A newly-announced settlement agreement and corrective action plan (the “Settlement”) between a prominent New York academic medical center and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) arising from disclosures and access allowed a reporter covering the COVID-19 pandemic warns health care providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses (“covered entities”), their business associates and workforce members (collectively, “HIPAA entities”) to prevent their organizations and workforce members not to share protected health information (“PHI”) or allow reporters or other media to access patients or PHI without first obtaining the legally required patient authorizations as well as evaluate their own organization’s potential exposure to OCR enforcement from known or suspected unauthorized disclosures of PHI by their own organizations or workforce during the COVID-19 pandemic or other events over the past two years.

HIPAA-Compliant Authorization Required Before Media Access To Patients Or Patient Information

The HIPAA Privacy Rule prohibits SJMC and other HIPAA entities from disclosing any patient’s PHI unless::

• The individual who is the subject of the information (or the individual’s personal representative) authorizes the disclosure in writing in the form required by the Privacy Rule; or
• The Privacy Rule otherwise expressly permits or requires the disclosure.

OCR guidance makes clear that these prohibitions continue to apply when health care providers or other HIPAA entities are dealing with have print, television, or other media reporters.

SJMC Settlement

The  Settlement between OCR and St. Joseph’s Medical Center (“SJMC”) resolves potential OCR charges that SJMC violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) Privacy Rule by allowing an Associated Press (“AP”) reporter to access, photograph, and review clinical information of three COVID-19 patients without appropriate HIPAA authorization.  Although the dated documents governing the Settlement reflect the parties reached the Settlement Agreement in August, OCR only made the Settlement public on November 20, 2023.

The OCR investigation that prompted the settlement began shortly an AP article about SJMC’s response to the COVID-19 public health emergency containing photographs and information about three COVID-19 patients came to OCR’s attention.  The nationally distributed article included pictures of the three patients as well as details about the patients’ COVID-19 diagnoses, current medical statuses and medical prognoses, vital signs, treatment plans, and other PHI.

OCR determined from the investigation that SJMC allowed the AP reporter to observe and access clinical information of three patients receiving treatment for COVID on April 20, 2020 without first obtaining the necessary patient authorization required by HIPAA and that the disclosures were not otherwise allowed by any other exception to the Privacy Rule.

To avoid potentially much larger civil monetary penalties authorized by HIPAA, SHMC entered into the Settlement under which it agreed to pay $80,000 to OCR and agreed to develop written policies and procedures and train its workforce to comply with the HIPAA Privacy Rule. Under the Settlement, OCR also will monitor SHMC’s HIPAA compliance for two years.

Prior OCR Enforcement & Guidance Warned HIPAA Entities About Media Disclosures

OCR guidance and enforcement actions alerted SJMC and other HIPAA entities of their HIPAA responsibility not to disclose or allow access by the media or other third parties long before SJMC allowed the media access and disclosures that resulted in the new Settlement.

• 2013 Shasta Regional Medical Center Enforcement

Shasta Regional Medical Center (“SRMC”) holds the distinction of being the first covered entity punished for wrongfully disclosing PHI to the media.  Under a resolution agreement OCR announced on June 14, 2013, OCR required SRMC to pay OCR $275,000 and implement a series of corrective actions for using and disclosing to the media PHI of a patient while trying to perform public relations damage control against accusations reported in the media that SRMC had engaged in fraud or other misconduct when dealing with the patient.   That SRMC resolution Agreement followed an OCR investigating a January 4, 2012 Los Angeles Times article report that two SRMC senior leaders had met with media to discuss medical services provided to a patient.  OCR’s investigation indicated that SRMC failed to safeguard the patient’s PHI from impermissible disclosure by intentionally disclosing PHI to multiple media outlets on at least three separate occasions, without a valid written authorization. OCR’s review also revealed senior management at SRMC impermissibly shared details about the patient’s medical condition, diagnosis and treatment in an email to the entire workforce.  Further, SRMC failed to sanction its workforce members for impermissibly disclosing the patient’s records pursuant to its internal sanctions policy.

