Parkview Health System, Inc. agreed to settle potential Privacy Rule with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR). Parkview will pay $800,000 and adopt a corrective action plan to address deficiencies in its HIPAA compliance program. OCR opened an investigation after receiving a complaint from a retiring physician alleging that Parkview had violated the HIPAA Privacy Rule. In September 2008, Parkview took custody of medical records pertaining to approximately 5,000 to 8,000 patients while assisting the retiring physician to transition her patients to new providers, and while considering the possibility of purchasing some of the physician’s practice. On June 4, 2009, Parkview employees, with notice that the physician was not at home, left 71 cardboard boxes of these medical records unattended and accessible to unauthorized persons on the driveway of the physician’s home, within 20 feet of the public road and a short distance away from a heavily trafficked public shopping venue.
Siddel Law
Healthcare and Business Law...Guided by experience, focused on details and driven to succeed.
Sunday, June 29, 2014
Parkview Health System will pay $800,000 and adopt a corrective action plan as a result of deficiencies in its HIPAA compliance program
Parkview Health System, Inc. agreed to settle potential Privacy Rule with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR). Parkview will pay $800,000 and adopt a corrective action plan to address deficiencies in its HIPAA compliance program. OCR opened an investigation after receiving a complaint from a retiring physician alleging that Parkview had violated the HIPAA Privacy Rule. In September 2008, Parkview took custody of medical records pertaining to approximately 5,000 to 8,000 patients while assisting the retiring physician to transition her patients to new providers, and while considering the possibility of purchasing some of the physician’s practice. On June 4, 2009, Parkview employees, with notice that the physician was not at home, left 71 cardboard boxes of these medical records unattended and accessible to unauthorized persons on the driveway of the physician’s home, within 20 feet of the public road and a short distance away from a heavily trafficked public shopping venue.
Monday, June 9, 2014
Even Responding to Fraud Allegations can be Risky
Monday, May 26, 2014
Hospitals Sue to Compel HHS to Meet Deadlines for Reviewing Appeals
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
Google Glass in Healthcare
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
Recovery Audit Program Procurement Update and Transition
Saturday, January 25, 2014
First Steps Taken to Challenge the Two-Midnight Rule
Some in the provider community has been grumbling about CMS' decision behind the rulemaking for the two-midnight rule. What is interesting is that this action was taken in response to providers asking for relief from the arbitrary actions of the RAC. Be careful what you ask for, the devil you know may be better than the one you don’t.
January 22, 2014
The AHA, several hospital associations (Greater New York, New York State, New Jersey and Pennsylvania) and four hospital systems today took the first steps to bring a federal court challenge to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ two-midnight inpatient admissions criteria and related policies. Taking that initial action, hospitals that are part of Banner Health (AZ), Einstein Healthcare Network (PA) and Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center (NC) and The Mount Sinai Hospital (NY) filed appeals asking the Provider Reimbursement Review Board to grant expedited judicial review for the hospitals’ claims that the rule’s 0.2% payment cut for Fiscal Year 2014 inpatient prospective payment system hospitals is unlawful. “The Providers seek judicial review of pure questions of law regarding the substantive and procedural validity of the 0.2% reduction,” the hospitals’ appeals state. “Because the [PRRB] lacks the power to grant the Providers’ requested relief, it should grant expedited judicial review.” The hospitals contend that the reduced inpatient payment they receive under the final rule is arbitrary and capricious because CMS relied on indefensible assumptions and offered no reasoned explanation for them. They also argue that the payment cut fails to comply with Administrative Procedure Act’s requirements for proper notice and comment and was not codified in regulation as the law requires.
Friday, January 10, 2014
YELP Online Reviews: Virginia Appeals Court Forces...
1/10/14
YELP Online Reviews: Virginia Appeals Court Forces YELP to Identify 7 Anonymous Reviewers Who Wrote Bad Reviews
Precedent-Setting Case: Anonymous Reviewers Must Be Identified by Yelp.com
The Virginia Court of Appeals has set precedent in a case where the owner of a carpet cleaning company, Joe Hadeed, sued Yelp and seven John Does (anonymous reviewers) because Mr. Hadeed believes that seven (7) anonymous reviews placed on Yelp.com about his company, Hadeed Carpet Cleaning, Inc., have hurt his business.Hadeed wants Yelp to reveal the identities of the seven anonymous reviewers, in order to enable him to prove that they were not customers of his business and therefore had placed reviews on the online review site that were false, defamatory, and illegal.
Yelp, represented by Public Citizen, argued that the anonymity of the seven reviewers is protected by the First Amendment and that their names should remain secret. Yelp argued that before identities are revealed, the court must determine if the plaintiff’s claim of defamation is viable. This argument failed at trial and the appellate court has now confirmed that these anonymous bad reviews aren’t going to receive constitutional protection.
The Virginia appeals court found that the trial court judge did not abuse his discretion by holding Yelp in civil contempt for failing to comply with a subpoena duces tecum served upon it by Hadeed. Yelp must provide the identities behind the seven bad reviews to Hadeed.
The anonymous reviews, which claimed that Hadeed Carpet Cleaning was guilty of false advertising in its offers of low prices for carpet cleaning, were consumer reviews that would violate Yelp’s Terms of Service if they were written by people who were not actual customers of Hadeed Carpet Cleaning.
What the Hadeed Carpet Cleaning Case Against YELP Means To You
This Virginia case may change how online reviews for goods and services are treated not only in Virginia but in other states around the country. By requiring Yelp to reveal the names of the seven anonymous reviewers, bad reviews left online are not as safe from the writers having their identities revealed as in times past. (Note: we don’t know if there are really seven different people here. This could boil down to one person who has posted online using seven different IP addresses from different devices.)1. Anonymous Reviewers Aren’t As Safe From Revelation
Anonymous reviews left on YELP or other review sites may not be protected if their anonymity is legally challenged. This means anyone writing a negative review online should be aware that if they don’t want to leave their name as a reviewer, it doesn’t mean that they won’t be identified in the future.Anonymous isn’t as anonymous anymore. Critics argue that this ruling may discourage people from leaving valid criticism of bad service with online review sites. Others argue that trial judges are going to be making the privacy decisions here, and legitimate, honest negative reviews aren’t the target here. It’s fake bad reviews left behind the mask of the name “Anonymous” that judges will allow to be disclosed.