Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

???hippa???

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    ???hippa???

    Why is nobody talking about HIPPA ? I know it's been coming for some time now, but I called 5 O.D. offices today, and they all said they filed extensions, but none of the stafff actually know what it was all about.

    From the sounds of it, it is all-encompassing, to include providers of any medical service or product. Right now it seems to be focussing on electronic information, but soon it will cover all office procedures relating to patient privacy.

    If this plays out the way they say, I don't see how you can discuss someone's Rx with them in a dispensary, unless you are alone with the patient. They say that we will have to have the file room locked, w/ locks on the cabinets, and the keys to those locked. The receptionist will not be able to view any information unless it pertains to them checking in or out. All other info. is for the doctor only, and even then, only those files that relate to the issue at hand. (???)

    I went to my dentist Tuesday, and they have to remodel their office because the walls are too thin, and you can hear the drill being used from the other rooms. (Who hasn't heard that?) They already have filters covering all their computer screens, and they took me into an isolated room to ask me if anything had changed w/ my health since the last visit.

    How could our lobbyists such as NFIB, AAO, AOA, AMA, etc... let such a law go into effect.

    FYI: I called HIPPA, and they said that it was uneccesary to file that extension (how many did anyway?) that was due before midnight on October 16, 2002, unless you have more than 10 employees on staff.

    You think OSHA is bad ? It sounds like this new goverment fundraiser is going to make OSHA and the EPA look like a cakewalk.

    Of course, all you large multi-practice folks are probably up on all this, but most of my peers look at me like I'm speaking another language when I mention it to them.

    Can anyone enlighten us ?

    -Johns
    Ophthalmic Optician, Society to Advance Opticianry

    #2
    BTW

    What language are you speaking:bbg: ??

    Comment


      #3
      hippa

      :finger: I was informed at my office yesterday, that the sign in sheets will have to be first name only, i guess its time to get out the old take a number routine. What a classic example of big government running amok. I wonder how long it will be before we have to fit everyone in a private room.

      Comment


        #4
        Because of hippa we are going to have to change our filing cabinets. When the office building was built in '68, it was built with built-in filing cabinets. Since there is no way to lock them, we are going to have to rip out these sturdy and functional units and replace them with locking filing cabinets that will probably amount to less file room and definitely amount to a 4-digit price tag. A total waste of money.

        Comment


          #5
          There's already a thread on this subject:


          OptiBoard Administrator
          ----
          OptiBoard has been proudly serving the Eyecare Community since 1995.

          Comment


            #6
            HIPAA -- do NOT panic but get moving NOW

            Johns, Harry, Paw, and all the other US-based folks on this list.... Do not panic.
            HIPAA is not the end of western civilization as we know it.

            Contrary to the statements made in the previous postings:

            1) Sign-in sheets do NOT have to be first name only,

            2) You do NOT have to be alone in the dispensary to discuss an Rx with a patient,

            3) You do NOT have to have a dedicated, locked file room with locked cabinets,

            4) Staff can look at the patient chart as part of handing their regular office duties,

            5) The dentist's office is crazy if they're putting up new walls to keep other patients from hearing the sound of drilling. Nothing in HIPAA requires that,

            6) Nothing in HIPAA requires that patients be taken into an isolated room to discuss if there have been any changes in their health,

            7) It is ABSOLUTELY wrong that you don't have to worry about HIPAA if you have fewer than 10 employees. If you do any of the tasks described in the regs (e.g., if you file ANY claims electronically or transmit patient records/information electronically) then you DO fall under HIPAA and must comply,

            8) If you did NOT file for the 1 year extention (deadline was this past Tuesday) of the transaction part of HIPAA then you have a problem. You are now non-compliant. And payers can now refuse to accept your electronic claims submissions. (It remains to be seen just how much collateral damage will result for the approximately 66% of covered entities that did not file for the extention.)

            HIPAA, while complicated and daunting, is based on a standard of "reasonableness." If you'd like a quick HIPAA education you can read the four articles I've published in recent months. Here are the URLS:










            Time to get cracking. HIPAA's privacy and security regs to into effect next April. You do NOT have much time and there's a lot to do.

            Gil Weber, MBA

            Comment


              #7
              hippa

              :angry: Well Gil, i,m glad you are happy with it, while you seem to be well informed about hippa, it still does not change my opinion that this is nothing more then abunch of useless , unneeded C___T, that will only result in a bunch of baseless lawsuits, probably in the most part by a bunch of sorry people, who thrive on this sort of garbage.

              Comment


                #8
                Harry, relax, relax.

                Harry,

                Relax, Amigo. What makes you think I'm happy about HIPAA? Nothing in my reply should have given you that impression. I simply pointed out that the previous posters were under incorrect impressions as to what HIPAA is all about. HIPAA does not mandate the outrageous requirements described by them.

                And while you may be of the opinion that it's all "...useless, unneeded C___T..." (whatever C____T is?), HIPAA will not result in a bunch of baseless lawsuits.

                It's all about government regulations and compliance -- we have to deal with that as best we can. HIPAA certainly is NOT about lawsuits, baseless or otherwise, that will be brought by individuals against your optical business.

                So please, chill out and relax. You don't have to like HIPAA; nobody does. But learn about HIPAA and deal with it. Your choices are to do that, or get out of patient care, or stay in patient care but not in the USA.
                Don't kill me, I'm only the messenger trying to help.

