Sentences with phrase «such health disclosures»

At least in the US, many of the messages and ads around smoking have been regulated to a degree where such health disclosures are required.

Not exact matches

According to Dr Mahama, developed democracies such as the United States of America do not shy away from public disclosures of the health of politicians.

I say this even knowing that governments already require the disclosure of some information that has no direct impact on health, such as country of origin.

By submitting User Materials to or using the Site, you represent that you have the full legal right to provide the User Materials, that such User Materials will not: (a) divulge any protected health information or infringe any intellectual property rights of any person or entity or any rights of publicity, personality, or privacy of any person or entity, including without limitation as a result of your failure to obtain consent to post personally identifying or otherwise private information about a person or which impersonates another person; (b) violate any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation; (c) be defamatory, libelous or trade libelous, unlawfully threatening, or unlawfully harassing or embarrassing; (d) be obscene, child pornographic, or indecent; (e) violate any community or Internet standard; (f) contain any viruses, Trojan horses, worms, time bombs, cancelbots, or other computer programming routines that damage, detrimentally interfere with, surreptitiously intercept, or expropriate any system, data or personal information, or that facilitate or enable such or that are intended to do any of the foregoing; (g) result in product liability, tort, breach of contract, personal injury, death, or property damage; (h) constitute misappropriation of any trade secret or know - how; or (i) constitute disclosure of any confidential information owned by any third party.

A court may require disclosure of such information if it is necessary to prevent a manifest injustice, help establish a violation of law, or prevent harm to the public health or safety.

When a veterinarian reasonably believes that disclosure of records as defined in this section, is necessary to protect the health or welfare of a companion animal, a person or the public, the veterinarian may disclose such records to the police, duly incorporated society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, peace officer, animal control officer, department of agriculture and markets, other appropriate government agency, or any agent thereof.

Examples of such limits are HIPAA which restricts health - professionals disclosure of medical information, and FERPA which restricts an educational institution's disclosure of student records.

Are the provincial health information protection acts (I think of the Personal Health Information Protection Act in Ontario, but most provinces have them, as noted) considered adequate protection for such disclosure from thealth information protection acts (I think of the Personal Health Information Protection Act in Ontario, but most provinces have them, as noted) considered adequate protection for such disclosure from tHealth Information Protection Act in Ontario, but most provinces have them, as noted) considered adequate protection for such disclosure from the EU?

Cloisters has always been at the cutting edge of clinical negligence law, playing a lead role in many of the major cases such as A v Powys Local Health Board (# 10.7 m), the highest ever clinical negligence award at trial and the first to break through the # 10m barrier; Masterman - Lister v Brutton & Co and others, the leading Court of Appeal case on capacity; Iqbal v Whipps Cross University NHS Trust leading Court of Appeal case regarding compensation for the «lost years» and the doctrine of precedent; Crofton v NHSLA in respect of the impact of local authority payments on damages for care; and Lucas v Barking, Havering & Redbridge Hospitals NHS Trust, the leading case on disclosure of draft witness statements and expert reports.

A facilitator, who generally has a mental health license, is oftentimes utilized to ensure that the parties focus on what is most important to them (such as their children) rather than the arguments of the past, and a neutral financial professional is oftentimes used to cut costs on financial disclosure and ensure the parties have a personally - tailored financial solution.

Professor Lofstedt made many sensible suggestions such as exempting from health and safety law those self - employed whose work activities pose no potential risk of harm to others, simplifying the disclosure requirement for pre-action protocols and reviewing the requirement for strict liability in some regulations.

To the extent a covered entity is required by law to use or disclose protected health information in a particular manner, the covered entity may make such a use or disclosure under § 164.512 (a).

At least one commenter explained that if we required consent or authorization for use and disclosure of protected health information for treatment, payment, and health care operations then we must also have a right to request restrictions of such disclosure in order to make the consent meaningful.

Response: Under the proposed rule, even if the researcher only viewed the medical record at the site of the covered entity and did not record the protected health information in a manner that patients could be identified, such an activity would have constituted a use or disclosure that would have been subject to proposed § 164.508 or proposed § 164.510.

