Battle over minors’ privacy waged in Indiana
Compliance Monitor, April 27, 2005
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Compliance Monitor!
A fight over patient privacy and government access to medical records is playing out in an Indiana courtroom, the Indianapolis Star reported April 19, as Planned Parenthood of Indiana has filed suit seeking to block the state's attorney general from gaining access to the records of patients who are younger than 14.
According to the Star's report, children younger than 14 who have had sex are considered victims of sex crimes under Indiana statute. Deputy Attorney General Thomas Fisher said in court that his office needs the records to ensure that children are not being abused. The state also maintains that clinics--including those operated by organizations such as Planned Parenthood--have an obligation to report any unlawful treatment, such as abuse.
Planned Parenthood's attorney, Kenneth Falk, countered that if the state is successful in its requests for records, it might prove dangerous because it could sway minors away from seeking reproductive healthcare, the Star reported.
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Compliance Monitor!
Related Products
-
Strategies for Health Care Compliance
News and real-life examples to increase the effectiveness of your compliance program. Strategies for Health Care Compliance...
-
Compliance Monitor
This HTML e-mail newsletter delivers news on Medicare and Medicaid fraud and abuse, as well as recent documents and targets...
-
Medicare Weekly Update
Each issue of Medicare Weekly Update includes the latest CMS proposed and final rules, CMS manual revisions, and...
-
Medicare Update for Physician Services
Medicare Update for Physician Services is a free, monthly e-zine that delivers news and information to help physician...
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?
- Do not code 57288 with 52000
- Searched