Aaah, but Matt, the full definition of "treatment" at sec. 164.501 of the Privacy Rule 
is as follows:

"Treatment means the provision, coordination, or management of health care and related 
services by one or more health care providers, INCLUDING THE COORDINATION OR 
MANAGEMENT OF HEALTH CARE BY A HEALTH CARE PROVIDER WITH A THIRD PARTY; consultation 
between health care
providers relating to a patient; or the referral of a patient for health care from one 
health care provider to another." (emphasis added)  What the emphasized phrase means 
is the question.

I don't see all that much in the Privacy Rule Preamble discussing what "treatment" 
means in the first place, much less what this "coordination or management...with a 
third party" means.  Is the "third party" language mere surplusage, or does it refer 
to non-providers?  (FWIW, IMO it is the latter).

There are a few references to AMA ethical materials in the Preamble, and a few other 
sections (see for example the Privacy Rule preamble at pages 82625 to 82626), where 
DHHS says that it intends the term "treatment" itself to be defined very broadly, 
albeit limited to "treatment's" performance by only physicians and medical providers 
(and not, for example, by health plans), and also, limited to treatment of an 
individual.

In other words:

WHO DOES IT?  "Treatment" must be performed by a provider.
WHO IS IT DONE TO?  "Treatment" must also concern the medical care provided to an 
individual, and not to a community.

But once the above limitations are imposed, all bets are off.  In terms of ...

WHAT IS IT?  "Treatment" can be just about any type of health care and...
WHO ELSE CAN THE PROVIDER PERFORM IT WITH?  I think the Rule says that, as long as the 
above qualifications are met, a physician or provider can perform "treatment" with 
anybody else (a "third party").

So, noting the reference to "coordination or management of health care by a health 
care provider with a third party", I am wondering, can that "third party" be read as 
broadly as to include the community at large?  

I wonder if the physicians or medical providers on the list can give examples or 
otherwise expand upon, in their experience, what this coordination with a third party 
might entail?  For example, if a physician believed that enlisting the community's 
help in identifying a comatose patient was essential for performing treatment on that 
patient, would that be the physician's "coordination or management of health care ... 
with a third party"?  Thanks again, John

John C. Cody, Esq.
NYS Central HIPAA Coordination Project
NYS Office for Technology
http://www.oft.state.ny.us/hipaa/index.htm
[The opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily reflect the policies, 
practices or opinions of my employer or anyone else.  Nothing herein constitutes legal 
advice - if you need legal advice, please consult your own attorney.]

-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Rosenblum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 12:48 PM
To: WEDI SNIP Privacy Workgroup List
Subject: RE: is this practice O.K.?

John,

Clearly, HIPAA allows a health care provider to disclose PHI to any other
health care provider for the purposes of "treatment", and the
HIPAA-definition includes "consultation between health care providers [i.e.,
physicians and pharmacists] relating to a patient".  As most pharmacists are
CEs, they would be mandated to comply with the HIPAA rules.

The general scenario to which you refer (below) is not so clearly defined by
HIPAA: the photo of a comatose patient disclosed to the general public
through mass media in order to "identify" the individual might (or might
not) apply to a "treatment" or "public health" emergency.  For example, if
the need-to-identify is intertwined with a "public health" emergency,
possibly HIPAA would allow the disclosure of the photo by the provider to a
public health authority.  But in that case, it would be public health
authority (and not the provider) that makes the photo available to the
media.

I hope that this helps.
 
Your questions are always welcome.
 
Matt
 
Matthew Rosenblum
Chief Operations Officer
Privacy, Quality Management & Regulatory Affairs

http://www.CPIdirections.com
 
CPI Directions, Inc.
10 West 15th Street, Suite 1922
New York, NY 10011
 
(212) 675-6367
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This E-Mail is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information
that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable
law. If you have received this communication in error, please do not
distribute it.  Please notify the sender by E-Mail at the address shown and
delete the original message. Thank you.
 
AVISO DEL CONFIDENCIALIDAD: Este email es solamente para el uso del
individuo o la entidad a la cual se dirige y puede contener información
privilegiada, confidencial y exenta de acceso bajo la ley aplicable. Si
usted ha recibido esta comunicación por error, por favor no lo distribuya.
Favor notificar al remitente del E-Mail a la dirección mostrada y elimine el
mensaje original. Gracias.
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Cody, John (OFT) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 11:18 AM
To: WEDI SNIP Privacy Workgroup List
Subject: RE: is this practice O.K.?

