Source: https://slphealthcareupdate.com/category/pharmacy/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 07:09:00+00:00

Document:
February 12, 2019 is the deadline for health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, health care consumers, employer and other plan sponsors and fiduciaries, and other concerned persons to provide input on reducing the regulatory burdens of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy, Security and Breach Notification Rules in response to the December 12, 2018 invitation of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office for Civil Rights (OCR).
OCR issued the invitation for public comment in a December 12, 2019 Request for Information (RFI). The RIF seeks input from the public on how OCR’s HIPAA Privacy and other Rules could be modified to further the HHS Secretary’s goal of promoting coordinated, value-based healthcare. This RFI is a part of the Regulatory Sprint to Coordinated Care, an initiative led by HHS Deputy Secretary Eric Hargan.
OCR’s December 12, 2018 press release concerning the RFI indicates that OCR is looking for candid feedback about how the existing HIPAA regulations are working in the real world and how OCR can improve them to improve quality of care and eliminate undue burdens on covered entities while maintaining robust privacy and security protections for individuals’ health information.
Public comments on the RFI are due by February 11, 2019.
The RFI follows up on OCR’s announcement of another series of high dollar resolution agreements against covered entities and business associates for alleged breaches of HIPAA’s Privacy or Security Rules, as well as publication of various new guidance intended to help patients, their families, covered entities, business associates and others understand when HIPAA restricts or allows the release of protected health information by covered entities and business associates in mass shooting or other disaster situations, when dealing with patients with substance abuse or mental health conditions and in various other scenarios. Covered entities, their business associates as well as employer and other health plan sponsors, fiduciaries and others involved with protected health information transactions and disclosures should review this new guidance and evaluate its implications on their actions and practices in addition to sharing input with OCR about opportunities to improve existing HIPAA Rules.
Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer has been continuously involved the design, regulation, administration and defense of managed care and other health care and health benefit arrangements, contracts, systems, and processes throughout her career. In addition to her extensive provider and payer contracting work, Ms. Stamer also is recognized for her knowledge, experience and leadership on health benefit, health care, health, financial and other information technology, data and related process and systems development, policy and operations throughout her career, and scribe of the ABA JCEB annual Office of Civil Rights agency meeting, Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her extensive work and leadership on leading edge health care and benefit policy and operational issues. Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer’s clients include employers and other workforce management organizations; employer, union, association, government and other insured and self-insured health and other employee benefit plan sponsors, benefit plans, fiduciaries, administrators, and other plan vendors; managed care organizations, insurers, self-insured health plans and other payers and their management; public and private, domestic and international hospitals, health care systems, clinics, skilled nursing, long-term care, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, health care accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; managed care organizations, insurers, third-party administrative services organizations and other payer organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations; group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; claims, billing and other health care and insurance technology and data service organizations; other health, employee benefit, insurance and financial services product and solutions consultants, developers and vendors; and other health, employee benefit, insurance, technology, government and other management clients.
As a key part of this work, Ms. Stamer throughout her career regularly has worked with health care providers and payers, employer and other health benefit plan sponsors and vendors, health industry, insurers, health IT, life sciences and other health and insurance industry clients design, document and enforce managed care and other contracts, benefit plans and insurance arrangements, practices, policies, systems and solutions; manage regulatory, contractual and other legal and operational compliance; vendors, supplier, and patient and member relations and requirements; deal with Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare/Medicaid Advantage, ERISA, state insurance law and other private payer rules and requirements; contracting; licensing; terms of participation; medical billing, reimbursement, claims administration and coordination, and other provider-payer relations; reporting and disclosure, government investigations and enforcement, privacy and data security; and other compliance and enforcement; Form 990 and other nonprofit and tax-exemption; fundraising, investors, joint venture, and other business partners; quality and other performance measurement, management, discipline and reporting; physician and other workforce recruiting, performance management, peer review and other investigations and discipline, wage and hour, payroll, gain-sharing and other pay-for performance and other compensation, training, outsourcing and other human resources and workforce matters; board, medical staff and other governance; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; HIPAA administrative simplification, meaningful use, EMR, HIPAA and other technology, data security and breach and other health IT and data; STARK, antikickback, insurance, and other fraud prevention, investigation, defense and enforcement; audits, investigations, and enforcement actions; trade secrets and other intellectual property; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party licensure, credentialing, accreditation, HCQIA, HEDIS and other peer review and quality reporting, audits, investigations, enforcement and defense; patient relations and care; internal controls and regulatory compliance; payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations; facilities, practice, products and other sales, mergers, acquisitions and other business and commercial transactions; government procurement and contracting; grants; tax-exemption and not-for-profit; 1557 and other Civil Rights; privacy and data security; training; risk and change management; regulatory affairs and public policy; process, product and service improvement, development and innovation, and other legal and operational compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns.
