Hospital abortion records privacy wins support of federal appeals court
Compliance Monitor, March 31, 2004
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Compliance Monitor!
A federal appeals court March 26 rejected the Justice Department's demand for abortion records from Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago, saying the disclosure of the records would compromise the privacy of women who had abortions there.
According to a March 26 story in The New York Times, the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago was the first time an appeals court has weighed in on whether the federal government has a right to demand abortion records in its defense of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.
The Justice Department said in a statement that it "has made every attempt to ensure that sensitive patient information remains private" and that it planned to continue aggressively defending the ban passed by Congress last year, according to the Times story.
"Both the United States District Court and Court of Appeals made a fundamental finding that the significant intrusion into patient privacy outweighed the government's need for these records to prove its case," according to a March 26 statement from Northwestern Memorial Hospital. "We are pleased with this result and the reassurance it provides to our patients."
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Compliance Monitor!
Related Products
Most Popular
- Articles
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- Identify potential Medicaid RAC target areas
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- Topic: CMS, OESS post new security compliance review information, checklist
- Capturing all necessary codes for IUD insertion and removal can be challenging
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- OB services: Coding inside and outside of the package
- QA:Coding multiple initial infusions
- E-mailed
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- CMS has reformulated payments for some bilateral procedures
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- Q&A: Follow CMS' coding guidelines when using modifier -25
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- New conflicts of interest create new challenges
- Q/A. One injection code or two?
- Cohesive History and Physical Requirements
- Searched