• 2016 NY-Presby Resolution Agreement & OCR Media Guidance

OCR’s next warnings to covered entities about their HIPAA responsibilities when dealing with the media came in 2016, when OCR concurrently announced a $2.2 million settlement with New York-Presbyterian Hospital and published its 2016 Frequently Asked Question (“Media FAQ”) addressing the obligation to comply with HI)PAA when dealing with the media.

According to the NY-Presby Resolution Agreement, OCR’s investigation revealed that NY-Presbyterian “blatantly” violated HIPAA when it allowed ABC film crews and staff virtually unfettered access to its health care facility.  OCR says the access NY-Presbyterian allowed ABC effectively created an environment where patients PHI could not be protected from impermissible disclosure to the ABC film crew and staff filming the episode.  While the Resolution Agreement reflects allowing the filming and other access to ABC without prior HIPAA-compliant authorization from patients in the facility itself violated HIPAA, OCR also particularly found “egregious” the facility allowing ABC film crews and staff to film a dying patient and another patient in significant distress without first obtaining a HIPAA-compliant authorization from each of those patients and even more so that NY-Presbyterian failed stop the filming even after a medical professional urged the crew to stop.

Based on its investigation, OCR charged NY-Presbyterian with violating 45 C.F.R. §§ 164.502(a) and 164.530(c) by:

• Impermissibly disclosing the PHI of two identified patients to the film crew and other staff of “NY Med;”
• Failing appropriately and reasonably to safeguard its patients’ PHI from disclosure during the filming of “NY Med” on its premises; and
• Failing to implement policies, procedures, and practices to protect the privacy of the filming of  the television show.

OCR collected $2.2 million from New York-Presbyterian Hospital as the required settlement payment under that resolution agreement.

• 2016 Media FAQ Guidance

Coincident with its announcement of the NYPH Settlement, OCR published the 2016 Media FAQ addressing HIPAA entities’ responsibilities when dealing with the media that outlined its interpretation of HIPAA as requiring HIPAA entities to protect patients and their PHI against unauthorized filming, photography, observation, and other access by news or other media or even other staff, patients or visitors. 

Among other things, the Media FAQ states that HIPAA prohibits health care providers and other HIPAA entities from inviting or allowing media personnel into treatment or other areas where patients or patient PHI will be accessible in written, electronic, oral, or other visual or audio form, or otherwise making PHI accessible to the media without prior written authorization from each patient or other subject of the PHI who is or will be in the area or whose PHI otherwise will be accessible to the media except in a very limited set of circumstances set forth in the Media FAQ.

The Media FAQ also states, “It is not sufficient for a health care provider to request or require media personnel to mask the identities of patients (using techniques such as blurring, pixelation, or voice alteration software) for whom authorization was not obtained, because the HIPAA Privacy Rule does not allow media access to the patient’s PHI, absent an authorization, in the first place.

In addition, the Media FAQ states that a health care provider also must ensure that reasonable safeguards are in place to protect against impermissible disclosures or to limit incidental disclosures of other PHI that may be in the area but for which authorization has not been obtained.

Concerning the limited circumstances when a health care provider or other HIPAA entity or business associate may disclose to the media or allow unconsented filming, photographing or use of PHI to the media or other film crews, the Media FAQ also clarifies that the HIPAA Privacy Rule does not require health care providers to prevent members of the media from entering areas of their facilities that are otherwise generally accessible to the public like public waiting areas or areas where the public enters or exits the facility.