Physician practices and other health care providers, health plans and insurers, health care clearinghouses (“Covered Entities”) and their business associates should learn from the costly schooling the Allergy Associates of Hartford, P.C. (“Allergy Associates”) is paying to settle charges that its physician violated the Privacy Rules of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) by commenting to a reporter on a patient complaint under a Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan (“Resolution Agreement”) announced by the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) yesterday (November 26, 2018). The latest in a series of OCR HIPAA settlements arising from health care providers improperly discussing or disclosing protected health information (PHI) with the press or other media, the Resolution Agreement reminds health care providers and other HIPAA-Covered Entities and their business associates not to discuss or disclose PHI with the media or others without first obtaining a HIPAA compliant authorization even to respond to accusations made by the patient or others.
On November 26, 2018, OCR announced that Allergy Associates, a three doctor health care practice that specializes in treating individuals with allergies at four locations across Connecticut, has agreed to pay OCR $125,000 and take corrective action under the Resolution Agreement to resolve charges that the comments a physician made to a reporter on a patient dispute with the practice in 2015 violated HIPAA.
According to OCR, the disclosure of patient information that prompted OCR’s HIPAA charges resulted from a physician associated with the practice commenting to a local television station reporter doing on a story about a disabled patient’s complaint to the station that Allergy Associates turned her away from a scheduled appointment because of her use of a service animal. After the patient contacted the television statement to complain about being turned away by the practice when accompanied by her service animal, the Resolution Agreement indicates that the station contacted the doctor for comment about the dispute between the Allergy Associates’ doctor and the patient. Although OCR reports its investigation revealed that Allergy Associates’ Privacy Officer instructed the doctor to either not respond to the media or respond with “no comment,” the doctor nevertheless accepted the television station reporter’s invitation to comment and discussed the dispute with the reporter.
The physician’s comments to the reporter were brought to the attention of OCR when OCR received a copy of an October 6, 2015, HHS civil rights complaint filed on behalf of the patient with the Department of Justice, Connecticut, U.S. Attorney’s Office (DOJ) by the Connecticut Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities (OPA). In response to this complaint, OCR initiated a joint investigation with DOJ into the civil rights allegations against Allergy Associates. The complaint also alleged that Allergy Associates impermissibly disclosed the patient’s PHI in violation of HIPAA.
OCR found the physician’s discussion of the patient’s complaint without first obtaining a HIPAA-complaint authorization from the patient both violated HIPAA and demonstrated a reckless disregard for the patient’s HIPAA privacy rights. Additionally, Resolution Agreement also states that OCR’s investigation revealed that Allergy Associates did not take any disciplinary or other corrective action against the doctor after learning of his impermissible disclosure to the media.
To resolve the HIPAA charges, Allergy Associates agrees in the Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan to pay $125,000 as well as to undertake a corrective action plan that includes two years of monitoring their compliance with the HIPAA Rules.
Of course, OCR enforcement action against and Resolution Agreement with Allergy Associates is just one of several reported OCR actions against health care providers for improperly disclosing or allowing the press or other media access to PHI without patient authorization.
For instance, a Resolution Agreement announced by OCR on June 14, 2013 required Shasta Regional Medical Center (SRMC) to pay OCR $275,000 and implement a series of corrective actions for using and disclosing to the media PHI of a patient while trying to perform public relations damage control against accusations reported in the media that SRMC had engaged in fraud or other misconduct when dealing with the patient. That Resolution Agreement resulted from OCR investigating a January 4, 2012 Los Angeles Times article report that two SRMC senior leaders had met with media to discuss medical services provided to a patient. OCR’s investigation indicated that SRMC failed to safeguard the patient’s PHI from impermissible disclosure by intentionally disclosing PHI to multiple media outlets on at least three separate occasions, without a valid written authorization. OCR’s review also revealed senior management at SRMC impermissibly shared details about the patient’s medical condition, diagnosis and treatment in an email to the entire workforce. Further, SRMC failed to sanction its workforce members for impermissibly disclosing the patient’s records pursuant to its internal sanctions policy.
The sanctions were even greater in the May 10, 2017 Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan OCR announced with the largest not-for-profit health system in Southeast Texas, Memorial Hermann Health System (MHHS) for issuing a press release with the name and other PHI about a patient arrested and charged with presenting an allegedly fraudulent identification card to MHHS office staff to fraudulently obtain care without first obtaining a HIPAA-compliant authorization from the patient. MHHS paid OCR a $2.4 million resolution payment to resolve HIPAA charges OCR brought against MHHS as well as agreed to implement a detailed corrective action plan. See $2.4M HIPAA Settlement Warns Providers About Media Disclosures Of PHI.
