Civil Commitment: Sex Offenders+: HIPAA

Showing posts with label HIPAA. Show all posts

“It’s Worse Than Prison”

Labels: (AfterCommitNews, (GeneralNews-c, Advocate, HIPAA, Stats-Transgender, Virginia-c

10-10-15 Virginia:

Reginald Artis served 27 years behind bars. But just because her sentence was up didn’t mean she got to go free.

Reginald Artis is a transgender woman from Chesapeake, Virginia, who was sent to prison in 1987 for a sex crime she committed at age 23, when she still identified as a man, against a 17-year-old. The sentence Artis was given meant that as long as she stayed out of trouble while doing her time, she’d be released from prison in 2012. Artis, who is now 52, counted down the days as she waited to go home to her family.

Then something unexpected happened: A few months before she was supposed to be released, Artis was told by a prison counselor that she was a candidate for something called civil commitment. A doctor would be coming to the prison to evaluate her, the counselor said, to determine whether she was at risk for committing another sex crime. If the doctor decided she was, that testimony would be presented to a judge, and Artis would likely be sent to a facility to receive treatment. She would be held indefinitely at that facility until the state decided it was safe to let her out.

Artis could not believe it. She had never heard of civil commitment, and she didn’t understand how it could be possible that after serving her prison sentence without incident, she would not be allowed to go home. After a judge heard the case—and reviewed the results of a risk assessment questionnaire Artis had taken at the behest of the doctor who visited her in prison—that was exactly what happened. On Jan. 13, 2013, after 27 years of being locked up in one institution, Artis found herself locked up in another one.

HIPAA Criminal Charges To Gain Steam As Data Goes Digital

Labels: ( Informational Post, (AfterCommitNews, (GeneralNews-c, HIPAA

2014 National:

(August 06, 2014, 4:18 PM ET) -- Federal prosecutors recently brought criminal charges under the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act against a former hospital employee accused of intentionally accessing and disclosing sensitive data, a rare move that attorneys predict will become more frequent as the digitization of data enables employees to have broader and easier access to patient information.

On July 3, U.S. Attorney John M. Bales of the Eastern District of Texas announced the unsealing of an indictment charging former hospital employee Joshua Hippler with violating the criminal provisions of HIPAA by obtaining protected health information with the intent to use the information for personal gain.

Although prosecutors around the country have lodged only around a dozen cases asserting criminal violations of HIPAA during the past decade, attorneys say the health care industry's shift away from paper records is likely to present more opportunities for unauthorized access to protected health data that will prompt more criminal actions to emerge in the years to come.

“It has not really been a cause of action that has gotten a lot of attention from prosecutors, but that's not to say that over time there won't be more actions if we see a rash of people who are engaging in the theft of health information,” said Colin Zick, Foley Hoag LLP's privacy and data security practice co-chair. “Health information is increasingly being maintained in digital form, which makes data both more secure and more vulnerable, and that is something that folks might take advantage of.”

Although covered entities tend to focus on the vastly more common scenario of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services assessing civil penalties for inadvertent violations of HIPAA, the criminal liability that companies or individuals could face under the statute also packs a significant punch.

HIPAA and Civil Commitment Evaluations

Labels: California-ct, HIPAA

6-30-2010 California:

Seaton v Mayberg

We address a claim to privacy rights in his medical records of a prisoner being evaluated for civil commitment.

Seaton was convicted in 1986 of two counts each of forcible rape and forcible oral copulation, and one count of kidnaping for the purpose of committing rape.2 He had two prior serious felony convictions, and was sentenced to 42 years in state prison, later reduced to 37 and then 31 years. After 16 years, apparently because he was approaching early release, the county sheriff's department had him transferred to a state hospital for evaluation for possible civil commitment.

He sued the Director of the California Department of Mental Health, the Administrator of Atascadero State Hospital, and the two psychologists who examined him and gave their opinions to the county district attorney's office. Though he raises several theories, the most substantial is that the defendants violated his constitutional right to privacy by allowing the psychologists to look at his records and to communicate their opinions and supporting data to the district attorney's office. This case is his section 1983 claim, not his habeas corpus case.