                Gil Weber, MBA

                Comment


                  #9
                  Of course if they were "customers" and the spectacles were "optical products" as opposed to "patients" and "medical devises" hippa would have little or no bearing on what we do or how we do it.

                  It's just a thought.

                  Chip

                  Comment


                    #10
                    I didn't say dedicated, locked rooms were needed. I did say locked file cabinets were needed.

                    I suppose the idea is that the cleaning lady or the fix-it man could pull out a file out of an unlocked cabinet and read all sorts of stuff that is none of their business.

                    Wonder what the cleaning lady or the fix-it man sees at the bank or the stock broker's office? That's private info too. Why not spread the joy around and make these rules apply to the world of finance too?

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Chippa

                      Good point, Chip. One of the problems with the Privacy Rule is that all "personally-identifiable heath information" is treated the same. It's obvious that a person's interest in keeping his spectacle Rx private is very different from, say, so keeping the information at his urologist's.

                      And paw, the Privacy Rule doesn't say anything about keeping file cabinets locked. In fact, there are no specific requirements enumerated (at least, not that I recall). The Rule comes down to, you must disclose only the minumum amount of personally-identifiable health information required to provide treatment and get paid for it. What constitutes the minimum is left pretty much up to your professional judgment.

                      If your file cabinets don't lock, it would probably be sufficient to have a documented policy, the content of which is distributed through a documented procedure to all persons who might reasonably be expected to have access to your file cabinets, stating that only persons who need to open those files as part of the provision of treatment, or in the course of managing the business relationship with the patient (i.e., getting paid), may do so.

                      At the very least, everyone should read the Privacy Rule; it's written in something very much like English, and is not totally incomprehensible. Because it includes numerous comments made by the public on the rule when it was in the "proposal" stage, which were rejected as well as incorporated in the final rule, you have to read carefully. You can find it at



                      Harry, I disagree with your assertion that this is "big government run amok". Big government would have done a better job. This is amateur government run amok. I think you're right about the lawsuits, though (sorry, Gil); there will be accidental disclosures of personally-identifiable health information, and The Lawyers will strive to characterize such violations as negligence or malpractice in civil suits, which wouldn't be nearly so easy to do, absent the regulations. Bets, anyone?

                      Comment


                        #12
                        hippa

                        :finger: Gil, while i will learn to live with it because i have to, does not change my opinion about it. However you have to be dreaming if you think there will not be lawsuits.
                        .....Whenever you have any government agency acting as a defacto attorney, you are going to have abuse of the system, more especially in this situation,as the misguided idiots that wrote this trash are going to want to justify its existence.
                        ....What better way to make a statement then to drag in some MD. OD. optician, etc and make a public example. How long do you think it will be Gil, before we see billboards and tv announcements from J.J. Schmuck, LLC, atty. at law asking, "has your privacy been invaded", call 555-555-5555

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Gil,

                          I did NOT say that HIPPA does not affect offices with fewer than 10 employees. I said that offices with fewer than 10 employees do not need to file an extension. The reason for this (Per Terry S. at the HIPPA information center) is that if you have fewer than 10 employees, you are supposed to be compliant with HIPPA already. An extension would not help if you're not compliant.

                          Regarding the dentist: The office currently uses partitioned rooms where the drill can be heard from behind them. Conversation could also be heard from behind these "walls", and according to your article, this is a violation of HIPPA.


                          Regarding the upcoming and fines:

                          I'm sure that the OSHA laws were all well intended when they were written, but that is not much solace to the roofing company in Pennsylvania (Nov. 1994) that was fined $12,450 because ladders were placed at non-regualtion angles to the side of the building, or the trim carpenter in Ohio (April 1998)that was fined $4,805 for not having a GFI on his extension cords.

                          And we've all heard that stories of the farmers that lost their property because they accidentally killed a rodent that was on the endangered species list.

                          Regarding Harry thinking you're happy about HIPPA: I would think that a law like this would have the same affect on a consultant such as yourself as a big change in the tax law would have on an accountant.

                          Finally:

                          Thanks for the enlightenment ! You did answer many of the questions I had on HIPPA. I'm still wondering why so many offices seem to be doing nothing about it.

                          -Johns




                          :)
                          Ophthalmic Optician, Society to Advance Opticianry

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Ball of Confusion

                            I haven't seen any reference, anywhere, to this alleged "10-employee rule" - perhaps some confusion arises from the exception to the need to file for an extension to comply with the Electronic Transactions rule afforded to "small health plans" which are plans comprising fewer than 50 members - these were granted an extra 12 months to comply to begin with. This extension business, by the way, relates only to the Standards for Electronic Transactions, and has nothing to do with the Privacy Rule.

                            I'd be interested to know if there are ANY 'boarders who have actually transmitted claims for vision care services electronically. That does NOT include entering claims information on a web page, nor fax (including computer-to-fax) - the only mode I'm interested in is, software running on your ocmputer communicating with software on a payer's computer (or that of a clearinghouse). Has anyone done that?

                            Comment


                              #15
                              I believe you are referring to electronic data interchange (EDI). I believe most ODs would not be involved in that. You would find that in MD offices and hospitals. In my previous career as an information systems auditor at a major university, the university hospital was quite concerned about patient privacy with EDI even then (late '80's, early 90's).

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X