yuk! (I'm sorry I asked...)
I suppose that several fields could be added to every transaction to
indicate whether the patient or the patient's legal representative had made
some special request about disclosing information. Or a general "privacy
attachment" could be created to contain any conceivable special privacy
request, and then a single flag in the main transaction could indicate
"special privacy handling... see attachment".
-Chris
At 03:50 PM 8/3/01 -0500, Susan Warren wrote:
>That's a really good question, how exactly do we communicate these
>situations with each other, and do we have to? My first impression would
>be that the individual would have the responsibility to make the same
>request to anyone that would touch their PHI. But that is quite a burden
>on the idividual. On the other hand, expecting all the covered entities
>to communicate this request among each other is an even larger burden -
>one where a covered entity (and who knows which one) would have to assume
>the risk involved with missing a critical link.
>
>On the same line, but a little off the subject, I am also curious how we
>are supposed to tag data in which the individual requested an amendment to
>their PHI that wasn't granted. Doesn't the rule say that we always have
>to tag that data and link it to the individual's disagreement?
>
> >>> "Christopher J. Feahr, OD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 8/3/01 3:35:13 PM >>>
>It sounds like the particular methods for receiving and implementing these
>special requests about disclosure are left up to the disclosing party...
>just so they accommodate them whenever they arise? Would there be any
>obligation to pass these special requests along to others who would have
>the right (under normal circumstances) to disclose the information to other
>parties? Is there any field in the 835 to indicate that payment
>information for this payee requires "special handling"?
>
>Thanks,
>-Chris
>
>At 03:18 PM 8/3/01 -0400, Ken Hoover wrote:
> >Yes, that was part of my question. I believe Susan answered it with her
> >statement:
> >
> >"You will have to allow for a "Confidential Communication" method -
> >if an individual reasonably requests that their information be sent to
> >another address because it could potentially cause them harm - but I don't
> >see this being the norm."
> >
> >Is this "Confidential Communication" part of the existing HIPAA regulations?
> >Or some other type of law?
> >
> >Ken
>
>Christopher J. Feahr, OD Vision Data Standards Council
>Executive Director http://visiondatastandard.org
>Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Christopher J. Feahr, OD Vision Data Standards Council
Executive Director http://visiondatastandard.org
Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**********************************************************************
To be removed from this list, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please note that it may take up to 72 hours to process your request.
