consent); (3)
    Onward Transfer (*i.e.,* subsequent disclosures); (4) Security; (5)
    Data Integrity; (6) Access; and (7) Enforcement. Department of
    Commerce, Safe Harbor Principles, July 21, 2000 (APrinciples@). They
    do not apply to manually processed data.

[^2]: Privacy Protection Study Commission, APersonal Privacy in an
    Information Society,@ July 1977, p. 298-299.

[^3]: Health Privacy Working Group, ABest Principles for Health
    Privacy,@ Health Privacy Project, Institute for Health Care Research
    and Policy, Georgetown University, July 1999.

[^4]: National Committee on Quality Assurance and the Joint Commission
    on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, AProtecting Personal
    Health Information: A Framework for Meeting the Challenges in a
    Managed Care Environment,@1998, p. 25.

[^5]: ASTM, AStandard Guide for Confidentiality, Privacy, Access and
    Data Security, Principles for Health Information Including
    Computer-Based Patient Records,@ E 1869-97, \' 11.1.1.

[^6]: Definition of Disease Management, October 1999 (from web site of
    Disease Management Association of America
    (www.dmaa.org/definition.html) accessed May 21, 2000.

    Other references used for our analysis include:

    Mary C. Gurnee, et al, Constructing Disease Management Programs,
    Managed Care, June 1997, accessed at http://managedcaremag.com,
    5/19/2000

    Peter Wehrwein, Disease Management Gains a Degree of Respectability,
    Managed Care, August 1997, accessed at www.managedcaremag.com,
    5/18/00

    John M. Harris, Jr., disease management: New Wine in Old Bottles,
    124 Annals of Internal Medicine 838 (1996)

    Robert S. Epstein and Louis M. Sherwood, From Outcomes research to
    disease management: A Guide for the Perplexed, 124 Annals of
    Internal Medicine 832 (1996)

    Anne Mason et al, disease management, the Pharmaceutical Industry
    and the NHS, Office of Health Economics (United Kingdom), accessed
    at www.ohe.org, 5/19/2000

    Thomas Bodenheimer, Disease Management \-- Promises and Pitfalls,
    340 New Eng. J. Med, April 15, 1999, accessed at www.nejm.org,
    4/20/99

    Bernard Lo and Ann Alpers, Uses and Abuses of Prescription Drug
    information in pharmacy benefits Management Programs, 283 JAMA 801
    (2000)

    Robert F. DeBusk, Correspondence, Disease Management, and Regina E.
    Herzlinger, Correspondence, Disease Management, 341 New Eng. J. Med,
    Sept 2, 1999, accessed 9/2/99

    Letter, John A. Gans, American Pharmaceutical Association, to Health
    Care Financing Administration, Reference HCFA-3002-P, April 12,
    1999, accessed at www.aphanet.org, 1/18/2000

    Ronald M. Davis, et al, Editorial, Advances in Managing Chronic
    Disease, 320 BMJ 525 (2000), accessed at www.bmj.com, 2/25/00

    Thomas Bodenheimer, Education and Debate, disease management in the
    American Market, 320 BMJ 563 (2000), accessed at www.bmj.com,
    2/25/2000

    David J. Hunter, disease management: has it a future?, 320 BMJ 530
    (2000), accessed www.bmj.com 2/25/2000

    Trisha Greenhalgh, Commercial partnerships in chronic disease
    management: proceeding with caution, 320 BMJ 566 (2000).

    Edmund X. DeJesus, disease management in a Warehouse, Healthcare
    Informatics, September 1999, accessed at
    www.healthcare-informatics.com, 5/19/00

    Regulation, 42 CFR 422.112, Medicare+Choice Program, subpart C,
    Benefits and Beneficiary Protections, sec. 422.112, Access to
    Services

    Arnold Chen, Best Practices in Coordinated Care, Submitted by
    Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., to Health Care Financing
    Administration, March 22, 2000.

[^7]: *Confidentiality in Adolescent Health Care*, a joint policy
    statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics; the American
    Academy of Family Physicians; the American College of Obstetricians
    and Gynecologists; NAACOG-The Organization for Obstetric,
    Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nurses; and the National Medical
    Association.

[^8]: J. Merz, P. Sankar, S.S. Yoo, AHospital Consent for Disclosure of
    Medical Records,@ *Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics*, 26 (1998):
    241-248.

[^9]: Privacy Protection Study Commission, APersonal Privacy in an
    Information Society,@ July 1977, p. 306.

[^10]: Privacy Protection Study Commission, APersonal Privacy in an
    Information Society,@ July 1977, pp. 215-217.

[^11]: Health Privacy Working Group, ABest Principles for Health
    Privacy,@ Health Privacy Project, Institute for Health Care Research
    and Policy, Georgetown University, July 1999, p. 19.