Seaton's medical records were being examined to decide whether to seek his commitment under California's Sexually Violent Predator Act .3 The Act enables the state to commit some sex offenders civilly for indeterminate terms subject to yearly evaluations.4 A “sexually violent predator” under the statute is one who (1) has been convicted of a sexually violent offense, (2) has a diagnosed mental disorder, (3) that makes him a danger to the health and safety of others, (4) the danger being “that it is likely that he or she will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior.”5 The prior offense may be evidence, but is not conclusive. A mental disorder “that predisposes the person to the commission of criminal sexual acts in a degree constituting the person a menace”6 is a sine qua non. Thus the statute provides for the civil commitment of persons whose mental disease predisposes them to crime and whose criminal history gives weight to the predictive judgment.

... ... ...

... ... ...

One who goes to a physician in order to obtain medical benefit to himself or his family has substantial privacy interests that may or may not be constitutionally protected. One who is compelled to submit to medical examination for the benefit of the public, to determine whether because of mental disease he is likely to engage in sexually predatory behavior, does not.

AFFIRMED.

Rapist fights access to records

Labels: HIPAA, Massachusetts-c, Massachusetts-ct

6-10-2014 Massachusetts:

Psychiatric reports helped spring him

A convicted serial rapist accused of breaking into an Arlington woman’s home and brutally raping her is trying to block public access to the taxpayer-funded psychiatric reports that led a jury to release him from prison last year, saying they are confidential.

“Once I was released, I did not see any public notification about my case,” Essie L. Billingslea wrote in an affidavit filed in Suffolk Superior Court yesterday. “I never thought that evidence from (my trial) would be released to anyone in the public. No one ever told me it would.”

Billingslea’s public defender, Eric Tennen, filed an appeal yesterday after Suffolk Superior Court Judge Merita A. Hopkins’ ruling last week to side with the Herald’s motion to release the  experts’ affidavits.

Hopkins weighed Billingslea’s right to privacy vs. state law that allows examination reports used as court evidence to be made public, and said she could find no “good cause” to shield the documents. The reports, filed by defense experts, were used as evidence during the trial that overturned Billingslea’s civil commitment as a sexually dangerous person.

“Essentially, the information that the Herald seeks public access to has already been in the public realm,” Hopkins wrote in her June 5 decision. “Stated another way, the information that Billingslea seeks to impound is already disseminated.”

Lawyer loses round in fight against Kansas’ sexual predator law

Labels: (GeneralNews-c, HIPAA, Kansas-c, Kansas-ct, Kansas-ls, KS-Death, Stats-Release

8-23-2013 Kansas:

A Wichita lawyer who is challenging the state’s sexual predator law lost a bid Friday to keep the state from using his client’s medical and prison records against him.

But the lawyer, Michael Whalen, said he will continue to challenge the state’s Sexual Predator Act despite a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that said the law was constitutional.

“The act we have today in no way resembles the act reviewed by the Supreme Court,” Whalen said after Friday’s hearing. “Since that time, there have been numerous amendments and changes to the law.

“It’s not over and done with, not by any stretch of the imagination.”

The law, passed in 1994, allows the state to confine some repeat sex offenders to a secure building at the Larned State Hospital after they have served their prison sentences. The Legislature passed the law after the 1993 death of Stephanie Schmidt, a Pittsburg State University student killed by a paroled rapist.

Attorney works to overturn Kansas sex predator law

Labels: (GeneralNews-c, HIPAA, Kansas-c, Kansas-ls, KS-Death

8-25-2013 Kansas:

WICHITA, Kan. (AP) — An attorney for a Kansas man who is among the roughly 250 sex offenders confined at a state hospital because their prison terms expired and they were deemed too dangerous to go free says the law that allows this has changed significantly over the years and needs to be re-examined.

