HITECH accounting of disclosures proposed rule released
HIM Connection, June 7, 2011
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to HIM Connection!
On May 27 HHS released a display copy of the Accounting of Disclosures proposed rule as required by HITECH legislation.
The rule will ultimately lay the foundation for the responsibilities of healthcare providers in terms of patient requests for disclosures on their electronic medical records. HITECH expands individuals’ rights to request accounts of disclosures.
It also includes a new right for patients to request an “access report,” which will tell patients who accessed and viewed their PHI. This right was not included in HITECH legislation.
“We believe that these changes to the accounting requirements will provide information of value to individuals while placing a reasonable burden on covered entities and business associates,” according to the rule. “The process of creating a full accounting of disclosures is generally a manual, expensive, and time consuming process for covered entities and business associates.”
The Office for Civil Rights (OCR), HIPAA privacy and security rule enforcer, published a notice in May 2010 asking for help crafting the rule.
OCR wanted to “better understand the interests of individuals with respect to learning of such disclosures, the administrative burden on covered entities and business associates of accounting for such disclosures, and other information that may inform [our] rulemaking in this area.”
Current law exempts accounting for disclosures made for treatment, payment, and healthcare operations purposes. However, per HITECH, patients must now be able to request these types of electronic disclosures.
Editor’s note: For the latest information, visit the HIPAA Update blog.
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to HIM Connection!
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
- Topic: CMS, OESS post new security compliance review information, checklist
- Capturing all necessary codes for IUD insertion and removal can be challenging
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- QA:Coding multiple initial infusions
- News and briefs: Oklahoma Osteopathic Association against residency bill change
- OB services: Coding inside and outside of the package
- 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
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- CMS has reformulated payments for some bilateral procedures
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- New conflicts of interest create new challenges
- Q&A: Follow CMS' coding guidelines when using modifier -25
- Q/A. One injection code or two?
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- ED-to-inpatient transfers are flawed with safety gaps
- Searched