Matt:

That is an interesting perspective, and one which I have wondered about
myself.  But I wonder how far the concept can be stretched under the HIPAA
Privacy Rule.  For example, one of the listserves a few months ago (I think
it was a different one than this one) was discussing the situation where an
unidentified comatose patient is brought to the hospital and the hospital
believes the only way to identify the patient is through a photo disclosed
to the mass media.  The discussion took various twists and turns, but one
thing which I privately pondered at the time was whether there is such a
thing as "community" treatment.  Under the principle you embrace below,
would the hospital's media disclosure also constitute "treatment"?  If not,
why not?  Is the distinction that in Dr. Fairley's example, the disclosure
is to other providers, while in the hospital's scenario, the disclosure is
made to a wider audience than providers?  Where in the HIPAA Privacy Rule is
that distinction defined?  Thanks for your thoughts, John

John C. Cody, Esq.
NYS Central HIPAA Coordination Project
NYS Office for Technology
http://www.oft.state.ny.us/hipaa/index.htm
[The opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily reflect the
policies, practices or opinions of my employer or anyone else.  Nothing
herein constitutes legal advice - if you need legal advice, please consult
your own attorney.]


-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Rosenblum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 5:12 PM
To: WEDI SNIP Privacy Workgroup List
Subject: RE: is this practice O.K.?


Dear Dr. Fairley,

What a great question!  We believe that HIPAA allows this practice and in
doing so, provides patient with privacy protections.

For nearly 2000 years physicians, nurses, and pharmacists (chemists) have
comprised the "treatment" triad.  And especially when treating substance
abuse and addiction, it does take a community to provide a safe and
therapeutic environment: whenever we remove a member of the treatment
community from the process, errors and mistakes may increase and disease
resolution may decrease.  Within this context, the scenario that you
describe (below) fits well within the bounds of sharing PHI for treatment
purposes, and the involved providers will be beholden to the related HIPAA
rules.

I hope that this helps.
 
Your questions are always welcome.
 
Matt
 
Matthew Rosenblum
Chief Operations Officer
Privacy, Quality Management & Regulatory Affairs

http://www.CPIdirections.com
 
CPI Directions, Inc.
10 West 15th Street, Suite 1922
New York, NY 10011
 
(212) 675-6367
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This E-Mail is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information
that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable
law. If you have received this communication in error, please do not
distribute it.  Please notify the sender by E-Mail at the address shown and
delete the original message. Thank you.
 
AVISO DEL CONFIDENCIALIDAD: Este email es solamente para el uso del
individuo o la entidad a la cual se dirige y puede contener información
privilegiada, confidencial y exenta de acceso bajo la ley aplicable. Si
usted ha recibido esta comunicación por error, por favor no lo distribuya.
Favor notificar al remitente del E-Mail a la dirección mostrada y elimine el
mensaje original. Gracias.
 
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 3:54 PM
To: WEDI SNIP Privacy Workgroup List
Subject: is this practice O.K.?

The practice that I am going to describe is quite common in our community
but I am not sure it is acceptable.  I wanted the opinion of the experts on
this list.

Occassionally, we run into a problem with a patient who seems to be doctor
hopping and getting multiple prescriptions for narcotics.  In order for the
patient's principle physician to keep a close watch on the patient's use of
narcotics and to avoid abuse/misuse of narcotics, the physician makes a deal
with the patient.  The deal is "ALL prescriptions for narcotics must be
funneled through one doctor-the primary care physician."  The patient
usually agrees but then (and here is where I am not sure if we are
infringing on privacy)we can send an "Alert" to all the area pharmacies to
alert them that this deal occurred and if the patient shows up at one of the
area pharmacies with a narcotic prescription from someone other than the
primary care physician, the patient is told that they have an order that
they can not fill the prescription unless it comes from the designated
doctor.  

Is this practice acceptable?  Do we need the patient's consent to notify all
heighborhood pharmacies?  Is verbal consent acceptable?  Can the information
be sent to the pharmacies without the patient's specific consent  (that is,
the patient consented to the arrangement that one doctor fills all narcotic
prescriptions but the patient did not consent to the information being sent
to all area pharmacies? )

Thank you
Rich Fairley, M.D.