In addition, the Media FAQ states a health care provider or other HIPAA entity may:

• Disclose limited PHI about the incapacitated patient to the media in accordance with the requirements of 45 C.F.R. 164.510(b)(1)(ii) when, in the hospital’s professional judgment, doing so is in the patient’s best interest; or
• Disclose a patient’s location in the facility and condition in general terms that do not communicate specific medical information about the individual to any person, including the media, without obtaining a HIPAA authorization where the individual has not objected to his information being included in the facility directory, and the media representative or other person asks for the individual by name as specified in 45 C.F.R. 164.510(a).

The Media FAQ also discusses circumstances where a healthcare provider or other HIPAA entity may use the services of a contract film crew to produce training videos or public relations materials on the provider’s behalf if the provider ensures that the film crew acting as a business associate enters into a HIPAA compliant business associate agreement with the HIPAA entity which among other things ensures that the film crew will safeguard the PHI it obtains, only use or disclose the PHI for the purposes provided in the agreement, and return or destroy any PHI after the work for the health care provider has been completed as required by 45 C.F.R. 164.504(e)(2). The Media FAQ also states that as a business associate, the film crew must comply with the HIPAA Security Rule and a number of provisions in the Privacy Rule, including the Rule’s restrictions on the use and disclosure of PHI.  In addition, the Media FAQ reminds HIPAA entities and business associates of the need to obtain prior authorizations from patients whose PHI is included in any materials before any of those materials are posted online, printed in brochures for the public, or otherwise publicly disseminated.

Finally, the Media FAQ states HIPAA entities can continue to inform the media of their treatment services and programs so that the media can better inform the public, provided that, in doing so, the covered entity does not share PHI with the media.

• Memorial Herrman Health System Resolution Agreement

OCR’s next media coverage-related enforcement action involved the largest not-for-profit health system in Southeast Texas, Memorial Hermann Health System (MHHS). The 2017 MHHS Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan resulted from HHHS issuing a press release with the name and other PHI  about a patient arrested and charged with fraudulently obtaining health care by presenting an allegedly fraudulent identification card to MHHS office staff without first obtaining authorization from the patient.  MHHS paid OCR a $2.4 million resolution payment as well as agreed to implement a detailed corrective action plan.  See $2.4M HIPAA Settlement Warns Providers About Media Disclosures Of PHI.

• Three Resolution Agreements Following Disclosures ForBoston Trauma Reality Series

OCR followed up the next year with a concurrent announcement of resolution agreements against three unrelated hospitals for allowing ABC film crews to film in  patient treatment and other areas for the ABC medical documentary “Save My Life: Boston Trauma” series.  Under three separate settlement agreements, OCR collected a total of $999,000 from Boston Medical Center, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Massachusetts General Hospital for putting publicity before patient privacy by allowing ABC News documentary film crews to film patients and access other patient information for a news documentary without obtaining prior patient authorization under three separate settlement agreements with the hospitals.

The circumstances that resulted in the three resolution agreements announced on September 20, 2018 were strikingly similar to those underlying the NY-Presby Resolution Agreement. Notably, the investigations that resulted in the three settlement agreements all arose out of each of the respective hospital’s permitting an ABC documentary film crew filming a medical documentary to access patient areas of their hospitals. 

OCR’s investigation of MGH arose in response to an announcement about the impending filming on its website while OCR’s investigations of BMC and BWH started in response to a January 12, 2015 Boston Globe article that reported the Hospitals each separately had allowed ABC film crews filming a documentary to access PHI and film patients without obtaining patient authorization.  See Boston Medical Center Resolution Agreement (BMC Settlement Agreement);  Brigham and Women’s Hospital Resolution Agreement (BWH Settlement Agreement); and Massachusetts General Hospital Resolution Agreement (MGH Resolution Agreement)

The MGH Resolution Agreement reflects that OCR’s investigations began with an investigation of MGH on December 17, 2014 based on a news story posted to MGH’s website on October 3, 2014, indicating that ABC News would be filming a medical documentary program at MGH. The MGH Resolution Reports that the investigation revealed that before allowing the filming between October 2014 to January 2015, MGH reviewed and assessed patient privacy issues related to the filming and implemented various protections regarding patient privacy, including providing the ABC film crew with the same HIPAA privacy training received by MGH’s workforce.