The costs of resolution have been even higher when OCR has addressed disclosures to media made by health care providers or other Covered Entities that allowed their desire for media publicity and coverage of their organizations ahead of patient privacy. For instance, OCR collected a $2.2 million resolution payment from New York Presbyterian Hospital (NYP) for allowing unauthorized filming and photographing of patients in its facility by a television film crew and other staff filming for the television program “NY Med” in the hospital. See $2 Million+ HIPAA Settlement, FAQ Warn Providers Protect PHI From Media, Other Recording Or Use.
Furthermore, earlier this year OCR collected a total of $999,0000 from Boston Medical Center (BMC), Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH), and Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH)(collectively, the “Hospitals”) for putting publicity before patient privacy by allowing ABC News documentary film crews to film patients and access other patient information for a news documentary without obtaining prior patient authorization under three settlement agreements with the Hospitals announced by OCR in September, 2018. The payments were made under three separate settlement agreements between OCR and each respective Hospital made public by OCR in connection with the September 20, 2018 announcement stemming from the Hospital’s allowing ABC film crews to film in patient treatment and other areas for the ABC medical documentary “Save My Life: Boston Trauma” series. See $999K Price Hospitals Pay To Settle HIPAA Privacy Charges From Allowing ABC To Film Patients Without Authorization.
OCR’s concern about and intolerance for improper disclosures of PHI to the media by health care providers and other Covered Entities is further demonstrated by OCR’s publication of its 2016 Frequently Asked Question (Media FAQ) addressing Covered Entities’ responsibilities when dealing with the media coincident with OCR’s announcement of its Resolution Agreement with NYP in 2016. The Allergy Associates’ Resolution Agreement further reinforces OCR’s continuing commitment to hold health care providers and other Covered Entities and their business associates accountable for complying with HIPAA when dealing with the press and other media. In the fact of this commitment, health care providers and other Covered Entities must take the necessary steps to implement the appropriate policies, training and controls to ensure that they and their staff and representatives comply with these directives when dealing with press and other media.
Beyond the HIPAA charges and settlement discussed in the Resolution Agreement, health care providers and other Covered Entities also should heed the factual circumstances that prompted the television interview of the Allergy Associates’ physician that prompted the OCR HIPAA enforcement action as a precautionary warning to ensure that their policies, procedures and staff training for dealing with disabled patients supported by service animals are defensible legally and in the court of public opinion.
The Allergy Associates Resolution Agreement states that OCR’s HIPAA investigation was conducted in response to and in tandem with a Department of Justice (“Justice Department”) Office of Civil Rights investigation of a complaint that Allergy Associates violated the patient’s civil rights by improperly refusing to allow the patient’s service animal to accompany the patient during the patient’s appointment. The patient’s complaint about the practice that the television reporter asked for and obtained the comments from the Allergy Associates’ physician that OCR found violated HIPAA related to Allergy Associates refusing to allow the patient to be accompanied by her service animal during her appointment with Allergy Associates.
While research as of the date of the publication of this article did not uncover any published record of any Justice Department prosecution or settlement or other official notification concerning the Justice Department civil rights investigation against Allergy Associates, the Justice Department Office of Civil Rights as well as the HHS OCR Civil Rights Division have in the past pursued enforcement action against health care providers and others for improperly restricting or denying access to care or facilities by disabled persons based on their accompaniment by service animals.
Title III of the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”) generally prohibits places of public accommodations, including the professional office of a health care provider, from discriminating against any individual on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation, by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation, including health care services. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a); 28 C.F.R. § 36.201. The ADA also requires that such entities make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of service animals by people with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii); 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(c). Health care providers also generally are prohibited from discriminating against and required to provide accommodation to individuals with disabilities under the Rehabilitation Act and the Medicare statutes.
The Justice Department, HHS and courts have interpreted these disability prohibition and accommodation laws as making it illegal for a health care provider or its agent to fail to make reasonable accommodations for a person with a service animal unless the health care provider proves (1) the accommodations would fundamentally alter the nature of the facility or service it provides; or (2) based upon an individual assessment, the hospital determines that the service animal poses a substantial and direct threat to health or safety which cannot be mitigated by reasonable accommodations. See, e.g., Tamara v. El Comino Hospital, 964 F.Supp.2d 1077 (N.D.Ca. 2013).