[^12]: AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, AOpinion E-5.05:
    Confidentiality,@ Issued December 1983, Updated June 1994.

[^13]: Privacy Protection Study Commission, APersonal Privacy in an
    Information Society,@ July 1977, p. 196-197.

[^14]: Privacy Protection Study Commission, APersonal Privacy in an
    Information Society,@ July 1977, p. 315

[^15]: ASTM, AStandard Guide for Confidentiality, Privacy, Access and
    Data Security, Principles for Health Information Including
    Computer-Based Patient Records,@ E 1869-97, \' 12.1.4.

[^16]: Confidentiality and Data Access Committee, Federal Committee on
    Statistical Methodology, Office of Management and Budget.

[^17]: Sweeney, L. Guaranteeing Anonymity when Sharing Medical Data, the
    Datafly System. Masys, D., Ed. Proceedings, American Medical
    Informatics Association, Nashville, TN: Hanley & Belfus, Inc.,
    1997:51-55.

[^18]: The U.S. Census Bureau\'s Recommendations Concerning the Census
    2000 Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) Files
    \[http://www.ipums.org/\~census2000/2000pums_bureau.pdf\],
    Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau, November 3, 2000.

[^19]: Figures derived from US Census data on 1990 Decennial Census of
    Population and Housing, Summary Tape File 3B (STF3B). These data are
    available to the public (for a fee) at
    http://www.census.gov/mp/www/rom/msrom6af.html.

[^20]: *Statistical Policy Working Paper 22 ‑ Report on Statistical
    Disclosure Limitation Methodology*
    ([http://www.fcsm.gov/working‑papers/wp22.html]{.underline})
    (prepared by the Subcommittee on Disclosure Limitation Methodology,
    Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology, Office of Management
    and Budget).

[^21]: *The Geographic Component of Disclosure Risk for Microdata*.
    Brian Greenberg and Laura Voshell. Bureau of the Census Statistical
    Research Division Report: Census/SRD/RR-90-13, October, 1990.

[^22]: A Simulation Study of the Identifiability of Survey Respondents
    when their Community of Residence is Known. John Horm, National
    Center for Health Statistics, 2000.

[^23]: Privacy Protection Study Commission, APersonal Privacy in an
    Information Society,@ July 1977, p. 313.

[^24]: Privacy Protection Study Commission, APersonal Privacy in an
    Information Society,@ July 1977, p. 192.

[^25]: Health Privacy Working Group, ABest Principles for Health
    Privacy,@ Health Privacy Project, Institute for Health Care Research
    and Policy, Georgetown University, July 1999, p. 19.

[^26]: National Committee on Quality Assurance, ASurveyor Guidelines for
    the Accreditation of MCOs,@effective July1, 2000 - June 30, 2001, p.
    324.

[^27]: ASTM, AStandard Guide for Confidentiality, Privacy, Access and
    Data Security, Principles for Health Information Including
    Computer-Based Patient Records,@ E 1869-97, \' 9.2.

[^28]: Privacy Protection Study Commission, APersonal Privacy in an
    Information Society,@ July 1977, p. 300-303.

[^29]: Health Privacy Working Group, ABest Principles for Health
    Privacy,@ Health Privacy Project, Institute for Health Care Research
    and Policy, Georgetown University, July 1999.

[^30]: National Committee on Quality Assurance and the Joint Commission
    on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, AProtecting Personal
    Health Information: A Framework for Meeting the Challenges in a
    Managed Care Environment,@1998, p. 25.

[^31]: ASTM, AStandard Guide for Confidentiality, Privacy, Access and
    Data Security, Principles for Health Information Including
    Computer-Based Patient Records,@ E 1869-97, \' 11.1.1.

[^32]: Privacy Protection Study Commission, APersonal Privacy in an
    Information Society,@ July 1977, p. 306-307.

[^33]: Janlori Goldman, Institute for Health Care Research and Policy,
    Georgetown University: \<http://www.healthprivacy.org/resources\>.

[^34]: The proposed privacy rule provided an estimate for a five-year
    period. However, the Transactions Rule provided a cost estimate for
    a ten year period. The decision was made to provide the final
    privacy estimates in a ten year period so that it would be possible
    to compare the costs and benefits of the two regulations.

[^35]: This based on a seven percent real discount rate, explained in
    OMB Circular A-94, and a projected 4.2 percent inflation rate
    projected over the ten-year period covered by this analysis.