The final rule permits a covered health care provider providing emergency health care in response to a medical emergency, other than such emergency on the premises of the covered health care provider, to disclose protected health information to a law enforcement official if such disclosure appears necessary to alert law enforcement to (1) the commission and nature of a crime, (2) the location of such crime or of the victim (s) of such crime, and (3) the identity, description, and location of the perpetrator of such crime.

(ii) The activities involve the use or disclosure of protected health information that such other component creates or receives from or on behalf of the component that performs covered functions.

Under the NPRM, if a covered entity used or disclosed protected health information for research, but the researcher did not record the protected health information in a manner that persons could be identified, such an activity would have constituted a research use or disclosure that would have been subject to either the individual authorization requirements of proposed § 164.508 or the documentation of the waiver of authorization requirements of proposed § 164.510 (j).

Other commenters suggested that the proposed rules authorized the compelled disclosure of individually identifiable health information in violation of State constitutional provisions, such as those in California and Florida.

Any such use or disclosure of protected health information for such notification purposes must be in accordance with paragraphs (b)(2), (3), or (4) of this section, as applicable.

The July 1977 Report of the Privacy Protection Study Commission recommended that a health care provider should not disclose individually - identifiable information for certain purposes without the individual's authorization unless «an accounting of such disclosures is kept and the individual who is the subject of the information being disclosed can find out that the disclosure has been made and to whom.»

We believe that the proposed rule appropriately balances the benefits of providing individuals with information about uses and disclosures of protected health information with covered entities» need for flexibility in describing such information.

Response: We do not accept the commenter's broad recommendation to apply the regulation only to the «disclosure» of protected health information and not to «use» of such information.

Uses and disclosures that would have been permitted without individual authorization included uses and disclosures for national priority purposes such as public health, law enforcement, and research (see proposed § 164.510) and uses and disclosures of protected health information, other than psychotherapy notes and research information unrelated to treatment, for purposes of treatment, payment, and health care operations (see proposed § 164.506).

Furthermore, when a covered entity can not practicably obtain an individual's agreement before disclosing protected health information to a relative or to a person involved in the individual's care and is making decisions about such disclosures consistent with the exercise of professional judgment regarding the individual's best interest, covered entities must take into account whether such a disclosure is likely to put the individual at risk of serious harm.

Similarly, private entities, such as coding committees, that help government agencies that are health plans make coding and payment decisions are performing health care payment functions on behalf the government agencies and, therefore, must enter into business associate agreements in order to receive protected health information from the covered entity (absent individuals» authorization for such disclosure).

Under the NPRM, the covered entity could have created such a board and could have relied on it to review research proposals for uses and disclosures of protected health information for research.

The rule waives the requirement for individual agreement if the victim is unable to agree due to incapacity or other emergency circumstance and: (1) The law enforcement official represents that the protected health information is needed to determine whether a violation of law by a person other than the victim has occurred and the information is not intended to be used against the victim; (2) the law enforcement official represents that immediate law enforcement activity that depends on such disclosure would be materially and adversely affected by waiting until the individual is able to agree to the disclosure; and (3) the covered entity, in the exercise of professional judgment, determines that the disclosure is in the individual's best interests.

In some states, patients can hold providers accountable for some unauthorized disclosures of health information about them under various tort theories, such as invasion of privacy and breach of a confidential relationship.

Comment: Several comments addressed the portion of proposed § 164.510 (k) that would have provided a presumption of reasonable belief to covered entities that disclosed protected health information pursuant to this provision, when such disclosures were made in good faith, based on credible representation by a person with apparent knowledge or authority.

We intend to minimize the potential for covered entities to coerce individuals into signing authorizations for the use or disclosure of protected health information when such information is not essential to carrying out the relationship between the individual and the covered entity.

One such commenter approved of the provision as a needed fail - safe mechanism should the enumeration of permissible uses and disclosures of protected health information in the NPRM prove to be incomplete.

Other commenters noted that OSHA not only requires disclosures to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, but also to third parties, such as employers and employee representatives.