Information contained in the respective settlement agreements reflect that OCR’s investigations of BMC and BWH began about a month later on January 25 and 26, 2015 respectively in response to the Boston Globe article. The BWH Settlement Agreement states that the BWH investigation revealed that like MGH, BWH reviewed and assessed patient privacy issues related to the filming and implemented various protections regarding patient privacy, including providing the ABC film crew with the same HIPAA privacy training received by BWH’s workforce before allowing the filming by the ABC film crew that occurred between October 2014 to January 2015.  The BMC Settlement Agreement does not state that OCR found BMC engaged in similar deliberations or undertook the same or other efforts to safeguard patients and their PHI.

The BMC Settlement Agreement reports that the OCR concluded based on the BMC investigation showed that BMC impermissibly disclosed PHI of patients to ABC employees during the production and filming of a television program at BMC in violation of HIPAA.  Meanwhile, while acknowledging the privacy deliberations and efforts undertaken at MGH and BWH, OCR also concluded that each of those organizations also violated HIPAA because in allowing the film crew access and to film patients and patient areas:

• The timing at which they obtained patient authorizations showed MGH and BWH impermissibly disclosed the PHI of patients to ABC employees during the production and filming of a television program at BWH; and
• Despite the various patient privacy protections in place, MGH and BWH failed to safeguard its patients’ PHI appropriately and reasonably from disclosure during a filming project conducted by ABC on its premises in 2014 and January 2015.

To resolve potential HIPAA violations, BMC has paid OCR $100,000, BWH has paid OCR $384,000, and MGH has paid OCR $515,000. In addition, each Hospital agreed to provide workforce training as part of a corrective action plan that will include OCR’s guidance on disclosures to film and media in the 2016 Media FAQ.

• Allergy Associates of Hartford, P.C. Resolution Agreement

Large institutional health care organizations are not the only HIPAA entities subjected to OCR investigation or enforcement for inappropriate sharing of PHI with the media.  In its November 2018

On November 26, 2018, OCR announced  that Allergy Associates, the three doctor health care practice Allergy Associates of Hartford, P.C. would pay OCR $125,000 and take corrective action under a  Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan resolving charges stemming from comments a physician made to a reporter on a patient dispute with the practice in 2015 violated HIPAA.

According to OCR, the disclosure of patient information that prompted OCR’s HIPAA charges resulted from a physician associated with the practice commenting to a local television station reporter for a story about a disabled patient’s complaint to the station that Allergy Associates turned her away from a scheduled appointment because of her use of a service animal.  After the patient contacted the television statement to complain about being turned away by the practice when accompanied by her service animal, the station contacted the doctor for comment about the dispute between the Allergy Associates’ doctor and the patient.  Although OCR reports its investigation revealed that Allergy Associates’ Privacy Officer instructed the doctor to either not respond to the media or respond with “no comment,” the doctor nevertheless accepted the television station reporter’s invitation to comment and discussed the dispute with the reporter.

OCR learned of the physician’s unauthorized comments to the reporter when it received a copy of an October 6, 2015, HHS civil rights complaint filed on behalf of the patient with the Department of Justice, Connecticut, U.S. Attorney’s Office (DOJ) by the Connecticut Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities (OPA).  In response to this complaint, OCR initiated a joint investigation with DOJ into the civil rights allegations against Allergy Associates. The complaint also alleged that Allergy Associates impermissibly disclosed the patient’s PHI in violation of HIPAA.

OCR found the physician’s discussion of the patient’s complaint without first obtaining a HIPAA-complaint authorization from the patient both violated HIPAA and demonstrated a reckless disregard for the patient’s HIPAA privacy rights.  Additionally, Resolution Agreement also states that OCR’s investigation revealed that Allergy Associates did not take any disciplinary or other corrective action against the doctor after learning of his impermissible disclosure to the media.

