Contact Us
Categories
- Workplace Violence
- Assisted Living Facilities
- Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Civil Rights
- Medical Residents
- EMTALA
- FDA
- Reproductive Rights
- Roe v. Wade
- SCOTUS
- Medical Spas
- medical billing
- No Surprises Act
- Mandatory vaccination policies
- Workplace health
- Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act
- Code Enforcement
- Department of Labor ("DOL")
- Employment Law
- FFCRA
- CARES Act
- Nursing Home Reform Act
- Acute Care Beds
- COVID-19
- Families First Coronavirus Response Act
- Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”)
- KBML
- medication assisted therapy
- SB 150
- Clinical Support
- Coronavirus
- Emergency Medical Services
- Emergency Preparedness
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Legislative Developments
- Corporate
- United States Department of Justice ("DOJ")
- Employee Contracts
- Non-Compete Agreement
- Opioid Epidemic
- Sexual Harassment
- Health Resource and Services Administration
- House Bill 333
- Litigation
- Medical Malpractice
- Senate Bill 79
- Locum Tenens
- Senate Bill 4
- Physician Prescribing Authority
- Chronic Pain Management
- HIPAA
- Prescription Drugs
- "Two Midnights Rule"
- 340B Program
- EHR Systems
- Hospice
- ICD-10
- Kentucky minimum wage
- Minimum wage
- Skilled Nursing Facilities (“SNFs”)
- Uncategorized
- Affordable Insurance Exchanges
- Drug Screening
- Electronic Health Records (“EHR")
- Fraud
- Health Care Fraud
- HIPAA Risk Assessment
- KASPER
- Mental Health Care
- Office for Civil Rights ("OCR")
- Primary Care Physicians ("PCPs")
- Qui Tam
- Stark Laws
- Urinalysis
- Accountable Care Organizations (“ACO”)
- Affordable Care Act
- Alternative Payment Models
- Anti-Kickback Statute
- Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”)
- Certificate of Need ("CON")
- Compliance
- Data Breach
- Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
- Electronic Protected Health Information (ePHI)
- False Claims Act
- Federally Qualified Health Centers (“FQHCs”)
- Fee for Service
- Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH Act)
- Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA)
- Health Professional Shortage Area ("HPSA")
- Hospitals
- HPSA
- Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure
- Kentucky’s Department for Medicaid Services
- Medicaid
- Medical Staff By-Laws
- Medically Underserved Area ("MUA")
- Medicare
- Office of Inspector General of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (OIG)
- Part D
- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”)
- Pharmacists
- Physician Assistants
- Rural Health Centers (“RHCs”)
- Rural Health Clinic
- Telehealth
- American Telemedicine Association (“ATA”)
- Charitable Hospitals
- Criminal Division of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”)
- Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (“HEAT”)
- HRSA
- Hydrocodone
- Kentucky Board of Nursing
- Kentucky Pharmacists Association
- Limited Services Clinics
- Mid-Level Practitioners
- Qualified Health Care Centers (“FQHC”)
- Telemedicine
- Agreed Order
- APRNs
- Chain and Organization System (“PECOS”)
- Drug Enforcement Agency ("DEA")
- Jimmo v. Sebelius
- Maintenance Standard
- Overpayments
- United States ex. Rel. Kane v. Continuum Health Partners
- Vitas Innovative Hospice Care
- Webinar
- 2014 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (“PFS”)
- 501(c)(3)
- All-Payer Claims Database ("APCD")
- Appeal
- Chiropractic services
- Chronic Care Management
- Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (“CLIA”)
- Compliance Officer
- Compounding
- CPR
- Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California
- Drug Quality and Security Act (“DQSA”)
- Emergency Rooms
- Enrollment
- Essential Health Benefits
- Hinchy v. Walgreen Co.
- House Bill 3204
- ICD-9
- Kentucky Senate Bill 7
- Kindred v. Cherolis
- Long-term care communities
- Medicare Part D
- Minors
- New England Compounding Center ("NECC")
- Ophthalmological services
- Outsourcing facility
- Physician Compare website
- Ping v. Beverly Enterprises
- Power of Attorney ("POA")
- Re-validation
- Sustainable Growth Rate (“SGR”)
- Texting
- "Plan of Correction"
- Affinity Health Plan
- Arbitration
- Cadillac tax
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
- Community health needs assessment (“CHNA”)
- Condition of Participation ("CoP")
- Daycare centers
- Decertification
- Denied Claims
- Department of Medicaid Services’ (“DMS”)
- Dispenser
- Division of Regulated Child Care
- EHR vendor
- Employer Mandate
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- False Billings
- Federation of State Medical Boards (“FSMB”)
- Food and Drug Administratio
- Form 4720
- Grace Period
- Health Professional Shortage Areas (“HPSA”)
- HealthCare.gov
- Home Health Prospective Payment System
- Home Medical Equipment Providers
- Hospitalists
- Individual mandate
- Inpatient Care
- Intermediate Sanctions Agreement
- Kentucky Health Benefit Exchange
- Kentucky Medical Practice Act
- Kynect
- Licensed practical nurses (LPN)
- Licensure Requirements
- List of Excluded Individuals and Entities
- LLC v. Sutter
- Long-Term Care Providers ("LTC")
- Low-utilization payment adjustment ("LUPA")
- Meaningful use incentives
- Medicare Administrative Coordinators
- Medicare Benefit Policy Manual
- Medicare Shared Saving Program (MSSP)
- Mobile medical applications ("apps")
- Model Policy for the Appropriate Use of Social Media and Social Networking in Medical Practice (“Model Policy”)
- National Drug Code ("NDC")
- National Institutes of Health
- Network provider agreement
- Nonprofit hospitals
- Nonroutine medical supplies conversion factor (“NRS”)
- Nurse practitioners (NP)
- Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (“ONC”)
- Part A
- Part B
- Payors
- Personal Service Entities
- Physician Payments
- Physician Recruitment
- Physician shortages
- Prescriber
- Qualified Health Plan ("QHP")
- Quality reporting
- Registered nurses (RN)
- Residency Programs
- Self-Disclosure Protocol
- Social Media
- Spousal coverage
- State Health Plan
- Statement of Deficiency ("SOD")
- Upcoding
- UPS
- “Superuser”
- Advanced Practice Registered Nurses
- Audit
- Autism/ASD
- Business Associate Agreements
- Business Associates
- Call Coverage
- Compliance Programs
- Doe v. Guthrie Clinic
- Employer Group Health Plans
- ERISA
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ("GINA")
