Health plans, health care providers and health care clearinghouses (“Covered Entities”) treat the Department of Health and Human Service Office of Civil Right (“OCR”) announcement of its 46^th enforcement action under the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) Right of Access Rule as a warning to confirm their own organization’s timely delivery of records and other compliance with the Rule.  Coupled with OCR’s Right of Access Rule settlement agreement with United Health Insurance Group last August, the latest settlement agreement sends a strong message to health plans and other Covered Entities about the risks of failing to deliver protected health information as required by the Right of Access Rule. 

HIPAA Right of Access Rule

The HIPAA Right of Access Rule guarantees individuals the right to access a broad array of health information about themselves maintained by or for health plans and other Covered Entities. Under the Right of Access Rule, Covered Entities generally must provide individuals or their personal representatives copies or other acceptable access to the individual’s protected health information in a Covered Entity’s “designated record set” for a reasonable cost as soon as possible and within 30 days of receiving a request for a reasonable cost. However, the Right of Access Rule does not grant any right for an individual to access protected health information that is not part of a designated record set because the information is not used to make decisions about individuals.

The request for protected health information triggering the duty for a Covered Entity to provide access to the protected health information may come from the individual who is the subject of the protected health information or from the “personal representative” of that individual.  When considering a request for protected health information from an individual other than the subject of the protected health information, health plans and other Covered Entities also must use care to verify that the requesting party, in fact, qualifies as the individual’s “personal representative” as defined for purposes of HIPAA. 

Once a health plan or other Covered Entity receives a request protected health information from the individual or his personal representative, the Right of Access Rule requires the Covered Entity to provide access to all requested protected health information within any “designated record set” within 30 days unless the requested information falls within one of two exceptions to the Rule. 

For this purpose, a “designated record set” generally is defined at 45 CFR 164.501 as any item, collection, or grouping of information that includes protected health information that is maintained, collected, used, or disseminated by or for a Covered Entity that comprises the:

• Medical records and billing records about individuals maintained by or for a covered health care provider;
• Enrollment, payment, claims adjudication, and case or medical management record systems maintained by or for a health plan; or
• Other records that are used, in whole or in part, by or for the covered entity to make decisions about individuals. This last category includes records that are used to make decisions about any individuals, whether or not the records have been used to make a decision about the particular individual requesting access.

However, the Right of Access Rule only requires the delivery of protected health information that is part of a designated record set.  It does not require health plans or other Covered Entities to provide protected health information that the Covered Entity does not use to make decisions about the individual, since this information is not considered part of a designated record set.  Examples of such records of protected health information might include protected health information in certain quality assessment or improvement records, patient safety activity records, or business planning, development, and management records the Covered Entity uses for business decisions more generally rather than to make decisions about the subject individual. Before refusing to provide information not part of a designated record set, however, the health plan or other Covered Entity does not also use or possess that information for making decisions about the subject individual or that disclosure is not otherwise required under another law. For example, even if the Right of Access Rule does not require disclosure of protected health information because it is not considered part of a designated record set, a health plan still be required to disclose the record if required by the adverse benefit determination rules of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), claims and appeals rules of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act or other applicable law, regulation or another law.    

Even where the information falls within the definition of a designated record set, however, HIPAA expressly excludes two categories of information from the Right of Access right:

• Psychotherapy notes, which are the personal notes of a mental health care provider documenting or analyzing the contents of a counseling session maintained separately from the rest of the patient’s medical record as described in 45 CFR 164.524(a)(1)(i) and 164.501.
• Information complied in reasonable anticipation of, or for use in, a civil, criminal, or administrative action or proceeding described under 45 CFR 164.524(a)(1)(ii).

However, it is critical that Covered Entities not overestimate the reach of either of these two exceptions. The exception only applies to the narrow range of records meeting the requirements of the exception.  The underlying protected health information from the individual’s medical or payment records or other records used to generate the above types of excluded records or information remains part of the designated record set and is subject to access by the individual under the Right of Access Rule.  Providers and other Covered Entities should use care to comply with the Right of Access Rule without providing more information than allowed as HIPAA liability can arise from failing to timely deliver access to all protected health information required by the Right of Access Rule or from sharing protected health information with an individual who is not either the individual or personal representative when the disclosure otherwise is not allowed by HIPAA To help negotiate these requirements, Covered Entities should become familiar with and process all requests for protected health information following the latest Right of Access Rule guidance. When in doubt, Covered Entities should seek the advice of experienced legal counsel within the scope of attorney-client privilege about proper fulfillment of their obligations under the Right of Access Rule in coordination with any other applicable responsibilities the Covered Entities has to provide access, disclose, or prevent disclosure of the requested information under otherwise applicable federal or states laws and regulations, ethical or other professional standards, contractual or other medical, insurance, financial, employee benefit or other rules relating to the requested records.