Michael Whalen, a lawyer for 63-year-old sex offender Robert Ontibersos, Friday urged District Judge Terry Pullman on Friday to quash subpoenas for his client's medical and prison records, The Wichita Eagle reported (http://is.gd/udJfzc ).

Ontibersos was convicted of attempted rape in 1983 and aggravated sexual battery in 2001. He was about to be paroled in 2008 when a jury found that he was a sexual predator, resulting in his continued incarceration under the state's Sexual Predator Act, which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in 1997.

The Kansas Supreme Court overturned the verdict and said Ontobersos' attorney was ineffective. Whalen, who argued Friday that disclosing his client's records violates federal medical privacy laws, has taken over as Ontibersos' counsel.

Jennifer Wilbert, who represented Larned State Hospital at Friday's hearing, said there's an exception in federal privacy law that requires confidential medical records to be provided to authorities in sexual predator cases.

Ontiberos' mental health records would be needed in order to determine whether or not he is a sexual predator, Assistant Kansas Attorney General Christine Ladner said.

"It's the heart of the issue; that's why the law provides for it," she said.

The law considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1997 is a far cry from what the state's Sexual Predator Act has become, Whalen said.

"The act we have today in no way resembles the act reviewed by the Supreme Court," he said. "Since that time, there have been numerous amendments and changes to the law.

The law was passed in 1994 and allows the state to confine some repeat sex offenders to a secure building at the Larned State Hospital after they have served their prison sentences. The law was passed after the 1993 death of Stephanie Schmidt, a Pittsburg State University student who was killed by a paroled rapist.

At the time of the Supreme Court's 1997 ruling, there were nine predators being held at Larned State Hospital. There are about 250 there today, and only four have been released from the program. Sixteen have died in custody.

Whalen said that over the years, the Kansas Legislature has eliminated many of the rights written into the original act, including the requirement that a civil sexual predator trial must start no more than 60 days after a judge determines there is enough evidence to put the question to a jury.

Lawmakers eliminated that time limit more than a decade ago, he said.

One of Whalen's clients, Todd Ellison, 44, has been in Sedgwick County Jail awaiting trial for more than four years, he said. ..Source.. by SFGate

DCF to review criteria for sexually violent offenders program after Cherish Perrywinkle death

Labels: Florida-c, HIPAA, Recid-B4-CC

7-19-2013 Florida:

The Florida Department of Children and Families will review its criteria for which sex offenders should be held in civil commitment, almost a month after a Jacksonville man was charged with the kidnapping and murder of 8-year-old Cherish Perrywinkle.

Dan Montaldi, administrator of the state’s sexually violent predator program, said procedures are reviewed when it is learned that someone evaluated in the program has been re-arrested. Donald James Smith’s arrest on June 22 was a high-profile example, he said, and studies published in the last year have also raised questions about the effectiveness of the psychological assessment tool used in evaluating offenders for continued confinement as they are scheduled to be released from prison.

“It’s important for us to look at all our programs to make sure we’re keeping everyone safe, particularly children in our state,” Montaldi said.

The department will convene a team of experts to review the tools it uses to determine whether a sex offender leaving prison should be held under the Sexually Violent Predator Program, better known as the Jimmy Ryce Act, DCF press secretary Whitney Ray said in a statement.

Professional journals have discussed the evaluation tools used by the state to decide whether a person with a criminal history of sexual offenses is likely to be dangerous, according to the statement. The review team will deliver findings on the Static-99R tool by Sept. 23.

Montaldi said the evaluation tool is just one part of a comprehensive review, and different studies have found varied recidivism rates in cases where the predictive tool was used.

REFUSED TREATMENT

Records provided to the Times-Union Friday show that Smith declined treatment several times before he was released from prison — apparently even during his time in the Florida Civil Commitment Center in Arcadia.

Smith’s first evaluation under the Jimmy Ryce Act stemmed from 1992, when police said Smith tried to lure a 13-year-old girl into his van in Jacksonville. He chased her into a park, and later that day showed pornography to children. He served almost five years before getting paroled in 1997, but returned to prison on a parole violation.

