Verisma Wins GHIMA Champion Award

By Linda Kloss

HHS officials discussed the nuances of how Right of Access is handled under the HIPAA Privacy and Information Blocking Rules in last week’s Verisma-sponsored Webinar HIPAA Right of Access and Information Blocking.[i]  We are grateful to Elisabeth Myers, Deputy Director, Office of Policy, HHS Office of the National Coordinator and Timothy Noonan, Deputy Director for Health Information Privacy, HHS Office for Civil Rights for customizing a presentation to compare and contrast Right of Access elements of the two Rules, spotlighting areas that have generated questions. I urge everyone to access the Webinar archive as it is a very useful reference. 

The laws giving rise to Right of Access regulations were passed two decades apart (HIPAA in 1996, 21^st Century Cures in 2016). Both are complex multi-part laws dealing with health system effectiveness from different perspectives. HIPAA focuses on health insurance and administrative functions while 21^st Century Cures focuses on facilitating clinical research and improved therapeutics. How their regulatory framework handles Right of Access reflects different contexts and purposes. The Information Blocking Rule concerns electronic health information which Myers and Noonan described as a “a subset of the protected health information (PHI)” covered by the Privacy Rule.

Myers and Noonan underscored another helpful distinction that can guide compliance. Access to protected health information under the HIPAA Privacy Rule is governed by permissions.  Patients, of course, have a right to access and they or their legal designees grant permission for release to third parties. The Rule grants permission to use protected health information (PHI) for treatment, payment and healthcare operations and specifies other parties who are granted permission under certain circumstances. The Information Blocking Rule picks up where permissible requests leave off and assumes that electronic PHI (ePHI) be shared unless the request meets one of eight exceptions. This distinction reminds us that we should be advocates for legitimate and customer friendly access. We should focus on eliminating barriers,  reducing turnaround times, and shifting to e-release whenever possible. 

The Rules differ in their breadth of who must comply. Under the HIPAA Privacy Rule, we deal with covered entities (providers, health plans, and clearinghouses) and their Business Associates. The definitions of providers are aligned under the two Rules. The list of “Actors” who must comply with the Information Blocking Rule includes health information exchange entities and technology developers. This is a welcome expansion that better reflects who is involved in today’s health information ecosystem. EHR vendors, private exchanges, or other entities will no longer be able to block the exchange of health information needed for continuity of care.

Information Blocking aligns to HIPAA regarding timelines for release. Myers and Noonan reinforced that the Rule reads no later than 30 days. We should be doing all we can to reduce turnaround times by putting in place systems and workflows to avoid any “unnecessary delay.”   We were reminded that such delays are currently resulting in enforcement action by OCR, the nineteenth such action announced earlier this month. Enforcement for Information Blocking Rule will be administered by HHS’s Office of the Inspector General and the rules for this have yet to be released or approved.

Fees for ePHI are handled similarly in both Rules. Reasonable, cost-based fees for labor are allowable. The Information Blocking Rule adds a requirement that they be uniformly applied and not anticompetitive. The trend is that providers are making access available to patients on a no fee basis and this is driving adoption of use of Apps such as Verisma’s Request App ™ (VRA), a practice very much in line with the intent of both Rules. 

Verisma recognized the rapidly changing landscape by sponsoring Health Information Access Week, June 14-18. The OCR-ONC Webinar was a highlight of the week along with guest bloggers covering topics from consumer advocacy to HIM leadership. The Information Blocking Rule and proposed changes to the Privacy Rule underscore once again the need to upgrade ROI practices with technologies, including access and management tools, to stay ahead of the curve.   

We continue to grapple with a patchwork of federal and state laws and regulations concerning health information and privacy. The Information Blocking Rule provides some much needed modernization, particularly in bridging to a broader cast of actors. For ROI, HIM, and Compliance experts, the Right of Access is inviolable. At the same time, we know that when a custodian discloses PHI, today’s protections for individuals fall far short of where they should be. I know we will sort out how to comply with Information Blocking and future modifications to the Privacy Rule. But I also know that our work won’t be done until we can help people have real choice in how they want to handle their confidential health information, in identifiable and deidentified formats, when it moves beyond the protections of current law. 