Optum Settlement 46^th Right Of Access Enforcement Settlement

The Optum settlement resulted from OCR’s investigation of six complaints in the Fall of 2021 that Optum violated the Right of Access Rule by failing to provide timely access to medical records when requested by an adult patient or by the parents of minor patients.

In February 2022, OCR initiated investigations of these Right of Access complaints. The investigation revealed that patients received their requested records between 84 and 231 days after submitting their respective requests. Since the Right of Access Rule requires that Covered Entities deliver the records no later than 30 days from receiving the individual’s requests, those timeframes fell well outside of the deadline for delivery required by the HIPAA Right of Access Rule.  Accordingly, OCR concluded that Optum’s failure to provide timely access to the requested medical records was a potential violation of HIPAA.

Under the Resolution Agreement reached with Optum, Optum agreed to pay $160,000 to OCR as well as implement a corrective action plan that requires workforce training, reporting records requests to OCR, and reviewing and revising as necessary its right of access policies and procedures to provide timely responses to requests. Under the plan, OCR will monitor Optum Medical Care for one year.

Right Of Access Remains OCR Investigation & Enforcement Priority

The Optum enforcement action and settlement is the latest reminder to all Covered Entities that investigation and enforcement remains a top OCR priority. See e.g. OCR Sanction Of 44th Health Care Provider For Violating HIPAA Right of Access Rules Warning To Other Covered Entities. Because access to medical records empowers patients and their families to make decisions about their health care and improve their health overall, OCR views access to medical records “a fundamental right under HIPAA. For this reason, OCR believes it “critical that providers follow the law.”  Accordingly, OCR Director Melanie Fontes Rainer has warned that health care providers “must proactively respond to record requests and ensure timely access” and “make responding to parents’ or patients’ request for access to their medical records in a timely manner a priority.” See e.g., HHS’ Office for Civil Rights Settles Multiple HIPAA Complaints with Optum Medical Care Over Patient Access to Records (January 4, 2024).

While health care providers are the most common target of OCR’s Right Of Access complaints and enforcement, OCR’s August, 2023 Right of Access settlement against United Health Insurance Group (“UHIG”) confirms health plans also are targets. That settlement arose from OCR’s investigation of a March 2021 complaint alleging that UHIC did not respond to an individual’s request for a copy of their medical record. The investigation showed the individual first requested a copy of their records on January 7, 2021, but did not receive the records until July 2021, after OCR initiated its investigation.  Movrover, the March, 2021 complaint was the third complaint OCR received from the complainant against UHIC alleging failures to respond to his right of access. These findings led OCR to conclude UHIC’s failure to provide timely access to the requested medical records was a potential violation of the HIPAA right of access provision.  In OCR’s announcement of UHIG’s agreement to pay $80,000 to resolve these potential charges, OCR Director, Melanie Fontes Rainer warned, “Health insurers are not exempt from the right of access and must ensure that they are taking steps to train their workforce to ensure that they are doing all they can to help members’ access to health information.”  See, UnitedHealthcare Pays $80,000 Settlement to HHS to Resolve HIPAA Matter over Patient Medical Records Request.

Manage Right of Access Rule Exposure

Despite OCR’s warnings about the responsibility to comply with the Right of Access Rule, many health plans and other Covered Entities continue to violate the Rule. OCR has and continues to receive thousands of Right of Access Rule complaints each year.  In response to these persistent compliance issues, OCR continues to make enforcement of the Right of Access Rule a key enforcement priority through its Right Of Access Initiative.

In light of OCR’s commitment to continue to investigate and enforce compliance with the Right of Access Rule, health care providers and other Covered Entities and their business associates are urged to review their existing practices for receiving and processing patient record requests to confirm their own organizations’ compliance with the Right of Access Rule and other applicable federal and state statutory regulatory and contractual requirements. To reduce risks of violations, all health care providers and other Covered Entities should seek assistance from experienced legal counsel within the scope of attorney-client privilege to audit their past and current Right of Access Rule compliance for any necessary or advisable steps to prevent future violations and mitigate potential liabilities arising from potential past or future violations of the Right of Access Rule.  Aside from confirming documented timely responses to past requests for protected health information, among other things, most Covered Entities will want to consider:

