Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information. Final Privacy Rule Preamble.. C. Summary of Public Comments

12/28/2000

The Department received only a few comments regarding the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) contained in the NPRM. A number of commenters argued that the estimates IRFA were too low or incomplete. The estimates were incomplete to the extent that a number of significant policy provisions in the proposal were not estimated because of too little information at the time. In the final IRFA we have estimates for these provisions. As for the estimates being too low, the Department has sought as much information as possible. The methodology employed for allocating costs to the small business sectors is explained in the following section.

Most of the other comments pertaining to the IRFA criticized specific estimates in the NPRM. Generally, the commenters argued that certain cost elements were not included in the cost estimates presented in the NPRM. The Department has expanded our description of our data and methodology in both the final RIA and this final RFA to try to clarify the data and assumptions made and the rationale for using them.

Finally, a number of commenters suggested that small entities be exempted from coverage from the final rule, or that they be given more time to comply. As the Department has explained in the Response to Comment section above, such changes were considered but rejected. Small entities constitute the vast majority of all entities that are covered; to exempt them would essentially nullify the purpose of the rule. Extensions were also considered but rejected. The rule does not take effect for two years, which is ample time for small entities to learn about the rule and make the necessary changes to come into compliance.