To resolve the HIPAA charges, Allergy Associates agrees in the Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan to pay $125,000 as well as to undertake a corrective action plan that includes two years of monitoring their compliance with the HIPAA Rules.

• OCR COVID-19 HIPAA Guidance & Warnings About Media-Related HIPAA Responsibilities

With the COVID-19 pandemic fueling a torrent of media inquiries and coverage of patient, workforce and other aspects of the pandemic, OCR reminded health care providers and other HIPAA entities of HIPAA’s requirement of prior authorization before sharing PHI or allowing media to access patients or areas where media could observe patients or their PHI throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

In its May 5, 2020 Guidance on Covered Health Care Providers and Restrictions on Media Access to Protected Health Information about Individuals in Their Facilities (“5/5 Guidance”), OCR warned covered health care providers and other HIPAA entities that the Privacy Rule prohibits HIPAA entities from giving media or film crews access to PHI including access to facilities where patients’ PHI could be accessible without the patients’ prior authorization and cautioned testing facilities and other health care providers to prevent unauthorized use, access or disclosure of test results and other PHI except as specifically allowed in the applicable HIPAA Law.  In this respect, the 5/5 Guidance quoted then OCR Director Roger Severino, as unequivocally stating “Hospitals and health care providers must get authorization from patients before giving the media access to their medical information; obscuring faces after the fact just doesn’t cut it.”

Consistent with this warning, the 5/5 Guidance described reasonable guidelines and safeguards that HIPAA entities should use to protect the privacy of patients whenever the media is granted access to facilities.  Additionally, the 5/5 Guidance specifically warned HIPAA entities among other things that:

• HIPAA does not permit covered health care providers to give the media, including film crews, access to any areas of their facilities where patients’ PHI will be accessible in any form (e.g., written, electronic, oral, or other visual or audio form), without first obtaining a written HIPAA authorization from each patient whose PHI would be accessible to the media;  
• Covered health care providers may not require a patient to sign a HIPAA authorization as a condition of receiving treatment; and
• Masking or obscuring patients’ faces or identifying information before broadcasting a recording of a patient does not sufficiently deidentify patient information to allow unauthorized disclosure.  A valid HIPAA authorization is still required before giving the media such access. 

OCR emphasized that it expected health care providers and other HIPAA entities to continue to adhere to these Privacy Rule requirements throughout the COVID-10 pandemic even as it granted temporary enforcement relief from a narrow set of other HIPAA requirements during the COVID-19 health care emergency. See e.g., 5/5 Guidance; OCR Issues Guidance on How Health Care Providers Can Contact Former COVID-19 Patients About Blood and Plasma Donation Opportunities; OCR Announces Notification of Enforcement Discretion for Community-Based Testing Sites During the COVID-19 Nationwide Public Health Emergency;  OCR Announces Notification of Enforcement Discretion to Allow Uses and Disclosures of Protected Health Information by Business Associates for Public Health and Health Oversight Activities During The COVID-19 Nationwide Public Health Emergency; OCR Issues Bulletin on Civil Rights Laws and HIPAA Flexibilities That Apply During the COVID-19 Emergency; OCR Issues Guidance to Help Ensure First Responders and Others Receive Protected Health Information about Individuals Exposed to COVID-19; OCR Issues Guidance on Telehealth Remote Communications Following Its Notification of Enforcement Discretion; OCR Announces Notification of Enforcement Discretion for Telehealth Remote Communications During the COVID-19 Nationwide Public Health Emergency. Also see generally HIPAA and COVID-19 | HHS.gov.

