Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T18:58:14.094Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Extending the Minimum Necessary Standard to Uses and Disclosures for Treatment

Currents in Contemporary Bioethics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Julie L. Agris
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Encouraged by the financial incentives in the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 (HITECH Act), electronic health record (EHR) adoption is on the rise. According to a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published in 2014, 78% of office-based physicians had adopted some type of EHR system, up from 18% in 2001. Implementation of EHRs able to support the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) “meaningful use” requirements has also significantly increased since 2010. Such a growth in EHR adoption with the capacity to achieve “meaningful use” standards suggests that the goal of nationwide, interoperable health records is moving closer to a reality.

While movement toward a system-wide, interoperable EHR promises benefits of such an electronic information management tool, the risks related to patients’ privacy of their health information remains a concern.

Type
JLME Column
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 42 , Issue 2 , Summer 2014 , pp. 263 - 267
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Hsiao, C. J. Hing, E. S., “Use and Characteristics of Electronic Health Record Systems Among Office-Based Physician Practices: United States, 2001–2013,” available at <http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db143.pdf>(last visited April 25, 2014).(last+visited+April+25,+2014).>Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. Parts 160,164 (2013).Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. § 164.502(b)(1) (2013).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Information, 67 Fed. Reg. 53181, 53195 (amending 45 C.F.R. Parts 160 and 164).Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. § 164.502(b)(1) (2013).Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. § 164.502(b)(2)(i)-(vi) (2013).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. § 164.514(d) (2013).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. § 164.501 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Health Information Privacy, “Top Five Issues in Investigated Cases Closed with Corrective Actions, by Calendar Year,” available at <http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/enforcement/data/top5issues.html>(last visited April 25, 2014).(last+visited+April+25,+2014).>Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, “Health Information Privacy: All Case Examples,” available at <http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/enforcement/examples/casebyissue.html#minimumnecessary>(last visited April 25, 2014).(last+visited+April+25,+2014).>Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics, Letter to Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on Recommendations Regarding Sensitive Health Information (November 10, 2010), available at <www.ncvhs.hhs.gov/1011101t.pdf>(last accessed February 16, 2014).(last+accessed+February+16,+2014).>Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar