Matt:
That is an interesting perspective, and one which I have wondered about myself. But I
wonder how far the concept can be stretched under the HIPAA Privacy Rule. For
example, one of the listserves a few months ago (I think it was a different one than
this one) was discussing the
John,
You are quite right that the proposed rule was modified, and that is why we
included BOTH versions in our second response to you. Our point is, that
based on that modification, HHS clarifies what it intends as the third
party.
I hope that this helps.
Your questions are always welcome.
Clarified it? They removed the limiting language -- they EXPANDED it, didn't they? :-)
Thanks for your thoughts, Matt, much appreciated. What do others think? Thanks, John
John C. Cody, Esq.
NYS Central HIPAA Coordination Project
NYS Office for Technology
John,
HHS made the modification, and then explained how come:
Specifically, we modify the proposed definition of “treatment” to include
the management of health care and related services. Under the definition,
the provision, coordination, or management of health care or related
services may be
Matt:
None of that gets to the issue -- that DHHS removed a limitation on the definition of
third parties. So thanks, but, sorry, those excerpts don't add to the issue, none
of that helps.
I'm going to chime out now ... and FYI I am out of the office for the next few days so
I won't be back
Sounds like some undue stress on a question that probably cannot be answered out of court. The regulatory language provides for no end of possible interpretations and we can only guess at what the courts will decide -- and they get the advantage of a specific set of circumstances (and, I think
I would also add to Dale's email that, unlike Dr. Fairley's
initial situation in which providers are sending PHI to non-treating pharmacies
(i.e., they have no relationship to the patient at the time of the disclosure),
in the case that John is describing, it would appear that the