While other types of discriminatory actions by health care providers found to be in violation of these rules often trigger substantial damage awards, administrative penalties, disqualification or restriction of Medicare and other federal program participation for violation of Conditions of Participation, to date the reported agency and judicial enforcement actions brought against health care providers for improperly refusing to allow service animals to accompany patients when accessing facilities or receiving care generally have ordered injunctive or other corrective action but have not imposed substantial damage or administrative penalties upon the culpable provider. Health care providers should avoid the temptation to underestimate the potential seriousness or liability that their organization is likely to incur based on the current lack of substantial financial damage awards or administrative sanctions, however. The 11th Circuit’s ruling in Sheely v. MRI Radiology Network, P.A., 505 F.3d 1173 (11th Cir. 2007), that noneconomic compensatory damages were available as a remedy for the emotional distressed caused by the violation under the Rehabilitation Act and that the voluntary correction of its policies during the pendency of the litigation did not render moot Sheely’s claim for monetary relief clearly opens the door for a jury to award substantial damages against a health care provider when the jury perceives the circumstances warrant. Furthermore, health care providers need to keep in mind the typically financial and operational burdens of defending litigation or a Justice Department or HHS OCR Civil Rights investigation and costs of implementation and compliance with administrative or injunctive orders to take corrective action as well as the negative public relations attend these types of complaints, their investigation and resolution. Moreover, health care providers participating in Medicare, Medicaid or other federal health care programs also need to take into account the possibility that an alleged violation of these nondiscrimination rules also can serve as a basis for investigation of compliance with applicable Conditions of Participation for program participation and reimbursement. Considering these risks, physician and other health care providers should heed the reminder of their obligations to offer and provide proper accommodation to allow appropriate access to disabled individuals with disabilities requiring service animal support and take steps to review and update their policies, practices and staff training to minimize the risk of potential charges of violation of these requirements.
The Allergy Associates and other HIPAA Resolution Agreements arising from improper sharing of PHI with the press or other media make clear the need for health care providers and other Covered Entities to exercise great care when dealing with the press and other media.
Clearly, health care providers and other Covered Entities should heed the warning by conducting a risk assessment of their organization’s susceptibility to potential improper disclosures to media or others and reviewing and implementing necessary written policies, procedures and training to prevent the improper disclosure of patient PHI to media or others unless the Covered Entity either secures prior HIPAA-compliant authorization from the patient or can prove the disclosure falls squarely under an exception to the Privacy Rule’s prohibition against disclosure of PHI without authorization except as allowed by the Privacy Rule.
Based on experiences reported in the Allergy Associates and other Resolution Agreements and OCR guidance concerning media disclosures, Covered Entities also generally will want to ensure that their policies, procedures and training extend to all potential sources of communications that could involve patient information and make clear that the Privacy Rule restrictions must be followed even if the circumstances involve allegations of misconduct, special performance by healthcare providers or others that it would benefit the organization or certain individuals to have known to the public, or other circumstances likely to be of interest to the media or other parties.
As part of this process, health care providers and other Covered Entities should ensure they look outside the four corners of their Privacy Policies to ensure that appropriate management, supervision, training and direction is provided to address media, practice transition, workforce communication and other policies and practices that may be covered by pre-existing or other policies of other departments or operational elements not typically under the direct oversight and management of the Privacy Officer such as media relations. Media relations, physician and patients affairs, outside legal counsel, media relations, marketing and other internal and external departments and consultants dealing with the media, the public or other inquiries or disputes should carefully include and coordinate with the privacy officer both to ensure appropriate policies and procedures are followed and proper documentation created and retained to show authorization, account, or meet other requirements.
In conducting this analysis and risk assessment, it also is important that Covered Entities include, but also look beyond the four corners of their Privacy Policies to ensure that their review and risk assessment identifies and assesses and addresses compliance risks on an entity wide basis. This entity-wide assessment should include both communications and requests for information normally addressed to the Privacy Officer as well as requests and communications that could arise in the course of media or other public relations, practice transition, workforce communication and other operations not typically under the direct oversight and management of the Privacy Officer.
For this reason, Covered Entities also generally will not only to adopt and implement specific policies, processes and training in these other departments to prohibit and prevent inappropriate disclosures of PHI in the course of those departments operations. As part of these processes, Covered Entities generally will want to implement a pre-established process for reviewing media or other communications for potential PHI content which includes a requirement for prior review of any proposed public relations and other internal or external communications containing patient PHI or other information by the privacy officer, legal counsel or another suitably qualified party.
Because of the high risk that the preparation or review of media or other public communications reports will involve the use and disclosure of PHI, Covered Entities also generally should verify that all outside media or public relations, legal, or other outside service providers participating in the investigation, response or preparation or review of communications to the media or others both are covered by signed business associate agreements that fulfill the Privacy Rule and other requirements of HIPAA as well as possess detailed knowledge and understanding of the Privacy and Security Rules suitable to participate in and help safeguard the Covered Entity against violations of these and other Privacy Rules. See e.g., Latest HIPAA Resolution Agreement Drives Home Importance Of Maintaining Current, Signed Business Associate Agreements.
You are currently browsing the archives for the Pharmacy category.

References: § 12182
 § 36
 § 12182
 § 36
 v. 
 v.