Source: http://www.compliancelawjournal.com/compliancelawjournal/issue_1?pg=38
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 11:16:28+00:00

Document:
a patient’s PHI to a law enforcement officer in certain situations, including when the covered entity suspects that the death of the patient may have resulted from criminal conduct. 56 The theory behind these permitted information uses and disclosures is that treating patients, allowing health care providers to obtain reimbursement for providing health care, training medical students and residents, complying with state law, and alerting law enforcement officers to the suspicion of criminal activity outweigh an individual’s interest in maintaining complete confidentiality of his or her PHI.
The first rule requires no prior authorization from the individual who is the subject of the information before the information use or disclosure may occur. Under the second rule, a covered entity may use and disclose an individual’s PHI for certain activities, but only if the individual is informed in advance of the use or disclosure and has the opportunity to agree to or prohibit or restrict the use or disclosure. 57 Because the Privacy Rule allows the covered entity to orally inform the individual of (and capture an oral agreement or oral objection to) a use or disclosure permitted by these provisions, this second rule is sometimes referred to as the “oral permission rule,” although a more practical written permission also will suffice.
is limited to the relevant requirements of such law.”).
56. See id. § 164.512(f)( 4).
57. See id. § 164.510.
59. See id. § 164.510(a).
60. See id. § 164.510(b)( 1)( i).
61. See id. § 164.510(b)( 1)( ii).
62. See id. § 164.510(b)( 4).
63. See id. § 164.510(b)( 5).

References: § 164
 § 164
 § 164
 § 164
 § 164
 § 164
 § 164