Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information. Final Privacy Rule Preamble.. Section 164.512(e) - Disclosures for Judicial and Administrative Proceedings

12/28/2000

Comment: A few commenters suggested that the final rule not permit disclosures without an authorization for judicial and administrative proceedings.

Response: We disagree. Protected health information is necessary for a variety of reasons in judicial and administrative proceedings. Often it may be critical evidence that may or may not be about a party. Requiring an authorization for all such disclosures would severely impede the review of legal and administrative claims. Thus, we have tried to balance the need for the information with the individual's privacy. We believe the approach described above provides individuals with the opportunity to object to disclosures and provides a mechanism through which their privacy interests are taken into account.

Comment: A few commenters sought clarification about the interaction between permissible disclosures for judicial and administrative proceedings, law enforcement, and health oversight.

Response: In the final rule, we state that the provision permitting disclosures without an authorization for judicial and administrative proceedings does not supersede other provisions in § 164.512 that would otherwise permit or restrict the use or disclosure of protected health information. Additionally, in the descriptive preamble of § 164.512, we provide further explanation of how these provisions relate to one another.

Comments: Many commenters urged the Secretary to revise the rule to state that it does not preempt or supersede existing rules and statutes governing judicial proceedings, including rules of evidence, procedure, and discovery. One commenter asserted that dishonest health care providers and others should not be able to withhold their records by arguing that state subpoena and criminal discovery statutes compelling disclosure are preempted by the privacy regulation. Other commenters maintained that there is no need to replace providers' current practice, which typically requires either a signed authorization from the patient or a subpoena to release medical information.

Response: These comments are similar to many of the more general preemption comments we received. For a full discussion of the Secretary's response on preemption issues, see Part 160 - Subpart B.

Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed rule creates a conflict with existing rules and statutes governing judicial proceedings, including rules of evidence and discovery. This commenter stated that the rule runs afoul of state judicial procedures for enforcement of subpoenas that require judicial involvement only when a party seeks to enforce a subpoena.

Response: We disagree with this comment. The final rule permits covered entities to disclose protected health information for any judicial or administrative procedure in response to a subpoena, discovery request, or other lawful process if the covered entity has received satisfactory assurances that the party seeking the disclosure has made reasonable efforts to ensure that the individual has been given notice of the request or has made reasonable efforts to secure a qualified protective order from a court or administrative tribunal. A covered entity may disclose protected health information in response to a subpoena, discovery request, or other lawful process without a satisfactory assurance if it has made reasonable efforts to provide the individual with such notice or to seek a qualified protected order itself. These rules do not require covered entities or parties seeking the disclosure of protected health information to involve the judiciary; they may choose the notification option rather than seeking a qualified protective order.

Many states have already enacted laws that incorporate these concepts. In California, for instance, an individual must be given ten days notice that his or her medical records are being subpoenaed from a health care provider and state law requires that the party seeking the records furnishes the health care provider with proof that the notice was given to the individual. In Montana, a party seeking discovery or compulsory process of medical records must give notice to the individual at least ten days in advance of serving the request on a health care provider, Service of the request must be accompanied by written certification that the procedure has been followed. In Rhode Island, an individual must be given notice that his or her medical records are being subpoenaed and notice of his or her right to object. The party serving the subpoena on the health care provider must provide written certification to the provider that: (1) this procedure has been followed, (2) twenty days have passed from the date of service, and (3) no challenge has been made to the disclosure or the court has ordered disclosure after resolution of a legal court challenge. In Washington, an individual must be given at least fourteen days from the date of service of notice that his or her health information is the subject of a discovery request or compulsory process to obtain a protective order. The notice must identify the health care provider from whom the information is sought, specify the health care information that is sought, and the date by which a protective order must be obtained in order to prevent the provider from disclosing the information.

Comment: A few commenters expressed concern that the rule would place unnecessary additional burdens on health care providers because when they receive a request for disclosure in connection with an administrative or judicial procedure, they would have to determine whether the litigant's health was at issue before they made the disclosure. A number of commenters complained that this requirement would make it too easy for litigants to obtain protected health information. One commenter argued that litigants should not be able to circumvent state evidentiary rules that would otherwise govern disclosure of protected health information simply upon counsel's statement that the other party's medical condition or history is at issue.