---
The WEDI SNIP listserv to which you are subscribed is not moderated. The
discussions on this listserv therefore represent the views of the individual
participants, and do not necessarily represent the views of the WEDI Board
of Directors nor WEDI SNIP. If you wish to receive an official opinion, post
your question to the WEDI SNIP Issues Database at
http://snip.wedi.org/tracking/.   These listservs should not be used for
commercial marketing purposes or discussion of specific vendor products and
services.  They also are not intended to be used as a forum for personal
disagreements or unprofessional communication at any time.

You are currently subscribed to wedi-privacy as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this list, go to the Subscribe/Unsubscribe form at
http://subscribe.wedi.org or send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you need to unsubscribe but your current email address is not the same as
the address subscribed to the list, please use the Subscribe/Unsubscribe
form at http://subscribe.wedi.org



---
The WEDI SNIP listserv to which you are subscribed is not moderated. The
discussions on this listserv therefore represent the views of the individual
participants, and do not necessarily represent the views of the WEDI Board
of Directors nor WEDI SNIP. If you wish to receive an official opinion, post
your question to the WEDI SNIP Issues Database at
http://snip.wedi.org/tracking/.   These listservs should not be used for
commercial marketing purposes or discussion of specific vendor products and
services.  They also are not intended to be used as a forum for personal
disagreements or unprofessional communication at any time.

You are currently subscribed to wedi-privacy as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this list, go to the Subscribe/Unsubscribe form at
http://subscribe.wedi.org or send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you need to unsubscribe but your current email address is not the same as
the address subscribed to the list, please use the Subscribe/Unsubscribe
form at http://subscribe.wedi.org

---
The WEDI SNIP listserv to which you are subscribed is not moderated. The
discussions on this listserv therefore represent the views of the individual
participants, and do not necessarily represent the views of the WEDI Board
of Directors nor WEDI SNIP. If you wish to receive an official opinion, post
your question to the WEDI SNIP Issues Database at
http://snip.wedi.org/tracking/.   These listservs should not be used for
commercial marketing purposes or discussion of specific vendor products and
services.  They also are not intended to be used as a forum for personal
disagreements or unprofessional communication at any time.

You are currently subscribed to wedi-privacy as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this list, go to the Subscribe/Unsubscribe form at
http://subscribe.wedi.org or send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you need to unsubscribe but your current email address is not the same as
the address subscribed to the list, please use the Subscribe/Unsubscribe
form at http://subscribe.wedi.org



---
The WEDI SNIP listserv to which you are subscribed is not moderated. The discussions 
on this listserv therefore represent the views of the individual participants, and do 
not necessarily represent the views of the WEDI Board of Directors nor WEDI SNIP. If 
you wish to receive an official opinion, post your question to the WEDI SNIP Issues 
Database at http://snip.wedi.org/tracking/.   These listservs should not be used for 
commercial marketing purposes or discussion of specific vendor products and services.  
They also are not intended to be used as a forum for personal disagreements or 
unprofessional communication at any time.

You are currently subscribed to wedi-privacy as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this list, go to the Subscribe/Unsubscribe form at 
http://subscribe.wedi.org or send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you need to unsubscribe but your current email address is not the same as the 
address subscribed to the list, please use the Subscribe/Unsubscribe form at 
http://subscribe.wedi.org

---
The WEDI SNIP listserv to which you are subscribed is not moderated. The discussions 
on this listserv therefore represent the views of the individual participants, and do 
not necessarily represent the views of the WEDI Board of Directors nor WEDI SNIP. If 
you wish to receive an official opinion, post your question to the WEDI SNIP Issues 
Database at http://snip.wedi.org/tracking/.   These listservs should not be used for 
commercial marketing purposes or discussion of specific vendor products and services.  
They also are not intended to be used as a forum for personal disagreements or 
unprofessional communication at any time.

You are currently subscribed to wedi-privacy as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this list, go to the Subscribe/Unsubscribe form at 
http://subscribe.wedi.org or send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you need to unsubscribe but your current email address is not the same as the 
address subscribed to the list, please use the Subscribe/Unsubscribe form at 
http://subscribe.wedi.org

Reply via email to