Absent such designation, affiliates are business associates of the covered entity if they perform a function or service for the covered entity that necessitates the use or disclosure of protected health information.

Because the right to request restrictions encourages discussions about how protected health information may be used and disclosed and about an individual's concerns about such uses and disclosures, it may improve communications between a provider and patient and thereby improve care.

We proposed that when a covered entity could not practicably obtain oral agreement to disclose protected health information to next - of - kin, relatives, or those with a close personal relationship to the individual, the covered entity could make such disclosures consistent with good health professional practice and ethics.

Many asked that the definition of disease management be clarified to identify those functions that, although some might consider them to be subsumed by the term, are not permitted under this regulation without authorization, such as marketing and disclosures of protected health information to employers.

We also proposed to require covered health care providers and health plans to state in the notice that all other uses and disclosures would be made only with the individual's authorization and that such authorization could be revoked.

In order to give individuals some control over their health information for uses and disclosures of protected health information for treatment, payment, and health care operations, we provide individuals with the opportunity to request restrictions of such uses and disclosures.

We believe it is appropriate to allow disclosure of protected health information without authorization to private entities only: For purposes that the FDA has, in effect, identified as national priorities by issuing regulations or express directions requiring such disclosure; or if such disclosure is necessary for a product recall.

Another commenter similarly urged that the standard not apply to internal disclosures or for internal health care operations such as quality improvement / assurance activities.

We expect such authorizations will rarely be necessary, because we expect covered entities that maintain protected health information to obtain consents that permit them to make anticipated uses and disclosures for these purposes.

The final rule requires at § 164.512 (i)(1)(iii) that covered entities obtain from the researcher (1) representation that the use or disclosure is sought solely for research on the protected health information of decedents; (2) documentation, at the request of the covered entity, of the death of such individuals; and (3) representation that the protected health information for which use or disclosure is sought is necessary for the research purposes.

(i) A covered health care provider providing emergency health care in response to a medical emergency, other than such emergency on the premises of the covered health care provider, may disclose protected health information to a law enforcement official if such disclosure appears necessary to alert law enforcement to:

In the proposed rule we allowed covered entities to disclose protected health information without individual consent for purposes of treatment, payment or health care operations — even when the disclosure was to a non-covered entity such as a workers» compensation carrier.

Prior to any disclosure permitted by this subpart, a covered entity must verify the identity and authority of persons requesting protected health information, if the identity or authority of such person is not known to the Start Printed Page 82796covered entity, and obtain any documentation, statements, or representations from the person requesting the protected health information that is required as a condition of the disclosure.

Thus, so long as the use of debt collectors is consistent with the regulatory requirements (such as, providers obtain the proper consents, the disclosure is of the minimum amount of information necessary to collect the debt, the provider or health plan enter into a business associate agreement with the debt collector, etc.), relying upon debt collectors to obtain reimbursement for the provision of health care would not be prohibited by the regulation.

A covered entity does not make whistleblower disclosures of protected health information, nor can it be expected to anticipate any such disclosures by its workforce.

Comment: Many commenters suggested we prohibit disclosure of psychotherapy notes without authorization for uses and disclosures under proposed § 164.510 of the NPRM, or that protections should be extended to particular uses and disclosures, such as disclosures for public health, law enforcement, health oversight, and judicial and administrative proceedings.

Thus, in the final rule, we allow covered entities to disclose protected health information to entities subject to FDA jurisdiction for the following activities: To report adverse events (or similar reports with Start Printed Page 82670respect to food or dietary supplements), product defects or problems (including problems with the use or labeling of a product), or biological product deviations, if the disclosure is made to the person required or directed to report such information to the FDA; to track products if the disclosure is made to a person required or directed by the FDA to track the product; to enable product recalls, repairs, or replacement (including locating and notifying individuals who have received products of product recalls, withdrawals, or other problems); or to conduct post-marketing surveillance to comply with requirements or at the direction of the FDA.

For instance, disclosure of all protected health information to an accreditation group would not necessarily violate the regulation, because the entire record may be the «minimum necessary» for its purpose; covered entities may establish policies allowing for and justifying such a disclosure.