DataBreaches.Net

Menu
  • About
  • Breach Notification Laws
  • Privacy Policy
  • Transparency Report
Menu

Prime Healthcare defends its disclosure of patient records – are they begging for a federal and state prosecution or what?

Posted on January 7, 2012 by Dissent

There’s a follow-up to a situation I blogged about earlier this week where a patients’ records were revealed to media by executives of Shasta Regional Medical Center without explicit patient consent.

Michael Hiltzik provides an update to his previous coverage:

Prime Healthcare has responded, with a letter and a public statement, to my January 4 column about the flouting of patient confidentiality by its corporate office and two executives at its Shasta Regional Medical Center. In the response, Prime states for the record that it believes its disclosure of medical information about the patient, Darlene Courtois, was legal because she “voluntarily disclosed her medical records” to the investigative reporting organization California Watch. The company’s statement is here.

Read more on The Los Angeles Times.

Having read their statement, all I can say is “wow” and they should probably shut up before they step in it even more. In their statement, they write:

SRMC has reviewed the facts and circumstances surrounding the claim made by Mr. Hiltzik and determined, in consultation with legal counsel, that there has been no violation of federal and  state privacy laws.

Well, they don’t get to make that determination, despite their assertion. The federal and state agencies or the courts make that determination. All they can really say is that they didn’t think they were violating any state or federal law and still don’t think they are.

But it gets worse (from my perspective). They go on to say:

By publicly engaging in these activities, SRMC was informed and believed that the patient waived her HIPAA rights and that in fact she wanted her medical information to be disclosed and examined. In addition, among other things, SRMC had a good faith belief that the disclosure, if any, was necessary to prevent or lessen a threat to the health and safety of the public.

How do they figure that SRMC was “informed” that the patient waived their responsibilities under HIPAA? Are they mind readers? Of course not. Perhaps they drew an inference, but an inference does not negate any legal obligations.

I think it’s ridiculous that they now throw in a “good faith belief” that their disclosure was necessary to prevent a threat to the health and safety of the public. The only clear threat I can see in the situation is a threat to their reputation. Are they arguing that if people believed the previous statements by California Watch they might avoid necessary care at SRMC?

I really think they’ve dug themselves into a deep hole on this one and it would have been better to say that their understanding was that if she talked, they could, too. They still would have been wrong under HIPAA (as I understand it, anyway), but their repeated insistence that they did nothing wrong legally is only inviting a smackdown by HHS and the state.

 

Related posts:

  • HHS releases statement on Prime Healthcare/Shasta Regional settlement
  • Prime Healthcare Services fined $95,000 in privacy case
  • Small-Scale Violations of Medical Privacy Often Cause the Most Harm
  • Updating: CaptureRx incident impacted more than 2.4 million. List of Entities.
Category: Health Data

Post navigation

← Server hacked at OSU Medical Center
Web Site Maintenance Notice →

Now more than ever

"Stand with Ukraine:" above raised hands. The illustration is in blue and yellow, the colors of Ukraine's flag.

Search

Browse by Categories

Recent Posts

  • Disgruntled IT Worker Jailed for Cyber Attack, Huddersfield
  • Hacker helped kill FBI sources, witnesses in El Chapo case, according to watchdog report
  • Texas Centers for Infectious Disease Associates Notifies Individuals of Data Breach in 2024
  • Battlefords Union Hospitals notifies patients of employee snooping in their records
  • Alert: Scattered Spider has added North American airline and transportation organizations to their target list
  • Northern Light Health patients affected by security incident at Compumedics; 10 healthcare entities affected
  • Privacy commissioner reviewing reported Ontario Health atHome data breach
  • CMS warns Medicare providers of fraud scheme
  • Ex-student charged with wave of cyber attacks on Sydney uni
  • Detaining Hackers Before the Crime? Tamil Nadu’s Supreme Court Approves Preventive Custody for Cyber Offenders

No, You Can’t Buy a Post or an Interview

This site does not accept sponsored posts or link-back arrangements. Inquiries about either are ignored.

And despite what some trolls may try to claim: DataBreaches has never accepted even one dime to interview or report on anyone. Nor will DataBreaches ever pay anyone for data or to interview them.

Want to Get Our RSS Feed?

Grab it here:

https://databreaches.net/feed/

RSS Recent Posts on PogoWasRight.org

  • Supreme Court Decision on Age Verification Tramples Free Speech and Undermines Privacy
  • New Jersey Issues Draft Privacy Regulations: The New
  • Hacker helped kill FBI sources, witnesses in El Chapo case, according to watchdog report
  • Germany Wants Apple, Google to Remove DeepSeek From Their App Stores
  • Supreme Court upholds Texas law requiring age verification on porn sites
  • Justices nix Medicaid ‘right’ to choose doctor, defunding Planned Parenthood in South Carolina
  • European Commission publishes its plan to enable more effective law enforcement access to data

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net

Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

DMCA Concern: dmca[at]databreaches.net
© 2009 – 2025 DataBreaches.net and DataBreaches LLC. All rights reserved.