- Group Purchasing Organizations ("GPO")
- Health Reform
- House Bill 104
- Kentucky House Bill 159
- Kentucky House Bill 217
- Kentucky Primary Care Centers (“PCCs”)
- Managed Care Organizations (“MCOs”)
- Patient Autonomy
- Patient Privacy
- Personal Health Information
- Provider Self Disclosure Protocol
- Senate Bill 39
- Senate Finance Committee Report
- State Medicaid Expansion
- Trade Association Group Coverage
- Abuse and Waste
- Center for Disease Control
- Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan programs (“CO-OPS”)
- Critical Access Hospitals (“CAHs”)
- Essential Health Benefits (“EHBs”)
- Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS)
- House Bill 1
- Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services
- Kentucky Health Care Co-Op
- Kentucky Health Cooperative (“KYHC”)
- Kentucky “Pill Mill Bill”
- Medicare Audit Improvement Act of 2012
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”)
- Recovery Audit Contractors (“RAC”)
- Small Business Health Options Program (“SHOP”)
- Sunshine Act
- Employee Agreement
- Free Conference Committee Report
- Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Program
- Health Insurance
- Healthcare Regulation
- House Bill 4
- Pain Management Facilities
- Health Care Law
McBrayer Blogs
Issues Concerning Substance Abuse Patient Confidentiality Laws
It was with the best of intentions that Congress passed the Federal Confidentiality of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Patient Records Law over forty years ago. The patient privacy regulations (“Part 2”) spawned by this law reflected a sensitivity to the stigma that can accompany substance abuse, preventing highly vulnerable patients in need from seeking appropriate treatment.[1] In the interim, however, the field of behavioral health care has experienced seismic shifts in coordinated patient care while the regulations concerning these patient records have failed to adapt to changing standards such as electronic health records or health information exchanges. Due to this inflexibility, providers and patients are now facing a host of impediments in the provision of behavioral healthcare.
Part 2 regulations concerning information for those being treated for substance use disorders (“SUDs”) are more stringent than the rules embodied in HIPAA, adding additional layers of explicit patient consent for every disclosure of patient information. This consent must be written and given prior to the disclosure, and blanket waivers of consent are not permitted. Unlike the privacy provisions of HIPAA, Part 2 does not allow for the disclosure of protected patient information for the purposes of treatment, payment or health care operations without the consent of the patient except in limited circumstances. It may be easy to tell how this can pose problems for newer strategies of coordinated patient care and the integration of electronic health records (“EHRs”). These regulations did not envision a technological timeline where health records could be stored, accessed or transferred instantly and digitally, so their application to modern and evolving healthcare has been awkward at best.
Also, the required contents of the disclosure can prove limiting when trying to provide coordinated care across multiple providers and entities. For instance, a consent to a disclosure must identify every single individual or organization to which that disclosure will be made, which can be problematic for disclosing to newer entities such as Accountable Care Organizations or Health Information Exchanges that experience ever-shifting memberships.
The regulations also do not contemplate the way treatment of SUDs blurs the lines between specialized providers, primary care physicians and others. For instance, some SUD treatment may take place with a primary care provider, and records for this treatment are not covered under the Part 2 regulations, even if they would be covered had the patient seen an SUD specialist at a federally-funded facility for the same treatment. If a patient sees a specialist in SUDs, however, that record from that visit is confidential. If a consent form from that specialist is not thorough with the amount and type of information allowed, a follow-up visit with a primary care provider may not have sufficient information to provide necessary treatment.
There is little guidance as to how providers should deal with the intersection between the necessary written consent of patients and electronic health records or coordinated care. The Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration (“SAMHSA”) addressed several of these issues in a published set of FAQs, but questions remain as to how providers can effectively participate in ACOs or health information exchanges under these rules. This is an especially important question in Kentucky, where, for example, new regulations from Kentucky’s Medical Licensure Board that govern the treatment of SUDs with certain medication-assisted therapies require physicians providing these treatments to register with Kentucky’s health information exchange.
Last year, SAMHSA conducted a public listening session to begin addressing these concerns. The primary takeaways from this session were that patient consent should include the ability to consent to disclosure to entities such as ACOs and health information exchanges and the ability to consent to disclosure of an open class of any provider involved in that patient’s care, and redisclosure of information without the patient’s consent should be allowed in line with HIPAA regulations, such is in patient treatment, payment and healthcare operations.
Protection for patients in the treatment of SUDs remains paramount, but existing Part 2 regulations only provide complexity and uncertainty in the face of new and evolving treatments and technology. Providers dealing with the treatment of SUDs should be wary of compliance with Part 2 regulations and how they interact or even hinder areas of care that involve EHRs, HIPAA requirements and principles of coordinated care. Providers shouldn’t try to negotiate the tangled web of Part 2 regulations alone, instead seeking out legal guidance from a trusted source to ease compliance with complicated requirements. The attorneys at McBrayer PLLC can help.
Services may be performed by others.
This article does not constitute legal advice.
[1] 42 C.F.R. Part 2