Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Something to Ponder....10/24

One of the areas that we forget to take into account when we transmit records is the fax. Merely stating that "if you weren't supposed to get the fax, you should destroy it" doesn't meet HIPAA standards of PHI protection.

Who is responsible for any breach? The sender.

Received a comment about the circumstances involving the North Campus patient that PRMC accused me of violating HIPAA about. Then I realized: The only way someone could identify the patient was if they had been given information by the family. Or if someone had access to the PHI. I still don't know the patient's name, nor do I want to.

And, yes, it came as an anonymous comment.

Tomorrow, oral arguments will be given in Texarkana as to forcing Suddenlink to disclose my identity. That is all it is for. It has no bearing on the accusations that PRMC has, it only says that the court can or cannot compel the internet provider to disclose without proof of an actual offense, merely by accusation.

Should the court rule in my favor, Essent still has the option of attempting to prove their accusations to a sufficient standard for disclosure. The bar will just have been raised a bit higher. And, rather than making an end run around the system, the means and the goal will be in their proper order.

Is this over? Probably not.


Annonyomus said...

My thoughts and prayers will be with you tomorrow. James do your best stuff on this one or Suddenlink may loose a lot of customers. Word of mouth goes a long way. May it be on our side.

Anonymous said...

Today is the day. Call Suddenlink and tell them you will discontinue your subscription if Frank's identity is revealed.

Start calling when they open and call all day. Be respectful. Ask to speak to a supervisor.

I know for a fact this has already begun.

Anonymous said...

I still say we need to get the ACLU involved in this!!

fac_p said...

I appreciate the sentiment, but today's appeal is based on procedural review, rather than merit.

Suddenlink may be present, but it's going to be Judge McDowell's work that is judged...our position being that he was not following existing Texas law.

Suddenlink's time to submit an objection was at the first hearing, or when the briefs were submitted in September. Since they are part of the industry, they would (or should) have had more information available than either Essent or James had initially.

There are two expected ways the court can rule, and unless they come up with a zinger, we'll probably know today, or at least this week.

But, should we actually get back to the allegations that powered this disclosure order, the discovery phase is going to produce some interesting results.

fac_p said...

PRMC is certainly focused on what they can learn from my email. I'm interested in what I can learn from theirs, peer reviews, and the like under a subpoena duces tecum, and a deposition subpoena. That trumps a non-disclosure.

"Oh, I'm making my list, checking it twice...."

Wonder if Kevin would hire on as an elf?