[i] Please e-mail Davy Simanivanh at dsimanivanh@verisma.com to receive a recording of the webinar.

This first Health Information Access Week has brought together a range of perspectives on serving consumers, mitigating risks and deploying technology. We’ve been privileged to learn from experts who bring a lifetime of experience and insight to the changing challenges of  access and disclosure.  I am closing out this week with some reflections about leadership and management of access and disclosure operations. It is my belief that there is an urgent need for HIM leaders to address the health information access and disclosure disparities within their organizations. This is a key stepping stone to being able to modernize our approaches.  We have the expertise to do this and the time is now.

As a HIM leader, I made it one of my goals to achieve centralized health information access regardless of where the patient may have been treated within the healthcare organization. I view this as having three benefits: improved patient satisfaction, risk reduction and cost savings. It was clear to me several years ago, that HIM professionals needed to broaden our thinking beyond the hospital’s four walls and reach out to our physician practice administration, outpatient satellite and other facilities that make up our health system. Ultimately, the entire organization can benefit from centralizing the release of healthcare information.   

In leading the charge at Einstein Health in Philadelphia, I first called a meeting of our Hospital Administration staff, Physician Practice administrators, Risk Management and Compliance.

I described a recent scenario where an elderly patient had to go to three separate locations to acquire the healthcare information they needed for an upcoming appointment with a specialist. I then posed questions regarding why we persisted in this approach. All the patient’s information was stored in our Clinical Information System (CIS) regardless of location of treatment. Everyone agreed this was not ideal and agreed to work with me on a solution. 

The physician practices, at the time, were all doing their own individual release of information with various copy vendors, or their own in-house staff. There was no tracking, and very little quality control. At that time, all the HIM Departments were being handled by one vendor and covered by the same policies. Therefore, it was decided that we would tackle the practices first.

We started with bringing our release of healthcare information vendor to the table and put them to the task of working with us on a solution for the physician practice locations first. Since there are over 200 locations, this was a large change project. A project plan was developed, and a team of key stakeholders was assigned carry out the project. After 6 months of planning and strategizing, the first group of practices went live, followed by the next group, until all practices were handled by one group of release of information staff. Our vendor staffed the central location. 

Once we standardized and centralized the physician practices, we were able to move quickly with outpatient locations. In all, it took about 18 months to accomplish. In the end it was merged into one centralized release of healthcare information site. Now a patient can make one request for their information, which is then processed all at the same time, and delivered to the patient via whatever media and route they have specified. We were able to monitor quality and track all released information. We reduced costs and duplication of effort. Patients were less frustrated and more satisfied with our service. 

Risk and Compliance are less concerned with surprises and have one place to go to check on any issues. We are far less likely to receive a complaint and if we do, we have protocols to  resolve any before they become investigations. Importantly, having a standard way of handling access and disclosure across the enterprise, positions the organization to broaden the scope of release of information. For example, it possible to handle access requests from financial services, case management, utilization review and other health system function that rely on access to information.  When going through our release of information we are assured of the same quality control and tracking.

This experience not only helped me grow as a HIM leader but helped to expand my role in the organization beyond the HIM borders.  I was given more opportunities to work across the organization to streamline other processes. All this really helped fulfill my own goals to grow within my organization. 

In the end, I believe it is up to us as HIM leaders to have the vision, and then use our leadership to organize and lead others towards that vision.

Barbara Carr, RHIA a Verisma Advisor formerly served as Assistant Vice President Health Information Management at Albert Einstein Health Network in Philadelphia and as Corporate Director of Health Information Management at ChristianaCare, Wilmington, DE.

TAKE QUIZ