Other commenters, however, urged that disclosure without authorization should be permitted whenever a patient places his or her medical condition or history at issue and recommended requiring the request for information to include a certification to this effect. Only if another party to litigation has raised a medical question, do these commenters believe a court order should be required. Similarly, one commenter supported a general requirement that disclosure without authorization be permitted only with a court order unless the patient has placed his or her physical or mental condition at issue.

Response: We agree with the concerns expressed by several commenters about this provision and has eliminated this requirement from the final rule.

Comment: A number of commenters stated that the proposed rule should be modified to permit disclosure without authorization pursuant to a lawful subpoena. One commenter argued that the provision would limit the scope of the Inspector General's subpoena power for judicial and administrative proceedings to information concerning a litigant whose health condition or history is at issue, and would impose a requirement that the Inspector General provide a written certification to that effect. Other commenters stated that the proposed rule would seriously impair the ability of state agencies to conduct administrative hearings on physician licensing and disciplinary matters. These commenters stated that current practice is to obtain information using subpoenas.

Other commenters argued that disclosure of protected health information for judicial and administrative proceedings should require a court order and/or judicial review unless the subject of the information consents to disclosure. These commenters believed that an attorney's certification should not be considered sufficient authority to override an individual's privacy, and that the proposed rule made it too easy for a party to litigation to obtain information about the other party.

Response: As a general matter, we agree with these comments. As noted, the final rule deletes the provision that would permit a covered entity to disclose protected health information pursuant to an attorney's certification that the individual is a party to the litigation and has put his or her medical condition at issue. Under the final rule, covered entities may disclose protected health information in response to a court or administrative order, provided that only the protected health information expressly authorized by the order is disclosed. Covered entities may also disclose protected health information in response to a subpoena, discovery request, or other lawful process without a court order, but only if the covered entity receives satisfactory assurances that the party seeking disclosure has made reasonable efforts to ensure that the individual has been notified of the request or that reasonable efforts have been made by the party seeking the information to secure a qualified protective order. Additionally, a covered entity may disclose protected health information in response to a subpoena, discovery request, or other lawful process without a satisfactory assurance if it makes reasonable efforts to provide the individual with such notice or to seek a qualified protected order itself.

We also note that the final rule specifically provides that nothing in Subchapter C should be construed to diminish the authority of any Inspector General, including authority provided in the Inspector General Act of 1978.

Comment: A number of commenters expressed concern that the proposed rule would not permit covered entities to introduce material evidence in proceedings in which, for example, the provisions of an insurance contract are at issue, or when a billing or payment issue is presented. They noted that although the litigant may be the owner of an insurance policy, he or she may not be the insured individual to whom the health information pertains. In addition, they stated that the medical condition or history of a deceased person may be at issue when the deceased person is not a party.

Response: We disagree. Under the final rule, a covered entity may disclose protected health information without an authorization pursuant to a court or administrative order. It may also disclose protected health information with an authorization for judicial or administrative proceedings in response to a subpoena, discovery request, or other lawful process without a court order, if the party seeking the disclosure provides the covered entity with satisfactory assurances that it has make reasonable efforts to ensure that the individual has been notified of the request or to seek a qualified protective order. Additionally, a covered entity may disclose protected health information in response to a subpoena, discovery request, or other lawful process without a satisfactory assurance if it makes reasonable efforts to provide the individual with such notice or to seek a qualified protected order itself. Therefore, a party may obtain the information even if the subject of the information is not a party to the litigation or deceased.

Comment: A few commenters argued that disclosure of protected health information should be limited only to those cases in which the individual has consented or a court order has been issued compelling disclosure.

Response: The Secretary believes that such an approach would impose an unreasonable burden on covered entities and the judicial system and that greater flexibility is necessary to assure that the judicial and administrative systems function smoothly. We understand that even those states that have enacted specific statutes to protect the privacy of health information have not imposed requirements as strict as these commenters would suggest.

Comment: Many commenters asked that the final rule require the notification of the disclosure be provided to the individual whose health information is subject to disclosure prior to the disclosure as part of a judicial or administrative proceeding. Most of these commenters also asked that the rule require that the individual who is the subject of a disclosure be given an opportunity to object to the disclosure. A few commenters suggested that patients be given ten days to object before requested information may be disclosed and recommend that the rule require the requester to provide a certification that notice has been provided and that ten days have passed with no objection from the subject of the information. Some commenters suggested that if a subpoena for disclosure is not accompanied by a court order, the covered entities be prohibited from disclosing protected health information unless the individual has been given notice and an opportunity to object. Another commenter recommended requiring, in most circumstances, notice and an opportunity to object before a court order is issued and requiring the requestor of information to provide a signed document attesting the date of notification and forbid disclosure until ten days after notice is given.

