Federal HIPAA vs. LA Public Records Law

[sfd178]

Smurfe, I'm sure this is one that you know all about. It has to do with East Baton Rouge Parrish EMS and the 911 center there. Several News organizations have filed a lawsuit to obtain a copy of a 911 recording regarding a Lousianna elected official. The original request was denied citing it would be a HIPAA violation because the tape contained PHI. Lawyers are arguing that HIPAA does not supersede the state's act regarding access to public records. What does everyone think?


http://www.emsnetwork.org/artman/publish/article_14596.shtml

[IAMedic]

This may seem like an easy solution, but maybe I'm missing something. Subpeona the tapes and if the judge believes that they tapes reveal evidence that can be used in a trial, then he/she has the authority to release the tapes.

I know HIPAA is an issue, but if it went over the public broadcasting system (radio with all of scannerland listening), then I feel that it is public record.

[smurfe]

This is an interesting story here. My regular partner ran this call. She was on a shift swap so I am glad it wasn't me is all I can say.

As far as a subpoena, I would wonder if a judge would classify this as public record in regards to the news media. I do know what all of this stems from and no, my partner didn't violate HIPAA and tell me about it as actually I don't care, but I do know what the events are and why the media wants it. And no, I am not going to share it with anyone else so please don't PM and ask. :p That would be a HIPAA violation ;)

Guess we will see how much power and influence the news media has against HIPAA.

Smurfe :beer:

[btroutm]

First, let's not forget that federal law supersedes state law. That being said, there are ways around HIPAA. One option would be to go through the courts and let the judges sort things out. Another option would be to "edit" the tapes, bleeping out any protected information (this is the equivalent to blacking information out on a run form). The third option would be to ask the official for permission to release the tapes.

In my opinion, 911 tapes should be confidential and only accessible to legal authorities for investigative purposes. People should be free to call 911 without having to worry about how they sound on the 6 o'clock news.

[WELLAGEDEMT]

I've listened to a number of 911 recordings and have wondered who makes the decision to release them. The latest being a 5 yr old saying that her parents had been shot and the response of the dispatcher. I don't understand the reasoning for releasing this tape other than sensationalism or being hard up for attention by the law enforcement. HIPAA shouldn't allow this until the proper channels have cleared it. A 5yr old certainly doesn't understand waivers!! I agree that some people don't want to be heard on the news relating something private to a dispatcher at 4 AM. I feel that the agency that releases this type of information should be held accountable somehow!!!

Doesn't common sense enter the scene sometime or are we going to have to play by a set of rules that are interpeted by whoever to fit their whims. Nothing seems sacred anymore. I feel so violated!!!:rolleyes:

[smurfe]

One thing that surprises me is that none of our local papers were involved in this lawsuit. Guess it was just the one news corporation.

One thing I can add in regards to HIPAA and release of some tapes we here particularly the one Ray referred to, it is possible EMS did not transport these people or even be called to the scene if death was obvious when the police responded. If this happened then HIPAA would not apply. Remember, the police, 911 commissions per say are not bound by HIPAA.

Our communications is though as our department is the call takers for all 911 calls ans as we are an organization bound to HIPAA compliance they are protected. Also, since we are a municipal department our fire department is obligated to HIPAA even though we are different departments. Now in the community I live in, a private ambulance service provides service. They are obligated to HIPAA but the responding fire departments are not.

One final reminder, if you department does not bill for service particularly electronically and do not collect specific information, particularly the Social Security number, your department is not obligated to adhere to HIPAA.

The jist behind HIPAA is to protect any identifying items that would allow someone to submit a fraudulent bill for payment to insurance companies but more particularly, Medicare and Medicaid.

Smurfe :beer:

[WELLAGEDEMT]

There are a lot of people that use scanners in their homes and are privy to a lot of information due to the communication procedures of Law and EMS. We do try to use the cell phone as much as possible in critical situations. In the last month however, we have had a couple of calls that were dispatched with questionable information on the airways. Both were fatalities and some info leaked out in communication between responding parties. Some people on the streets were actually more informed than we were. It's a sorry day when we have to be so guarded with our reporting because someone is so SUE happy. There are times when we have no option but to use the Radio because we have "no service" areas. Code would be nice but it wouldn't take long for the scanner junkies to decipher the code. It would be fine with me if we had some room for compromise with HIPAA. Wishful thinking on my part!!!!!

[SteelMaiden]

Even cell phones are not necessarily secure:(

The whole "armchair medic" thing is my biggest pet peeve. We have a ton of people who live for listening in on EMS/Fire transmissions and then rehashing the results/treatments/outcomes to all their friends and relatives. Of course, the conversations always go something like this: "you know, it took the ambulance X amount of time to get there." "it's just a shame that it takes so long to get an ambulance." "What's wrong with those ambulance people that they can't get there faster?"

My favorite is, "What do they think they are getting paid for, so they can take their sweet time while someone is fixin ta die?" um, no, actually I was at home fixing a meal for my family, mowing the lawn, doing laundry and paying bills all at one time because I do this as a volunteer after I work 50 hours a week, when the page came out; the paid squad was across the county picking up a patient that had a stomach ache for three days and could have called their doctor, but instead waited until Saturday evening to do something about it. d'oh!

[WELLAGEDEMT]

Are phone calls from the Doctor to the patient covered under the HIPAA laws? Question comes up when the Doctor called my home phone and told whom ever answered the results of my pathology tests. It was not me and the party that answered the phone stated that He didn't even ask who he was talking to. This is not a hypothetical situation, it happened.

[IAMedic]

Yes, it is a violation Ray...It most surely is...not even your wife or evil twin is suppose to have access to that information. tsk, tsk...Do I even have to ask if it was the local and only doctor in town?? :confused: :bang:

[EMSsquirrel]

I've had my doctor's office do that. But usually I tell them who they can talk to. If I don't, they'll leave a number for me to call them at, or just say, "the test results were negative" or something like that. If I still understand correctly, HIPAA only applies to protected health information for an identifiable patient, so there's no violation in just saying, "tell him the results were negative," if they don't know what I was being tested for.

- Greg

[WELLAGEDEMT]

No, not a local doc, He's the one that did my cancer surgery.