• Verifying that their current policies, privacy practices notices, training and other materials are updated to comply with all applicable policies and properly identify and provide current contact information for the Privacy Officer or other party responsible for receiving and responding to protected health information requests;
• Appropriate procedures are in place to ensure that the Covered Entity can produce required documentation showing the individuals are appropriately notified of the Right of Access and other HIPAA rules, and that the Covered Entity captures the necessary documentation to show its receipt of all requests, and timely investigation and response to such requests;
• Appropriate and documented processes for collecting, investigating, or resolving any potential concerns, complaints, or other issues, their evaluation, and resolution;
• Appropriate workforce, business associates, and other policies, training, oversight, and enforcement to require and enforce compliance with applicable laws and policies; and
• Appropriate processes, procedures, and training to ensure that staff fully understands and complies with both the specific processes and procedures of the Covered Entity for complying with the Right of Access Rule, as well as related procedures necessary to manage risks and responsibilities arising under verification of identity, personal representative, disclosure, recordkeeping or other HIPAA’ rules; medical, insurance, financial, or other data or privacy; licensure and market conduct; civil rights and nondiscrimination; fiduciary; licensure; marketing or other rules.

When confirming compliance with the Right of Access Rule, health plans and other Covered Entities also should reevaluate their organization’s exposure to other HIPAA associated risks. See, e.g., Health Plans Warned To Prevent Phishing By 1st Phishing-Related HIPAA Settlement; New HIPAA Resolution Agreement Warns Health Plans & Other HIPAA-Covered Entities To Manage Media Relations, Access & Disclosure; $80,000 Penalty Confirms Health Plans Exposure For Violating HIPAA Access Rights; $350K Settlement Highlights Need For Plans & Plan Service Providers To Ensure Security, Business Associate & Other HIPAA Requirements Met. Health plans take documented, prudent steps to reconfirm the adequacy of their own, and their business associates’ policies, processes, training, documentation and other compliance with these and other medical and other plan records and data maintenance, security, use, access and disclosure.

Aside from the direct exposures for these and other HIPAA violations arising under HIPAA, health plans, their fiduciaries, insurers, plan sponsors and administrators should keep in mind that the Employee Benefit Security Administration views potential data breaches and other HIPAA violations as a potential source of fiduciary liability under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. 

While involving outside consultants or other service providers generally is valuable if not required to conduct some of these tasks, Covered Entities are encouraged to use experienced outside legal counsel to help plan, conduct, evaluate and decide, and implement responses to findings from these compliance and risk management activities both to benefit from legal counsel’s substantive legal expertise and experience and to take advantage of the opportunity to conduct sensitive discussions within the protection of attorney-client privilege or other evidentiary rules.  Experienced outside legal counsel can guide Covered Entities about the best way to work with consulting and other vendors to maximize these benefits. Where legal advice is provided to health plan fiduciaries, health plans, their fiduciaries, insurers, sponsors, and service providers also should keep in mind that advice and work product performed on behalf of a health plan or plan fiduciary may not enjoy the same protection against discovery under attorney-client privilege and work product rules.

For More Information

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about these or other health or other legal, management, or public policy developments, please get in touch with the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297. 

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you to receive future updates by registering on our Solutions Law Press, Inc. Website and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, HR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.

About the Author

Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 35 plus years of health industry and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee and Vice-Chair Elect of its International Employment Law Committee, Chair-Elect of the ABA TIPS Section Medicine & Law Committee, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with HHS-OCR, past chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, and Chair of the ABA Intellectual Property Section Law Practice Management Committee, Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading-edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on heath benefit and other healthcare and life science, managed care and insurance and other workforce and staffing, employee benefits, safety, contracting, quality assurance, compliance and risk management, and other legal, public policy and operational concerns in the healthcare and life sciences, employee benefits, managed care and insurance, technology and other related industries. She speaks and publishes extensively on these and other related compliance issues.

Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, life sciences, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. Author of a multitude of highly regarded publications on HIPAA and other medical record and data privacy and scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Meeting with the HHS Office of Civil Rights, her experience includes extensive involvement throughout her career in advising health care and life sciences and other clients about preventing, investigating and defending EEOC, DOJ, OFCCP and other Civil Rights Act, Section 1557 and other HHS, HUD, banking, and other federal and state discrimination investigations, audits, lawsuits and other enforcement actions as well as advocacy before Congress and regulators regarding federal and state equal opportunity, equity and other laws. 

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here. 