Response: We agree that in some cases the provision of notice with an opportunity to object to the disclosure is appropriate. Thus, in the final rule we provide that a covered entity may disclose protected health information in response to a subpoena, discovery request or other lawful process that is not accompanied by a court order if it receives satisfactory assurance from the party seeking the request that the requesting party has made a good faith attempt to provide written notice to the individual that includes sufficient information about the litigation or proceeding to permit the individual to raise an objection to the court or administrative tribunal and that the time for the individual to raise objections has elapsed (and that none were filed or all have been resolved). Covered entities may make reasonable efforts to provide such notice as well.

In certain instances, however, the final rule permits covered entities to disclose protected health information for judicial and administrative proceedings without notice to the individual if the party seeking the request has made reasonable efforts to seek a qualified protective order, as described in the rule. A covered entity may also make reasonable efforts to seek a qualified protective order in order to make the disclosure. Additionally, a covered entity may disclose protected health information for judicial and administrative proceedings in response to an order of a court or administrative tribunal provided that the disclosure is limited to only that information that is expressly authorized by the order. The Secretary believes notice is not necessary in these instances because a court or administrative tribunal is in the best position to evaluate the merits of the arguments of the party seeking disclosure and the party who seeks to block it before it issues the order and that imposing further procedural obstacles before a covered entity may honor that disclosure request is unnecessary.

Comment: Many commenters urged the Secretary to require specific criteria for court and administrative orders. Many of these commenters proposed that a provision be added to the rule that would require court and administrative orders to safeguard the disclosure and use of protected health information. These commenters urged that the information sought must be relevant and material, as specific and narrowly drawn as reasonably practicable, and only disclosed if de-identified information could not reasonably be used.

Response: The Secretary's authority is limited to covered entities. Therefore, we do not impose requirements on courts and administrative tribunals. However, we note that the final rule limits the permitted disclosures by covered entities in court or administrative proceedings to only that information which is specified in the order from a court or an administrative body should provide a degree of protection for individuals from unnecessary disclosure.

Comment: Several commenters asked that the "minimum necessary" standard not apply to disclosures made pursuant to a court order because individuals could then use the rule to contest the scope of discovery requests. However, many other commenters recommended that the rule permit disclosure only of information "reasonably necessary" to respond to a subpoena. These commenters raised concerns with applying the "minimum necessary" standard in judicial and administrative proceedings, but did not believe the holder of protected health information should have blanket authority to disclose all protected health information. Some of the commenters urged that disclosure of any information about third parties that may be included in the medical records of another person - for example, the HIV status of a partner - be prohibited. Finally, some commenters disagreed with the proposed rule because it did not require covered entities to evaluate the validity of subpoenas and discovery requests to determine whether these requests ask for the "minimum necessary" or "reasonably necessary" amount of information.

Response: Under the final rule, if the disclosure is pursuant to an order of a court or administrative tribunal, covered entities may disclose only the protected health information expressly authorized by the order. In these instances, a covered entity is not required to make a determination whether or not the order might otherwise meet the minimum necessary requirement.

If the disclosure is pursuant to a satisfactory assurance from the party seeking the disclosure, at least a good faith attempt has been made to notify the individual in writing of the disclosure before it is made or a the parties have sought a qualified protective order that prohibits them from using or disclosing the protected health information for any purpose of than the litigation or proceeding for which the information was requested and that the information will be returned to the covered entity or destroyed at the end of the litigation or the proceeding. Alternatively, the covered entity may seek such notice or qualified protective order itself. This approach provides the individual with protections and places the burden on the parties to resolve their differences about the appropriateness and scope of disclosure as part of the judicial or administrative procedure itself before the order is issued, rather than requiring the covered entity to get involved in evaluating the merits of the dispute in order to determine whether or not the particular request is appropriate or too broad. In these cases, the covered entity must disclose only the protected health information that is the minimum amount necessary to achieve the purpose for which the information is sought.