[^36]: The regulatory impact analysis in the Transactions Rule showed a
    net savings of \$29.9 billion (net present value of \$19.1 billion
    in 2002 dollars). The cost estimates included all electronic systems
    changes that would be necessitated by the HIPAA administrative
    standards (e.g., security, safeguards, and electronic signatures;
    eligibility for a health plan; and remittance advice and payment
    claim status), except privacy. At the time the Transactions Rule was
    developed, the industry provided estimates for the systems changes
    in the aggregate. The industry argued that affected parties would
    seek to make all electronic changes in one effort because that
    approach would be the most cost-efficient. The Department agreed,
    and therefore, it Abundled@ all the system change cost in the
    Transactions Rule estimate. Privacy was not included because at the
    time the Department had not made a decision to develop a privacy
    rule. As the Department develops other HIPAA administrative
    simplification standards, there may be additional costs and savings
    due to the non-electronic components of those regulations, and they
    will be identified in regulatory impact analyses that accompany
    those regulations. The Department anticipates that such costs and
    savings will be relatively small compared to the privacy and
    Transactions rules. The Department anticipates that the net economic
    impact of the rules will be a net savings to the health care system.

[^37]: Health spending projections from *National Health Expenditure
    Projections 1998‑2008* (January 2000), Health Care Financing
    Administration, Office of the Actuary,

    \< [http://hcfa.hhs.gov/stats/nhe‑proj/]{.underline} \>.

[^38]: American Association of Health Plans, [Code of
    Conduct]{.underline}; [http://www.aahp.org.;]{.underline} American
    Dental Association, [Principles of Ethics and Professional
    Conduct]{.underline}; [http://www.ada.org.;]{.underline} American
    Hospital Association, ADisclosure of Medical Record Information,@
    [Management Advisory: Information Management]{.underline}; 1990,
    AHA: Chicago, IL.; American Medical Association, [AMA Policy
    Finder - Current Opinions Council on Ethical and Judicial
    Affairs]{.underline}; serval documents available through the Policy
    Finder at [http://www.ama-assn.org.;]{.underline} American
    Psychiatric Association, AAPA Outlines Standards Needed to Protect
    Patient=s Medical Records@; Release No. 99-32, May27: 1999;
    [http://www.psych.org.]{.underline}

[^39]: Ibid, Goldman, p. 6.

[^40]: APractice Briefs,@ Journal of AHIMA; Harry Rhodes, Joan C.
    Larson, Association of Health Information Outsourcing Service;
    January 1999.

[^41]: Ibid, Goldman, p.20.

[^42]: Ibid, Goldman, p.21.

[^43]: AMedical records and privacy: empirical effects of legislation; A
    memorial to Alice Hersh@; McCarthy, Douglas B; Shatin, Deborah; et
    al.. [Health Service Research]{.underline}: April 1, 1999; No. 1,
    Vol. 34; p 417. The article details the effects of the Minnesota law
    conditioning disclosure of protected health information on patient
    authorization.

[^44]: [Source Book of Health Insurance Data: 1997-1998]{.underline},
    Health Insurance Association of America, 1998. p. 33.

[^45]: AHealth plans,@ for purposes of the regulatory impact and
    regulatory flexibility analyses, include licensed insurance carriers
    who sell health products; third party administrators that will have
    to comply with the regulation for the benefit of the plan sponsor;
    and self-insured health plans that are at least partially
    administered by the plan sponsor.

[^46]: Health Care Finance Administration, Office of the Actuary, 2000.
    Estimates for the national health care expenditure accounts are only
    available through 2008; hence, we are only able to make the
    comparison through that year.

[^47]: These estimates were, in part, derived from a report prepared for
    the Department by the Gartner Group, consultants in health care
    information technology: AGartner DHHS Privacy Regulation Study,@ by
    Jim Klein and Wes Rishel, submitted to the Office of the Assistant
    Secretary for Policy and Evaluation on OCTOBER 20, 2000.

[^48]: ATop Compensation in the Healthcare Industry, 1997\", Coopers &
    Lybrand, New York, NY., \<http://www.pohly.com/salary/2.shtml\>.

[^49]: AA Unifif Survey of Compensation in Financial Services: 2000,@
    July 2000, Unifi Network

    Survey unit, PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP and Global HR Solutions LLC,
    Westport, Ct.,
    \<http://public.wsj.com/careers/resources/documents/20000912-insuranceexecs-tab.htm\>.

[^50]: The cost for policies for minimum necessary, because they will be
    distinct and extensive, are presented separately, above.

[^51]: AThe Altman Weil 1999 Survey of Law Firm Economics,@
    \<[http://www.altmanweil.com]{.underline}/publications/

    survey/sife99/standard.htm\>.

