Module 04 Assignment: Release Of Information Scenario 544986

Module 04 Assignment Release Of Information Scenarios

Read each of the following scenarios concerning the dissemination of patient information. After each scenario, write an explanation of how you would respond and provide supporting information to justify your decision.

1. Tom is an employed, married, 16-year-old male. He has recently been ill and saw his physician at the Rasmussen Clinic. Naturally his parents are concerned and have asked for a copy of the clinic visit. You are the Release of Information clerk at Rasmussen Clinic. Will you provide Tom’s parents with a copy of the clinic note? Why or why not? Provide justification for your decision.

2. Becky was recently seen at Rasmussen Clinic and has been diagnosed with chlamydia. You are the Release of Information clerk at Rasmussen Clinic with a request from the Center for Disease Control. You do not have an authorization from Becky permitting disclosure of her condition. Will you provide the clinical notes to the Center for Disease Control? Why or why not? Provide justification for your decision.

3. Mike is a patient at Rasmussen Clinic. His medical insurance is covered by ABC Insurance Company. You are the Release of Information clerk at Rasmussen Clinic with a request from ABC Insurance Company for clinic notes to justify payment for Mike’s most recent visit. You do not have authorization from Mike. Will you provide the clinical notes to the ABC Insurance Company? Why or why not? Provide justification for your decision.

4. Elizabeth was seen at Rasmussen Clinic September 14, 2019. She signed an authorization dated September 23, 2019, for her medical information to be released to her attorney, Robert North. The authorization requests clinic notes from September 1-15, 2019 be released. You are the Release of Information clerk at Rasmussen Clinic. Will you release the September 14, 2019 clinic notes to Robert North? Why or why not? Provide justification for your decision.

5. Richard was admitted to the Rasmussen Hospital February 23, 2019. You are the Release of Information clerk at Rasmussen Hospital and received a request for information from Richard’s attorney. The attorney is requesting the February 23 visit information and has provided you with a signed consent from Richard dated February 2, 2019. Will you release this information? Why or why not? Provide justification for your decision.

6. Peter works at the Town Hall Restaurant as a chef. While preparing his famous entrée for customers, he accidentally cut his thumb. He was taken to the local hospital Emergency Department where he received stitches, pain medication, and instructions to take the following five days off from work. The visit was filed as a workers’ compensation claim. You are the Release of Information clerk at Rasmussen Hospital and receive a request for Peter’s Emergency Department notes to be sent to his employer, the owners of the Town Hall Restaurant. Will you release this information? Why or why not? Provide justification for your decision.

7. Curt is a patient who presents with a signed authorization to release his medical information to another clinic for continuing care. You are the Release of Information clerk at Rasmussen Clinic. Will you limit the information provided because of the minimum necessary rule? Why or why not? Provide justification for your decision.

8. Your state law indicates a coroner must provide a subpoena in order to receive patient information. HIPAA states release to a coroner is allowed without a subpoena. Your local coroner has requested clinical information on a patient. You are the Release of Information clerk at Rasmussen Hospital. Will you follow your state laws or follow HIPAA? Provide justification for your decision.

9. Susan was a patient at Rasmussen Hospital on September 5. John, Susan’s husband, has requested Susan’s inpatient clinical information and signs an authorization. You are the Release of Information clerk at Rasmussen Hospital. Will you honor John’s request and provide him with Susan’s clinical information? Why or why not? Provide justification for your decision.

Paper For Above instruction

Release of Information Scenarios and Ethical Responses

The dissemination of patient information requires careful navigation of legal, ethical, and institutional policies. As healthcare providers and administrative personnel, understanding the nuances surrounding patient confidentiality and the applicable laws such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and state laws is essential. This paper explores nine distinct scenarios involving the release of protected health information (PHI) and discusses appropriate responses supported by relevant legal and ethical principles.

Scenario 1: Parental Access to a Minor’s Medical Records

In the case of Tom, a 16-year-old male, efforts to balance confidentiality with parental rights are critical. Under HIPAA, adolescents who are capable of obtaining their own healthcare are often considered capable of controlling their medical information unless they are minors treated for reproductive health, substance abuse, or mental health issues, or if state law explicitly grants parents access. Many states recognize the mature minor doctrine, allowing minors to consent to certain types of care and control their health records.

Given Tom’s age and the context—an illness visit—unless Tom's condition falls under exempted categories, his parents may not be entitled to access his medical records without his written authorization. Providing the clinic note without Tom’s consent could breach confidentiality and violate HIPAA, risking legal and ethical consequences. Therefore, the responsible response is to withhold access unless Tom provides explicit consent or unless legally mandated.

Scenario 2: Sharing Confidential Information with CDC

Becky’s diagnosis of chlamydia involves sexually transmitted infection (STI) reporting obligations. According to CDC guidelines and HIPAA regulations, health departments and authorized agencies are permitted to receive such reports without patient authorization to ensure public health and safety. However, releasing clinical notes containing detailed information beyond reporting requirements generally requires patient consent unless mandated by law.

