Advertisement

July 23, 2014

Gun Violence Prompts HHS to Release Letter on Disclosures of Protected Health Information to Avert Threats to Health or Safety

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights ("OCR") issued a letter to health care providers clarifying the providers' ability under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA") Privacy Rule to disclose necessary information about patients to avert threats to health or safety. OCR explained that providers may take action, consistent with ethical standards and other legal obligations, to disclose necessary information about a patient to law enforcement, family members of the patient, or other persons when providers believe the patient presents a serious danger to himself or other people.

OCR Secretary Leon Rodriguez issued the letter in response to recent mass shootings in Newtown, Connecticut and Aurora, Colorado. The letter does not introduce a new requirement or standard for providers. Rather, the letter serves as a reminder that when considering whether to disclose protected health information to avert threats, providers are required to balance safety with patient privacy and that in some instances, safety will be paramount to privacy. HIPAA is not a barrier to making disclosures under these circumstances.

OCR Guidance

In its letter, OCR explains that the Privacy Rule balances the privacy of patient protected health information with the need to ensure that information may be appropriately used or disclosed when necessary for the patient's treatment, to protect the nation's public health, and for other critical purposes. According to OCR, one such critical purpose is the disclosure of otherwise confidential information when providers warn law enforcement or others that individuals may be at risk of harm because of a patient. In such circumstances, providers are presumed to act in good faith based on the provider's interaction with the patient or based on a credible report from a person with apparent knowledge of the patient or other individual. Such provider warnings must be made consistent with other applicable law, including state law (see below for more on Wisconsin state law).

OCR's letter emphasizes that in order to avert threats to health or safety, information from mental health records may be disclosed, as necessary, to certain individuals who may reasonably be able to prevent or lessen the risk of harm. Consequently, if a patient makes a credible threat, a mental health provider may alert police, a parent or family member of a patient, school administrators, campus police and others who may be able to intervene without violating HIPAA. However, OCR cautions that providers should abide by state law in addition to federal law governing alcohol and drug abuse ("AODA") treatment records (42 C.F.R. Part 2).

Wisconsin Law

The OCR letter is generally consistent with Wisconsin law which has established that mental health professionals have a duty to exercise reasonable care in the treatment of their patients by warning others of threats of harm by the patient. In Schuster v. Altenberg (Wisconsin's version of the Tarasoff case), the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the duty to warn extends to whatever steps are reasonably necessary under the circumstances, including contacting the police, recommending or requiring hospitalization, or notifying a family member or friend who can help ensure safety.

Despite a provider's duty to warn, Wisconsin's privacy statutes do not expressly permit the disclosure of mental health records for this purpose. As a result, Wisconsin providers may disclose otherwise confidential information to avert threats, but providers should limit the information to be disclosed to only that information which is essential to avert or lessen the threat.

We are aware that the legislature will make efforts during this legislative session to amend Section 51.30 of the Wisconsin Statutes, which protects the privacy of mental health records. A goal of the effort is to align the privacy provisions of Wisconsin law with HIPAA. This legislative effort may present an opportunity to amend Section 51.30 to expressly permit disclosure of mental health information and records to avert threats.

What Does This Mean For Wisconsin Providers – A Balancing Test

If a health care provider has reason to believe that a patient poses a threat to self or others, the provider may disclose otherwise confidential information about the patient in order to warn law enforcement, intended targets of the harm, or members of the patient's family. However, the provider should not disclose a patient's complete treatment record.

Providers must balance safety and patient privacy to assess what confidential information is reasonably necessary to provide notice to officials or individuals so that they may appropriately intervene to prevent or lessen a threat to health or safety. This balancing test takes into account the who, what, when, and how of disclosure – what individuals, officers, or organizations should receive the warning and disclosure; what confidential information should be disclosed; when should appropriate individuals be notified; and how should notice be provided?

For example, pursuant to a provider's duty to warn, if a patient has made credible threats, the provider could share the patient's name and contact information, the specific threats made by the patient, and a list of persons who may be at risk. However, it is unlikely that disclosure of the patient's treatment plan, complete list of prescriptions, and childhood history would be necessary to avert the threat. Law enforcement may be able to obtain a court order for more complete records, should they determine such disclosure is necessary. Providers are well advised to consult legal counsel when conducting this delicate balancing test.

Providers take on risk for over-disclosure of confidential patient information. OCR's letter and the provider's duty to warn do not provide providers with a blanket protection to disclose confidential patient information. Instead, providers should conduct the requisite balancing test and disclose only that confidential information reasonably necessary to avert or lessen a threat.

©2014 von Briesen & Roper, s.c

About the Author

Meghan C. O'Connor, Health Care Attorney, Von Briesen Law Firm
Attorney

Meghan O’Connor is a member of the Health Care Section and the Government Relations and Regulatory Law Section. She advises clients on a wide range of regulatory compliance, corporate, and transactional matters, including: HIPAA, HITECH, and other federal and state confidentiality laws; provider and vendor contracting; health care reform, Medicare, and Medicaid compliance; patient care and risk management issues; managed care; insurance regulation; and clinical integration and accountable care networks.

Prior to joining von Briesen, Meghan worked for the U.S. Department of...

414-287-1586

About the Author

Diane M. Welsh, Health Care Attorney, Von Briesen Law Firm
Shareholder

Diane Welsh is a Shareholder in the Health Law Section and the Litigation Practice Group. Diane chairs the Government Relations and Regulatory Law Section, HIPAA and Health Information Systems, and is also a member of the firm’s Strategic Risk and Crisis Management Team.

Diane advises clients on a variety of matters, including: federal and state privacy laws; regulatory compliance (ranging from health, gaming, education and more); program integrity; and, crisis management. Diane has fifteen years of experience in government, administrative, and health care law. Her substantial...

(608) 661-3961

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.