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested in reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here, such as:

• EEOC Publish Guidance Discrimination & Accommodation Duties Applying Vaccine Mandates
• Construction Industry Urged To COVID-19 Safety & Timekeeping Protocols
• IRS Warns Of Fraudulent Promotion of COVID Employee Retention Credits
• OSHA Enforces Whistleblower Rights Of Worker Terminated For Expressing COVID-19 Safety Concerns
• Children’s Hospital Pays $45K To Resolve COVID Vaccine Religious Discrimination Suit
• Prepare Feedback! Tri-Agencies Plan To Reopen Surprise Billing Proposed Dispute Resolution Rule Comment Period
• H-2B Application Filing Window For 4/1/24 Opens 1/2/24
• EEOC Sexual Harassment Suit Against Texas Car Dealership Warns Other Employers To Manage Risks
• No Surprises Act Independent Dispute Resolution Portal Fully Reopened, New Fees Announced
• No Surprises Act Dispute Resolution Portal For All Covered Health Claims
• Health Plans Warned To Prevent Phishing By 1st Phishing-Related HIPAA Settlement
• Employer’s Overzealous I-9 Documentation Demand Triggers Civil Monetary Penalty
• Brett Brenner Appointed EEOC Deputy Chief Operating Officer
• Texas Private Employer COVID-19 Vaccination Mandates Prohibited Effective February 6, 2024
• Pizza Operator Faces Prison Time For Failing To Pay Employment Taxes;
• New HIPAA Resolution Agreement Warns Health Plans & Other HIPAA-Covered Entities To Manage Media Relations, Access & Disclosure
• IRS Announces 2024 HFSA, MSA, HDHP & Other Tax Inflation Adjustments Impacting 2024 Benefit, Withholding & Other Tax Planning
• Reviewing Newly Released 2024 Income Tax Tables Helpful For 2024 Benefit & Withholding Planning
• IRS Announces 2024 HFSA, MSA, HDHP & Other Tax Inflation Adjustments Impacting 2024 Benefit, Withholding & Other Tax Planning
• OCR Video Touts HIPAA Compliance To Avoid Costly HIPAA Penalties & Manage Cybersecurity Risks
• Work Opportunities Tax Credit Available For Certain Hires Through 2025
• DOL Sues 7-11 Franchise Owners Association Head for FLSA Pay, Record Keeping Violations
• IRS Shares Voluntary Correction Program Updates & Tips
• $80,000 Penalty Confirms Health Plans Exposure For Violating HIPAA Access Rights
• $4.4 Million Warning About Proper Billing On Government Projects
• OSHA Proposing To Expand Third Parties Allowed To Accompany Employees During Inspections
• Employers Should Prepare for Proposed DOL Rules To Disqualify Additional 4 Million Workers For FLSA Exempt Status
• Use Of New Form I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification Form Released 8/1 Permitted Now; Mandatory After 11/1
• Remote Work Role Not Justification For Failure To Accommodate Deaf Applicant, EEOC Charges
• Tri-Agencies Announce New Surprise Billing IDR Fees While Continuing IDR Suspension After Federal Court Ruling
• Surprise Billing IDR Health Plan Dispute Resolution Suspension After Federal Court Ruling Could Impact Plan Renewal Underwriting and Stop-Loss Coverage
• Accommodating Client Racial Preferences No Excuse For Discriminatory Assignment Of Workers
• Employer’s Refusal To Allow Employee To Undergo Dialysis At Work Triggers EEOC ADA Discrimination & Retaliation Lawsuit
• OSHA Electronic Injury Reporting Requirements Changing January 1, 2024; Confirm Your Organization’s Status and Responsibilities Under New Rules
• Businesses Risk Out-Of-State Lawsuits, Regulation From Registering In Consent To Jurisdiction States and Contractual Consents To Jurisdiction
• EEOC “Level The Playing Field” Campaign Encourages Equal Pay Awareness and Enforcement
• Employers Face 8/30 Deadline To Complete & Document In-Person Inspections Of I-9 Documentation Examined Remotely During COVID-19 Emergency
• $350K Settlement Highlights Need For Plans & Plan Service Providers To Ensure Security, Business Associate & Other HIPAA Requirements Met
• EEOC COVID Guidance, Enforcement Highlights Need To Brace For COVID-Related ADA & Other Claims
• Austin Bar Faces EEOC Pregnancy Discrimination Suit Before Added PWFA Protections Take Effect June 27
• Education Association Union Sued For Race Discrimination
• Biden-⁠Harris Administration Ending COVID-⁠19 Vaccination Requirements For Federal Employees, Contractors, International Travelers, Head Start Educators & CMS-Certified Facilities
• Autism Health Plan Exclusions and Limitations May Trigger Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act Liabilities
• Labor Department Shares Resources on PERM and H-2A Program Updates
• Trucking Cos.’ $1.25M Sex Discrimination warns Other Employers
• $167K In Backpay and Penalties Restaurant Paying For FLSA Violations Warns Other Businesses
• $400,000 Settlement Shows Risks Of Mishandling Pregnant Employees

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and educational purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstances at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ reserve the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules make it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication. Readers acknowledge and agree to the conditions of this Notice as a condition of their access to this publication. 

Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.

©2024 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Limited non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™