We share the concern of the commenters that covered entities should redact any information about third parties before disclosing an individual's protected health information. During the fact-finding stage of our consideration of revisions to the proposed rule, we discussed this issue with representatives of covered entities. Currently, information about third parties is sometimes redacted by medical records personnel responding to requests for information. In particular, information regarding HIV status is treated with special sensitivity by these professionals. Although we considered including a special provision in the final rule prohibiting such disclosure, we decided that the revisions made to the proposed rule would provide sufficient protection. By restricting disclosure of protected health information to only that information specified in a court or administrative order or released pursuant to other types of lawful process only if the individual had notice and an opportunity to object or if the information was subject to a protective order, individuals who are concerned about disclosure of information concerning third parties will have the opportunity to raise that issue prior to the request for disclosure being presented to the covered entity. We are reluctant to put the covered entity in the position of having to resolve disputes concerning the type of information that may be disclosed when that dispute should more appropriately be settled through the judicial or administrative procedure itself.

Comment: One commenter asked that the final regulation clarify that a court order is not required when disclosure would otherwise be permitted under the rule. This commenter noted that the preamble states that the requirement for a court order would not apply if the disclosure would otherwise be permitted under the rule. For example, disclosures of protected health information pursuant to administrative, civil, and criminal proceedings relating to "health oversight" are permitted, even if no court or administrative orders have been issued. However, the commenter was concerned that this principle only appeared in the preamble and not in the rule itself.

Response: Section 164.512(e)(4) of the final regulation contains this clarification.

Comment: One commenter was concerned that the rule is unclear as to whether governmental entities are given a special right to "use" protected health information that private parties do not have under the proposed regulation or whether governmental entities that seek or use protected health information are treated the same as private parties in their use of such information. This commenter urged that we clarify our intent regarding the use of protected health information by governmental entities.

Response: Generally governmental entities are treated the same as private entities under the rule. In a few clearly defined cases, a special rule applies. For instance, under § 164.504(e)(3), when a covered entity and its business associate are both governmental entities, they may enter into a memorandum of understanding or adopt a regulation with the force and effect of law that incorporates the requirements of a business associate contract, rather than having to negotiate a business associate contract itself.

Comment: One commenter recommended that final rule state that information developed as part of a quality improvement or medical error reduction program may not be disclosed under this provision. The commenter explained that peer review information developed to identify and correct systemic problems in delivery of care must be protected from disclosure to allow a full discussion of the root causes of such events so they may be identified and addressed. According to the commenter, this is consistent with peer review protections afforded this information by the states.

Response: The question of whether or not such information should be protected is currently the subject of debate in Congress and in the states. It would be premature for us to adopt a position on this issue until a clear consensus emerges. Under the final rule, no special protection against disclosure is provided for peer review information of the type the commenter describes. However, unless the request for disclosure fits within one of the categories of permitted or required disclosures under the regulation, it may not be disclosed. For instance, if disclosure of peer review information is required by another law (such as Medicare or a state law), covered entities subject to that law may disclose protected health information consistent with the law.

Comment: One commenter stated that the requirements of this section are in conflict with Medicare contractor current practices, as defined by the HCFA Office of General Counsel and suggested that the final rule include more specific guidelines.

Response: Because the commenter failed to indicate the nature of these conflicts, we are unable to respond.

Comment: One commenter stated that the rule should require rather than permit disclosure pursuant to court orders.

Response: Under the statutory framework adopted by Congress in HIPAA, a presumption is established that the data contained in an individual's medical record belongs to the individual and must be protected from disclosure to third parties. The only instance in which covered entities holding that information must disclose it is if the individual requests access to the information himself or herself. In the final rule (as in the proposed rule), covered entities may use or disclose protected health information under certain enumerated circumstances, but are not required to do so. We do not believe that this basic principle should be compromised merely because a court order has been issued. Consistent with this principle, we provide covered entities with the flexibility to deal with circumstances in which the covered entity may have valid reasons for declining to release the protected health information without violating this regulation.

Comment: One commenter noted that in some states, public health records are not subject to discovery, and that the proposed rule would not permit disclosure of protected health information pursuant to court order or subpoena if the disclosure is not allowed by state law. The commenter requested clarification as to whether a subpoena in a federal civil action would require disclosure if a state law prohibiting the release of public health records existed.