He was held in civil commitment for three years. Clinical records were not released due to medical privacy laws (HIPAA), but Smith refused to attend a meeting or sign a consent form to receive treatment at the commitment center two weeks before prosecutors dropped the civil case in 2002. He was never taken to trial. The court ordered him to seek his own treatment.

He was sent back to state prison in 2004 for dealing in stolen property. Records from Smith’s file show that each time he entered a prison facility, he declined treatment.

Smith is quoted in a 2005 report as saying, “This program wouldn’t be able to touch the [treatment] modalities I’ve been through.” He refused to talk about his current offenses, and when asked if he believed he had a problem with sexual thoughts or behavior, he said, “Not anymore I don’t.”

In 2006, when he was scheduled for release, records show an evaluator said Smith did not meet the criteria to be committed as a violent sexual offender.

Records show that during that evaluation, Smith declined to be interviewed. ..Source.. by Kate Howard Perry

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Do Sex Offenders have HIPAA Privacy Rights?? Are HIPAA Privacy Rights Violated by Public Sex Offender Registries?? Sex Offenders and HIPAA!

Labels: HIPAA

May 2003:

The title of this post is the title of one Topic report written by eAdvocate in May of 2003. It is being brought forward here simply to document history and see if it is now law. Remember, it was written in 2003 and today is 2013..

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA)

Journalists throughout the nation, talk about the problems that the new medical disclosure regulations are creating for journalists. Pro football/baseball teams worry about releasing injury information, hospital florists cannot put names on flowers for delivery, and hospital information desks don't know what to say when somebody calls asking if a loved one is at the hospital. Doctors can't use the old sign-in sheets they once used at their front desk. Hospitals cannot even tell law enforcement if someone is in the hospital.

These are the kinds of concerns that one would expect about these new rules. Yet, there is another even newer area!

--- Sex Offenders ---

We recognize that the issue of a "Sex Offenders' Medical / Psychological Privacy Rights" has not been directly addressed as such under HIPAA.

However, recognizing that, does not mean that "Sex Offenders" should not be entitled to, at least, the same protections of HIPAA as is everyone else in society.

Further, there are issues about sex offenders that cross the line between, criminal and medical issues, and these are our focus; the uncharted areas!

The ultimate goal of HIPAA, by virtue of the law itself, is to prevent IMPROPER "access to" and/or "disclosure of" a person's medical / psychological information!

Accordingly, every issue must first be viewed as a "access or disclosure" issue.

HIPAA defines -by process of elimination- who are the covered entities, meaning, who must comply with HIPAA.

Covered entities: 1)Health plans; 2)Health care clearinghouses; 3)Health care providers who conduct certain financial and administrative transactions electronically.

These entities (collectively called “covered entities”) are bound by the new privacy standards even if they contract with others (called “business associates”) to perform some of their essential functions.

Health Care Clearinghouses: Clearinghouses are public or private entities that process or facilitate the processing of nonstandard data elements of health information into standard data elements. These basically take medical information (store it for later retrieval, use it to make payments or other accounting, etc.) and pass it along to another business with approvals.

However, limiting who must comply with HIPAA defeats the ultimate privacy goals of HIPAA, and may permit improper accesses or disclosures; an uncharted area!

Accordingly, reviewing the covered entities, generally speaking, medical / psychological information is protected from its point-of-origin through today, whenever that is. At least that is the goal of HIPAA!

Before we bring this into perspective as to sex offenders, let us say this, from now on we are moving into the the uncharted areas we have mentioned before.

The "State (including the Federal Gov't, and lower jurisdictions i.e., law enforcement agencies)" stands in a unique position, when it is functioning as a entity with folks in-custody (i.e., inmates, in jails, on parole, on probation, on supervised release).