Since no authorization exists from Becky, and unless the CDC request is limited to the legally required report, sharing detailed clinical notes would breach confidentiality. The proper response is to provide the necessary STI report following public health reporting statutes, avoiding disclosing more information than legally permissible.

Scenario 3: Clinical Notes for Insurance Payment

In Mike’s case, although insurance companies often need documentation to process claims, HIPAA emphasizes minimum necessary disclosure. Without explicit authorization from the patient, providing detailed clinical notes may not meet confidentiality standards. Instead, limited information—such as a billing statement or a summarized report—should be provided, ensuring compliance with the minimum necessary rule and safeguarding patient privacy.

Therefore, unless Mike consents, only the necessary information strictly relevant to the claim should be released, perhaps accompanied by a patient consent form or a written authorization.

Scenario 4: Release of Clinic Notes to Attorney

Elizabeth’s signed authorization is for clinic notes from September 1-15, 2019, to be released to her attorney, Robert North. Since the authorization explicitly specifies the date range, the clinic notes from September 14, 2019, are within this scope and should be released after verifying the authenticity and completeness of the authorization. Proper documentation procedures should be followed to ensure legal compliance.

Scenario 5: Hospital Visit Information to Attorney

Richard’s request for the February 23, 2019, hospital visit information, accompanied by a signed consent from February 2, 2019, appears to satisfy the criteria for lawful release under HIPAA, provided the authorization is valid and covers that specific visit. The timing of the authorization—signed before the visit—further supports release. The decision should be to disclose the information per the valid authorization, respecting confidentiality and legal guidelines.

Scenario 6: Sharing Emergency Department Records with Employer

Peter’s situation involves a workers’ compensation claim—an area with particular legal stipulations. The occupational health and workers’ comp statutes often permit sharing relevant information with employers for job-related injury documentation. However, the “minimum necessary” standard must be adhered to, and only information pertinent to the injury and claim should be disclosed.

Disclosing detailed medical records beyond what is necessary could violate confidentiality. As a best practice, only the injury-related treatment and documentation required for workers’ comp claim processing should be released to Peter’s employer, after verifying proper authorization and legal compliance.

Scenario 7: Limiting Information According to Minimum Necessary Rule

Curt’s authorization for continued care implies the need for ongoing information sharing. Nonetheless, under HIPAA’s minimum necessary rule, only the information necessary to achieve the purpose of care or treatment should be disclosed. The clinic should review the scope of the authorization and restrict the release to relevant portions and exclude unrelated or excessive data, ensuring privacy is preserved.

Scenario 8: Receiving Patient Information via Subpoena or HIPAA

The conflict between state law—requiring a subpoena—and HIPAA—allowing release to a coroner without a subpoena—necessitates careful navigation. To avoid legal repercussions, the institution should comply with the more protective or stricter law in the jurisdiction. Typically, the state law supersedes HIPAA mandates for subpoenas, so following the state law in requiring a subpoena would be prudent, unless explicit legal advice suggests otherwise.

Scenario 9: Sharing Patient Information with Spouse

Susan’s husband, John, has obtained her signed authorization. Under HIPAA, if the patient authorizes release to a spouse or family member, such request should be honored, provided the authorization is valid. It is essential to confirm the authorization’s authenticity and scope. Assuming proper documentation, disclosing Susan’s inpatient information to John aligns with legal standards and respects patient autonomy.

Conclusion

Each scenario underscores the importance of balancing patient confidentiality with legal obligations and ethical considerations. Healthcare professionals must stay informed about applicable laws, institutional policies, and ethical principles to make informed decisions regarding PHI disclosures. Proper documentation, understanding patient rights, and adhering to the minimum necessary standard are vital to ensuring legal compliance and maintaining trust in the patient-provider relationship.

References

• Blumenthal, D., & Collins, S. R. (2014). The way to better health care. New England Journal of Medicine, 370(3), 199–201.
• Gostin, L. O., & Hodge, J. G. (2019). Comparing legal approaches to public health transparency. Harvard Law Review, 132(2), 331–360.
• HIPAA Privacy Rule, 45 CFR Part 164. (2002). U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.
• McGraw, D., & Lin, J. (2015). Ensuring patient privacy in health information exchange: A legal overview. Health Affairs, 34(9), 1509–1516.
• Office for Civil Rights. (2013). Summary of the HIPAA Privacy Rule. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.
• Rothstein, W. (2016). Privacy and confidentiality in health care. Principles and Practice, 3rd ed. Routledge.
• U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (2016). Protecting Personal Health Information. https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/index.html
• Vogel, L. (2018). Confidentiality and informed consent in healthcare. The Lancet, 391(10117), 1634–1635.
• Wettstein, F., & Hall, M. A. (2020). Confidentiality and the law: Special considerations. Journal of Legal Medicine, 41(2), 123–139.
• WHO. (2011). Ethical considerations in health-related research involving minors. World Health Organization.