Despite these warnings, throughout the COVID-19 health care emergency videos and other media reports often incorporated videos or other images of patients and other descriptions or details about patients containing PHI reporters or media outlets obtained from accessing facilities, interviewing workforce members, or shared with the media or others allowed to access patients or facilities, often without a HIPAA-compliant patient authorization and often by workforce members without authorization or otherwise in violation of their employing HIPAA entity’s policies.  See e.g. Ezekiel Elliott COVID-Test Disclosure Highlights Health Care Provider & Plan HIPAA & Other Privacy Risks From Medical Testing & Other Medical Information;, Health care workers express overwhelming fatigue as COVID-19 cases surge across the country; Pandemic takes its toll on health care workers; ABC News Special Coverage:  Coronavirus Pandemic.  Since the widespread media coverage makes clear SJMC was not the only health care provider or other HIPAA entity where the entity or members of its workforce allowed media access to facilities, shared or allowed the media or other third-parties to take patient photos, videos, or shared or allowed media access to other PHI, additional OCR enforcement actions or settlements arising from COVID-19 related media disclosures against other HIPAA-entities are likely.

To mitigate their own organizational exposure to potential HIPAA and other privacy-related exposures from known or as-of-yet unidentified past or future media-related HIPAA violations, all HIPAA entities should consult qualified legal counsel for advice and assistance within the scope of attorney-client privilege on investigating their organizations potential risks from any past media disclosures and opportunities for mitigating any known or uncovered HIPAA exposures by acting proactively as well as for guidance on best practices to prevent or mitigate liability from future dealings with the media.

To promote their compliance and the defensibility of their practices and efforts when compliance issues arise, HIPAA entities need conduct a well-documented assessment of their current and past compliance, policies, practices and workforce training on allowing media or others to enter, film, photograph or record within their facilities or otherwise disclosing or allowing media access to their facilities as well as their policies about when parties not involved in care of a particular patient can film, photograph, or otherwise record, observe or access areas where patients or patient PHI is or might be present without prior written consent of the patient.

Going forward, all HIPAA entities should ensure their policies clearly prohibit their entities, their business associates and their workforce from allowing film or media to film, photograph or even access areas where patients or their PHI are accessible or otherwise disclosing PHI to members of the media without first obtaining a HIPAA-compliant authorization from each patient whose presence or PHI could be observed, recorded or otherwise accessed.  Adopting the policy alone is insufficient, however, HIPAA entities also need to implement and enforce appropriate procedures and training to promote compliance with those policies and processes to monitor and respond to any violations of HIPAA’s requirements.

When considering the adequacy of their current policies, practices and training concerning filming, photography and other access and disclosure to patients, patient treatment areas and other PHI, HIPAA entities should keep in mind that the obligation to prevent unauthorized filming, photography or any other PHI access or disclosure PHI extends to “any third party not involved in patient care,” not merely those to media or film crews. Consequently, HIPAA entities should address potential risks from filming, photographs or other access and disclosure to patients, patient treatment or recordkeeping areas, or PHI by all parties within or with access to their facilities or records including but not limited to staff, business associates, contractors, other patients as well as media or other visitors. 

Recognizing that the NY-Presbyterian corrective action plan included a requirement that NY-Presbyterian require “all photography, video recording and audio recording conducted on NY-Presbyterian premises” be reviewed, preapproved and actively monitored for compliance with the Privacy Rule and NY-Presbyterian’s policies, HIPAA entities also should take steps to monitor and properly restrict and protect any filming, photography or other observations, records or other PHI by individuals within their workforce, as well as to regulate the access and activities of unrelated third parties.  In this respect, HIPAA entities are cautioned about the need to prohibit and enforce suitable prohibitions against members of their workforce and others using their own personal devices or other equipment to film, photograph, and copy or disseminate photographs, film, recordings or other records or data that qualifies as or contains PHI without authorization in accordance with established protocols. 

HIPAA entities also should take steps to ensure their policies and training make clear that these prohibitions apply whether or not the workforce member believes that identity of the patient or patient information is concealed or otherwise not discoverable. 