It functions as a covered-entity of each kind defined under HIPAA at different times. It must provide health care for in-custody folks (inmates and some psychological programs for folks in society). Then it performs as a health plan (by paying for the services) and a health care clearinghouse by inter-agency transfers of information that has been gathered. (ex: a sex offender is order to take sex offender therapy while in prison. The parole board requires that therapy report to make its decision on parole. Then if paroled, community supervision is given access to the parolees compete file. Will HIPAA now require releases signed to permit the various agencies access?).

Therefore, determining whether "the state" is, was, or continues to be, OR, is not, a "covered entity" will need to be determined on a circumstance by circumstance, basis. When a question arises, as to "access or disclosure," one must review how the medical / psychological information was initially generated (point of origin) and follow it through to today, to determine whether HIPAA has been violated.

What are the unusual areas where HIPAA may come into play
with sex offenders??

HIPAA in Jails or Prisons:

When sex offenders are in prison they don't want other inmates knowing what their crime is. First there is the shame of it, secondly it causes a safety concern, in that, other inmates will often attack them or wish to do other things.

While we know there will never be any admission from a state that the following ever happens, we have heard from far too many inmates that it occurs on a regular basis. Guards have access to inmate files, whether they should or not, they do access them. Often when it is learned that an inmate's crime is a sex offense, the guards choose to exact their own form of vigilantism.

Sex offenders are then subjected to, legal/illegal, body searches, cell searches, frequent friskings, and then the worst, a guard will tell another inmate. When this happens the sex offender is placed in grave danger of attack from other inmates. One such story is told that resulted in the arsonist getting a 6 year sentence. In another case an inmate (Raymond William Maxwell) was killed by 3 inmates because he was a sex offender.

In prison systems, inmates are permitted to file grievances when something happens that violates rules or laws. HIPAA is certainly a protection for inmates (sex offenders), and when guards all of a sudden know what their crime is - the inmate can file a grievance. The fines for disclosures are hefty and now with HIPAA there may be more grievances filed by sex offenders.

HIPAA in the Community:

The first circumstance: the "Risk Assessment -Process-," where public agencies use criminal and mental health information to perform a risk assessment. The goal of the -process- being to determine the offender's "Likelihood of Re-Offense Factor" which is disclosed to the public on sex offender registries, or as part of a state's community notification of a sex offender moving into a community.

While it would appear that the "Likelihood of Re-Offense Factor" is a criminal justice factor and therefore not covered under HIPAA, it must be remembered that it is the product of a "Prediction-Scheme" that would release personal mental health characteristics about the offender, hence -in-our-belief-, covered by HIPAA protections against non-release.

Further, without a release form signed by the offender, these public agencies are not permitted under HIPAA to obtain mental health information to perform the risk assessment process. HIPAA began in April of 2003. Does HIPAA require signed releases for the state to obtain records for these risk assessment processes?

The second circumstance: inclusion in a "Sex Offender Registry," whether or not a risk assessment is being performed! Inclusion sends a public message that, each listed person, has a "Mental Abnormality" or a "Personality Disorder" which predisposes them to recidivate. i.e. releasing mental health information about the registrant.

HIPAA has not recognized that, by virtue of Sex Offender Registration laws, that certain sex offender medical information is being publically disclosed in violation of HIPAA protections!

Sex offenders are said to have a "Mental Abnormality" or a "Personality Disorder" or "Propensity" that causes them to recidivate. Clearly that falls into the realm of "Psychological" information which is protected by HIPAA.

Those terms were first applied to sex offenders by legislatures, which gave them definition in an attempt to keep sex offenders civilly confined beyond their criminal sentences, and as a basis to force sex offenders in society into sex offender registries! Allegedly, for the safety of the public.

While legislatures have based their findings on studies, showing sex offenders have a high rate of recidivism, many experts refute these studies as being misapplied and false, the facts are that, -OVERALL-, sex offenders DO NOT have a high rate of recidivism, that link to one of our pages, where we discuss how "recidivism rate" studies are being misconstrued, here we will stay focused on the HIPAA issue.

Now assuming arguendo, that sex offenders do have a mental condition (by whatever name) that causes them to recidivate, the question becomes, does the state violate HIPAA by disclosing that fact about sex offenders? An uncharted area!

