More handpicked essays just for you.
HIPAA principles
Essay on the health insurance portability and accountability act of 1996 (hipaa), public law 104-191
The health insurance portability and accountability act is a federal law passed in 1996 to protect privacy and other health care rights for patients
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: HIPAA principles
FACTS: Jenny Stracner an employee of the Laguna Beach Police Department was told by several people that there several vehicles were seen in front of Greenwoods resident and the vehicles were only there for a couple of minutes. Stracner investigated these claims by staking out the residence and witnessing the vehicles at the residence for herself. After staking out the residence, she asked the garbage man to isolate garbage picked up and Greenwoods residence and hand them over to her. While looking through Greenwoods trash, Stracner located evidence that led her to believe Greenwood was involved with drugs. Stracner then received a search warrant and found large amounts of cocaine and other substance in the residence.
St. David’s South Austin Medical Center (the “Hospital”) has received a letter from John Craven, an attorney representing former Hospital patient Ramona Reeves. Mr. Craven states that the Hospital’s entering into a Settlement Agreement with GEICO Insurance Company after the Hospital’s receipt of Ms. Reeves’ “HIPPA (sic) Revocation/Cancellation of Prior Authorization” constituted a wrongful disclosure of her individually identifiable health information (“PHI”). You have asked us to evaluate whether the provision of billing information and/or entering into the settlement agreement with GEICO violated HIPAA. The answer is no.
Case Citation: Gallagher v. Cayuga Medical Center 151 AD 3d 1349 - NY: Appellate Div., 3rd Dept. 2017 Background: In this civil case Timothy W. Gallagher is the appellant, and Cayuga Medical Center (CMC) is the respondents. The case took place in the appellate division of the supreme court of New York, division three. The plaintiff’s complaint was that Cayuga Medical Center had asserted medical malpractice, negligence, wrongful death and emotional distressed.
Colin Newmark was diagnosed with cancer. The cancer was life threatening. His parents were Christian Scientists and refused to consent for chemotherapy for Colin. Their refusal was protected under State Law as it exempted parents from the neglect and abuse statutes if the refusal was supported by medical reasons. The plaintiff, Child Protective Services petitioned to continue treatment for Colin.
On April 3, 2015, Tammy Cleveland sued Gregory C. Perry, a doctor at Buffalo General and Kaleida Health the company that owns both hospitals involved in the death of her husband, Michael Cleveland. Tammy is accusing them of “negligent” care resulting in her husband’s death. The law suit claims that the “defendants’ alleged actions and/or inactions were morally culpable, actuated by evil and reprehensible motives, malicious, reckless, gross, wanton and/or in reckless disregard for her husband’s rights and her family’s rights.” (Dudzik, 2015) The defendants are contesting the case. Michael Cleveland had a heart attack on October 10, 2014, and was transported to the emergency room of DeGraff Memorial Hospital.
When examining the case of the State of California against Dr Huping Zhou, we can conclude that the HIPAA law is a meaningful law set in place to protect patients’ privacy, and any one violating this law, regardless of your position in the health care field can be persecuted, punished for violating the law, even in the absence damages evidence resulting from the violation of the law. The purpose of this post is to discuss the case of the State of California against the physician, Dr Huping Zhou. In this post, I will review the HIPAA law, the penalties for violation of the law and why I feel that Doctor Zhou was very fortunate to receve the punishments four months in prison and just $2000 in fine. As a physician, a researcher of UCLA School
When examining the case of the State of California against Dr Zhou, we can clearly conclude that the HIPAA law of which was convicted of violated is not just words written on paper to buy patients' confidence, it is meaningful law set in place to protect patient privacy and any ones violating this law, regardless of your position in the health care field can be persecuted punished for violating the law, even in the absence damages evidence resulting from the violation of the law. The purpose of this post is to discuss the case of the State of California against the physician, Dr Huping Zhou, in this post I will review the HIPAA law, penalties for violation of the law and why I felt that Doctor Zhou was very fortunate for his punishments four
The case I will be concentrating on is Tomcik vs. Ohio Dep’t of Rehabilitation and Correction in which Tomcik was imprisoned under the custody of Department of Rehabilitation and correction, based on the Legal and Ethical Issues for Health Professionals book. The problem stimulated from continuous negligence from nurses and doctors at the department, which initially was when Tomcik received a physical evaluation, included the breast examination by Dr. Evans who stated that the examination was cursory and lasted only a few seconds, which means that not much attention was presented regarding the patient and his job. The next day Tomcik noticed a lump as being about the size of a pea in her right breast, however it was not reported by Dr. Evans.
You are using the format of “PIE” to document Ms. Dorothy’s case. You have identified the priority problem of acute pain that Ms. Dorothy has, which is an indeed problem for Ms. Dorothy who just recovered from abdominal surgery being performed yesterday. It is possible for Ms. Dorothy to carry out other actions such as turning the position, using incentive spirometry and so on when her pain is under the control. Using incentive spirometry is very important for Ms. Dorothy to expend her lungs, and then enhance her breathing. Also, risk for infection or ineffective breathing pattern is very important for patients who have done the surgery.
Father further argues that the trial court erred by failing to hold Mother in contempt for violating the circuit court’s order with regard to father’s visitation of the minor children. Further, Father alleges that the circuit court erred in finding him in contempt for failing to satisfy his child support obligation. For the reasons that follow, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider whether the trial court erred in failing to find mother in contempt. Further, we hold the circuit court did not err in finding Father to be in contempt. A.
Melody believed applying a broad interpretation of state action to this case proved failure of the Wisconsin Department of Social Services to do their job- protecting Joshua. The broad interpretation refers to the extent of state intervention; determining what’s considered a state obligation, and when it’s an intrusion on individual liberties. The broad interpretation of state action in the DeShaney case defined the Department of Social Services’ directly liable for Joshua’s current state (at that time), because the Wisconsin law placed the wellbeing of abused children in the hands of a social worker; who evaluates the situation and determines the best course of action- removing the child, or working through the problem with the family. To
The HIPAA rule is built to protect and prevent disclosing individuals’, and consumers’ identifiable health care information unlawfully and without getting authority from the concern parties. If someone break the law, individuals are subject to civil penalties of $100 on each violation but the penalty can accumulates based on numbers of violations; the standard maximum limit of civil penalties is $25,000 each person, each year (HIPAA Privacy Rule – What Employers Need to Know, n. d.). As per stacking rules, if a person violated two HIPAA standards, the penalty can be $50,000; Similarly, the criminal penalties subject to maximum of $ 250,000 and ten years in prison can be imposed to those individuals and parties who disclosed protected information
Health Care Law: Tort Case Study Carolann Stanek University of Mary Health Care Law: Tort Case Study A sample case study reviewed substandard care that was delivered to Ms. Gardner after having sustained an accident and brought to Bay Hospital for treatment. Dr. Dick, a second-year pediatric resident, was on that day in the ED and provided care for Ms. Gadner. Dr. Moon, is the chief of staff and oversees the credentialing of all physicians at Bay Hospital.
The case was then given to the Supreme Court, if it was not for the relationship between first
Ella committed a crime against her own offspring, by attempting to murder the child by placing it in a box in the garbage. The crime committed by Ella Christiansen is considered a crime against people. When Christiansen’s arraignment is heard she is accused of attempted murder in the second degree (no death penalty), endangerment of a child and child abandonment. The judge asks Ella if she pleads guilty or not guilty and Ella responds “ not guilty” surprisingly. The plaintiff accuses Christiansen of being a flight risk and mentions her alleged killing of another baby.