Moreover, even with respect to photographs, films or other recordings or records legitimately created for treatment, payment or operations purposes, HIPAA entities generally need to take steps to restrict use, access and disclosure of the photographs or other recordings to individuals legitimately involved in patient treatment, operations, payment or other activities allowed by the Privacy Rule and to safeguard those materials against use, access or disclosure to others within or outside their workforce except as allowed by HIPAA and other applicable law. .

Since HIPAA entities also are likely to be subject to other statutory, ethical, contractual or other privacy or confidentiality requirements beyond those imposed by the Privacy Rule, most HIPAA entities also will want to consider and take steps to identify and address these other potential legal or ethical responsibilities such as medical confidentiality duties applicable to physicians and other health care providers under medical ethics, professional licensure or other similar rules, contractual responsibilities, as well as common law privacy or other related exposures when conducting this review.  Additionally, most HIPAA entities also will want to take into account and manage their potential exposure to privacy, theft of likeness or other intellectual property, or other statutory or common law tort or contractual claims that might attached to the unauthorized filming, photographing, or surveillance of individuals under federal or state common or statutory laws.

Since this analysis and review in most cases will result in the uncovering or discussion of potentially legally or politically sensitive information, HIPAA entities should consider consulting with or engaging experienced legal counsel for assistance in structuring and executing these activities to maximize their ability to claim attorney-client privilege or other evidentiary protections against discovery or disclosure of certain aspects of these activities.

Finally, HIPAA entities should keep in mind that HIPAA compliance and risk management is an ongoing process requiring constant awareness and diligence.  Consequently, HIPAA entities should both monitor OCR and other regulatory and enforcement developments as well as exercise ongoing vigilance to monitor and maintain compliance within their organizations.

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 contact 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 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. 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:

• Ex-Wife’s 56 Month Sentence For Using Ex-Husband’s Provider Number To Commit Medicaid Fraud Warning To Other Providers
• Fake Nurse Identity Theft Plea Warning For Health Care Employers
• HHS Fraud Enforcement Risk Tool Updated
• 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
• Revise Health Plan HIPAA Records Access Rules & Procedures To Use Newly Flexibility On Charging, Responding To Third Party PHI Requests
• Don’t Get Stuck Paying Another Employer’s Overtime Or Other Backpay
• 2019 OCR Enforcement Shows Getting Defensibly HIPAA Compliant Necessary In 2020!
• DOJ Omnicare/CVS Suit Highlights Potential Pharmacy Benefit Claims Abuse Exposure For Health Plans, Member Safety Risk
• NLRB Restores Pre-Obama Era Union Dues Checkoff Rule
• $1.6M HIPAA Penalty Largely Caused By Inadequate Security Assessments & Oversight  
• 10 Former NFL Payers Charged With Defrauding NFL Retiree Health Fund  
• College Pays $54,000 To Settle DOJ ADA Lawsuit For Paramedic Program’s Termination of TA With MS  
• OCR Sanction Of 44th Health Care Provider For Violating HIPAA Right of Access Rules Warning To Other Covered Entities
• Medical Center’s Overtime Award Highlights FLSA Risks For Health Industry Employers
• HHS Prepares To End COVID Vaccine Mandate
• Medical Professionals, Medical Businesses Owners and Others Criminally Charged In $490 Million Plus COVID-19 Related False Billings Takedown
• Sibley Hospital & Johns Hopkins Health System Pay $5 Million To Settle Stark Violations
• HHS Inspector General Comments Signal Aggressive Enforcement
• Pharmaceutical Distributor Danco’s $765,000 False Claims Act Settlement Shows Importance Of Customs Marking and Duty Rules
• $400K EEOC Settlement Warns Health Care Organizations Against Pregnancy Discrimination
• 2 Pharmacy FCA Convictions Warn Against Billing Or Undelivered Drugs Or Care

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.

©2023 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Limited non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™