HIPAA does permit disclosure of such a fact, ONLY IF IT IS A SERIOUS THREAT, and ONLY TO SPECIFIC PERSON/S that are at risk, and ONLY WHEN THAT PERSON COMPLETES A REQUEST FORM. Clearly that not be folks who live on the other side of the world, and other places where the sex offender is not!

The third circumstance: Sex offenders are no less human than other folks, and sometimes they end up Hospitalized until well enough to return home. Remember, the hospital is not going to release anything to anyone without some form of HIPAA release (written or oral), even family members.

All the normal medical psychological protections are not the issue here, however, there are two circumstances that may cause concern for the hospitalized sex offender.

1) If the offender is on parole, probation, supervised release or other form of community supervision by the state. The agent in charge of the offender's release program, is prohibited from obtaining information (from the hospital) about the hospitalization of the sex offender -even his/her name- without the sex offender's written consent. Hefty HIPAA fines govern hospital decisions! The offender will be somehow responsible for contacting their supervising agent!

2) If the offender is not under any form of community supervision, the offender must still deal with being a registered sex offender and all that entails in their state of residency. Now the only time we see a possible concern is, if law enforcement came to your home expecting you to be there and you weren't (i.e., annual verification of address, etc.), most likely in the past they would check local hospitals after a period of time. However, under HIPAA they would be told, the hospital can neither confirm or deny that such a patient exists.

In a sense when the sex offender is hospitalized, it is as if you disappeared. Hopefully for a planned hospital stay, all would be resolved beforehand, but then there is the emergency, and accident or something like that.

The fourth circumstance: This is something unusual, sex offenders in the community who have special needs, who are challenged either physically or mentally. Many of these folks obtain services from community social service agencies.

Currently in Connecticut such a case exists and we are watching it play out to see just how HIPAA plays a part in this. You can read about this case in the "News Reports" below. Summarizing: A mentally challenged registered sex offender is living in a rented home in Connecticut. The landlord apparently owns two homes which he has rented to two different sex offender, one is receiving services from Reliance House (a community mental health agency).

The community learned of the mentally challenged sex offender's presence from the state's sex offender registry, and later the second sex offender. The mentally challenged sex offender's residence is apparently at the edge of a wooded area, the other side of which is school property. The community protested his presence and wanted him to move. They contacted their local asemblyman who tried to find out more about the mentally challenged offender, and when he couldn't Reliance House admitted Federal Law prohibited them from saying anything. i.e. HIPAA.

The community persisted and initiated a lawsuit. They claimed (alleged) that, the landlord is running a business in a residential area against zoning laws, and dragged Reliance House into the suit. The landlord says, "I'm not doing anything wrong, I'm just renting to two different sex offenders who have to live somewhere." There are no laws in Connecticut prohibitng sex offenders from living near schools, the community doesn't care about that, they want the sex offender out; so they attack the landlord??? (Guilty by association).

The judge on 5-21-2003 (click to read 5-21 news article; earlier ones are below.), recognizing all sorts of problems, including he may not even have jurisdiction to do anything, has ordered everyone to file briefs for him to read. Note: The sex offender himself is not a party to the action, he was not served anything whatsoever. Further, until this 5-21 news article, neither his name nor his conviction, has ever been mentioned.

We have no idea how this will play out. Notice the town's lawyers, trying to get the court to evict someone who is not represented in court using a little known process, a Prejudgment remedy to evict the sex offender. Actually they are attacking the landlord, for doing nothing wrong. What happened to real-party-in-interest rules?

[In Connecticut, a prejudgment remedy is "any remedy or combination of remedies that enables a person by way of attachment, foreign attachment, garnishment or replevin to deprive the defendant in a civil action of, or affect the use, possession, or enjoyment by such defendant of, his property prior to final judgment but shall not include a temporary restraining order." Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-278a.]
Clearly the judge recognizes this sounds more like an "Abuse of Process" action, and it seems they forgot about the AMericans with Disabilities Act which the sex offender can use to fight the eviction if it comes. This case bears watching!