[^52]: Equifax-Harris Consumer Privacy Survey, 1994

[^53]: [Consumer Privacy Survey]{.underline}, Harris-Equifax, 1994, p vi

[^54]: [Promoting Health: Protecting Privacy]{.underline}, California
    Health Care Foundation and Consumers Union, January 1999, p 12

[^55]: [Health Information Privacy Survey]{.underline}, Harris-Equifax,
    1993, pp 49-50

[^56]: American Cancer Society.
    http://4a2z.com/cgi/rfr.cgi?4CANCER‑2‑http://www.cancer.org/frames.html

[^57]: American Cancer Society.
    http://www3.cancer.org/cancerinfo/sitecenter.asp?ctid=8&scp=0&scs=0&scss=0&scdoc=40000

[^58]: Polednak, AP. AEstimating Prevalence of Cancer in the United
    States,@ *Cancer* 1997; 8-:136-41.

[^59]: Martin Brown, AThe Burden of Illness of Cancer: Economic Cost and
    Quality of Life.@ *Annual Review of Public Health*, 2001:22:91-113.

[^60]: *Disease-Specific Estimates of Direct and Indirect Costs of
    Illness and NIH Support: Fiscal Year 2000 Update*. Department of
    Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, Office of
    the Director, February 2000.

[^61]: DALY scores for 10 cancer sites are presented in Brown, AThe
    Burden of Illness of Cancer: Economic Cost and Quality of Life,@
    figure 1.

[^62]: Breast Cancer Information Service.
    http://trfn.clpgh.org/bcis/FAQ/facts2.html

[^63]: Jack S. Mandel, et al., AReducing Mortality from Colorectal
    Cancer by Screening for Fecal Occult Blood,@ *The New England
    Journal of Medicine*, May 13, 1993, Vol. 328, No. 19.

[^64]: [Promoting Health: Protecting Privacy]{.underline}, California
    Health Care Foundation and Consumers Union, January 1999, p 13

[^65]: For example, Roger Detels, M.D., et al., in AEffectiveness of
    Potent Anti-retroviral Therapy\...@ JAMA, 1998;280:1497-1503 note
    the impact of therapy on HIV persons with respect to lengthening the
    time to development of AIDS, not just delaying death in persons who
    already have AIDS.

[^66]: John Hornberger et al, \"Early treatment with highly active
    anti-retroviral therapy (HAART) is cost-effective compared to
    delayed treatment,\" 12th World AIDS conference, 1998.

[^67]: [Sexually Transmitted Diseases in America]{.underline}, Kaiser
    Family Foundation, 1998, p 12

[^68]: Standard Medical information; see http://www.mayohealth.org for
    examples.

[^69]: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
    [http://www.samhsa.gov/oas/srcbk/costs-02.htm.]{.underline} Source
    of data: DP Rice, *Costs of Mental Illness* (unpublished data).

[^70]: Department of Health and Human Services. *Mental Health: A Report
    of the Surgeon General*. Rockville, MD: 1999, page 408.

[^71]: According to the Surgeon General=s Report, 28 percent of the
    adult population have either a mental or addictive disorder,
    *whether or not they receive services*: 19 percent have a mental
    disorder alone, 6 percent have a substance abuse disorder alone, and
    3 percent have both. Subtracting the 3 percent who have both, about
    three-quarters of the population with either a mental or addictive
    disorder have a mental disorder and one-quarter have a substance
    abuse disorder. We assume that this ratio (three-quarter to
    one-quarter) is the same for the adult population with either a
    mental or addictive disorder *who do not receive services*. Thus, we
    assume that 15 percent of the population have an untreated mental
    disorder (three-quarters of 20percent) and 5 percent have an
    untreated addictive disorder (one-quarter of 20 percent).

[^72]: According to the Population Estimates Program, Population
    Division, U.S. Census Bureau, the U.S. population age 20 and older
    is 197.1 million on Sept. 1, 2000. This estimate of the adult
    population is used throughout this section.

[^73]: The number of adults with mental illness is calculated by
    multiplying the U.S. Census Bureau estimate of the U.S. adult
    population B 197.1 million B by the percent of the adult population
    with mental illness B 22 percent, according to the Surgeon General=s
    Report on Mental Health, which says that 19 percent of the
    population have a mental disorder alone and three percent have a
    mental and substance abuse disorder.

[^74]: AEntities@ and Aestablishments@ are synonymous in this analysis.

[^75]: AEntities@ and Aestablishments@ are used synonymously in this
    RFA.

[^76]: ASmall governments@ were not included in this analysis directly;
    rather we have included the kinds of institutions within those
    governments that are likely to incur costs, such as government
    hospitals and clinics.

[^77]: Entities are the physical location where an enterprise conducts
    business. An enterprise may conduct business in more than one
    establishment.

[^78]: Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration, from data
    provided by the Bureau of the Census, Statistics of U.S. Businesses,
    1997.

[^79]: Op.cit, 1997

[^80]: Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration, from data
    provided by the Bureau of the Census, Statistics of U.S. Businesses,
    1997.

[^81]: Op.cit., 1997

[^82]: Health Care Financing Administration, OSCAR.