Response: As explained above, the final rule permits, but does not require, disclosure of protected health information pursuant to a court order. Under the applicable preemption provisions of HIPAA, state laws relating to the privacy of medical information that are more stringent than the federal rules are not preempted. To the extent that an applicable state law precludes disclosure of protected health information that would otherwise be permitted under the final rule, state law governs.

Comment: A number of commenters expressed concern that the proposed rule would negatively impact state and federal benefits programs, particularly social security and workers' compensation. One commenter requested that the final rule remove any possible ambiguity about application of the rule to the Social Security Administration's (SSA) evidence requests by permitting disclosure to all administrative level of benefit programs. In addition, several commenters stated that requiring SSA or states to provide the covered entity holding the protected health information with an individual's consent before it could disclose the information would create a huge administrative and paperwork burden with no added value to the individual. In addition, several other commenters indicated that states that make disability determinations for SSA also support special accommodation for SSA's determination process. They expressed concern that providers will narrowly interpret the HIPAA requirements, resulting in significant increases in processing time and program costs for obtaining medical evidence (especially purchased consultative examinations when evidence of record cannot be obtained). A few commenters were especially concerned about the impact on states and SSA if the final rule were to eliminate the NPRM's provision for a broad consent for "all evidence from all sources."

Some commenters also note that it would be inappropriate for a provider to make a minimum necessary determination in response to a request from SSA because the provider usually will not know the legal parameters of SSA's programs, or have access to the individual's other sources of evidence. In addition, one commenter urged the Secretary to be sensitive to these concerns about delay and other negative impacts on the timely determination of disability by SSA for mentally impaired individuals.

Response: Under the final rule, covered entities may disclose protected health information pursuant to an administrative order so the flow of protected health information from covered entities to SSA and the states should not be disrupted.

Although some commenters urged that special rules should be included for state and federal agencies that need protected health information, the Secretary rejects that suggestion because, wherever possible, the public and the private sectors should operate under the same rules regarding the disclosure of health information. To the extent the activities of SSA constitute an actual administrative tribunal, covered entities must follow the requirements of § 164.512(e), if they wish to disclose protected health information to SSA in those circumstances. Not all administrative inquiries are administrative tribunals, however. If SSA's request for protected health information comes within another category of permissible exemptions, a covered entity, following the requirements of the applicable section, may disclose the information to SSA. For example, if SSA seeks information for purposes of health oversight, a covered entity that wishes to disclose the information to SSA may do so under § 164.512(d) and not § 164.512(e). If the disclosure does not come within one of the other permissible disclosures would a covered entity need to meet the requirements of § 164.512(e). If the SSA request does not come within another permissible disclosure, the agency will be treated like anyone else under the rules.

The Secretary recognizes that even under current circumstances, professional medical records personnel do not always respond unquestioningly to an agency's request for health information. During the fact finding process, professionals charged with managing provider response to requests for protected health information indicated to us that when an agency's request for protected health information is over broad, the medical records professional will contact the agency and negotiate a more limited request. In balancing the interests of individuals against the need of governmental entities to receive protected health information, we think that applying the minimum necessary standard is appropriate and that covered entities should be responsible for ensuring that they disclose only that protected health information that is necessary to achieve the purpose for which the information is sought.

Comment: In a similar vein, one commenter expressed concern that the proposed rule would adversely affect the informal administrative process usually followed in processing workers' compensation claims. Using formal discovery is not always possible, because some programs do not permit it. The commenter urged that the final rule must permit administrative agencies, employers, and workers' compensation carriers to use less formal means to obtain relevant medical evidence while the matter is pending before the agency. This commenter asked that the rule be revised to permit covered entities to disclose protected health information without authorization for purposes of federal or state benefits determinations at all levels of processing, from the initial application through continuing disability reviews.

Response: If the disclosure is required by a law relating to workers' compensation, a covered entity may disclose protected health information as authorized by and to the extent necessary to comply with that law under § 164.512(l). If the request for protected health information in connection with a workers' compensation claim is part of an administrative proceeding, a covered entity must meet the requirements set forth in § 164.512(e), and discussed above, before disclosing the information. As noted, one permissible manner by which a covered entity may disclose protected health information under § 164.512(e) is if the party seeking the disclosure makes reasonable efforts to provide notice to the individual as required by this provision. Under this method, the less formal process noted by the commenter would not be disturbed. Covered entity may disclose protected health information in response to other types of requests only as permitted by this regulation.