What are the HIPAA laws/rules that may come into play
with sex offenders??

HIPAA contains one section (with three sub-sections) which we believe would be claimed to support public disclosure of sex offender medical / psychological information:

§ 164.512: Uses and disclosures for which consent, an authorization, or opportunity to agree or object is not required.
§§ 164.512(a): Uses and disclosures required by law;
§§ 164.512(f): Disclosures for law enforcement purposes;
§§ 164.512(j): Uses and disclosures to avert a serious threat to public health or safety.

None of the above support "Public Disclosure of a Sex Offender's Medical Information" without a signed release. Each of the sub-sections are dependent on other factors which are not available to the state without a signed release form from the sex offender!

Neither do any of above support "State Access of a Sex Offender's Medical Information" without a signed release. Each of the sub-sections are dependent on other factors which are not available to the state without a signed release form from the sex offender!

However, state access and public disclosure is permitted when the sex offender is a fugitive or involved in a current criminal investigation alleging criminal activity! Further, family access and state access is also permitted when an extreme emergency exists (i.e., accident etc.).

--- HIPAA rule subsections (Added 5-24) ---

What follows is a list of the individual subparts of the HIPAA rule. This is being placed here so folks who are on parole, probation, supervised release, or other form of community supervision are made aware of ALL PARTS OF THE RULE. However, be advised we show only the title of each subpart.

One point about titles of subparts, a title may imply that, every possible use within the title's description is possible, that should not be assumued, and in fact, many of these subparts contain provisions limiting their use. Likewise is it when you go into a subpart, into its various sections, frequently there are limiting statements which restrict uses to specific circumstances. So don't be fooled by a Title, read all parts of it, so you understand it.

PART 164 – SECURITY AND PRIVACY
Subpart A – General Provisions
Sec.
164.102 Statutory basis.
164.104 Applicability.
164.106 Relationship to other parts.

Subparts B-D – [Reserved]

Subpart E – Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information

164.500 Applicability.
164.501 Definitions.
164.502 Uses and disclosures of protected health information: general rules.
164.504 Uses and disclosures: organizational requirements.
164.506 Consent for uses or disclosures to carry out treatment, payment, and health care operations.
164.508 Uses and disclosures for which an authorization is required.
164.510 Uses and disclosures requiring an opportunity for the individual to agree or to object.
164.512 Uses and disclosures for which consent, an authorization, or opportunity to agree or object is not required.
164.514 Other requirements relating to uses and disclosures of protected health information.
164.520 Notice of privacy practices for protected health information.
164.522 Rights to request privacy protection for protected health information.
164.524 Access of individuals to protected health information.
164.526 Amendment of protected health information.
164.528 Accounting of disclosures of protected health information.
164.530 Administrative requirements.
164.532 Transition requirements.
164.534 Compliance dates for initial implementation of the privacy standards.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1320d-2 and 1320d-4, sec. 264 of Pub. L. 104-191, 110 Stat. 2033- 2034(42 U.S.C. 1320(d-2(note)).

Note: Under subpart 164.520 "Notice of privacy practices for protected health information," is a provision which requires that, whoever is requiring you to sign their notice, is also required to give you a copy of that Disclosure/Access form you are signing. We mention this because, often employees (i.e., Department of Corrections personnel, etc.,) feel imposed upon to do anything after they have accomplished their task!

--- Conclusion ---

The presence of HIPAA now seals all medical (including psychological) information about a sex offender without a signed release from the sex offender!

Sex offenders must take the time, before signing anything from "the state," to assess what "Access" and "Disclosure" provisions are inherent in the document they are signing. Is it a release of information, even hidden, or implied?

It will take time for various circumstances to rise before much is known about this new law. It does appear that it provides some Privacy Protections for sex offenders.

Until we learn more, this is where we will leave this issue. Yes, many questions are still unanswered, simply because this law never existed before.

Pages