By Robert Hudock, on October 12th, 2009
Print This PostGenerally in the event of a “breach” of “unsecured” PHI, a covered entity must notify each individual whose unsecured PHI has been, or is reasonably believed to have been, breached. (45 C.F.R. § 164.404(a)(1).) Despite the obvious utility of the new harm standard, a few privacy advocates (and four United States congressmen) have expressed displeasure with the new HHS harm standard. An October 1st letter from congressional leaders sent to HHS Secretary Sebelius argues that the ARRA did not imply a harm standard in the breach notification requirements, and requests that HHS repeal the harm standard that was included in the interim final regulations on Breach Notification for Unsecured Protected Health Information. [...]
Four Members of Congress Complain to Secretary of HHS About the Harm Standard
Generally in the event of a “breach” of “unsecured” PHI, a covered entity must notify each individual whose unsecured PHI has been, or is reasonably believed to have been, breached. (45 C.F.R. § 164.404(a)(1).) Despite the obvious utility of the new harm standard, a few privacy advocates (and four United States congressmen) have expressed displeasure with the new HHS harm standard. An October 1st letter from congressional leaders sent to HHS Secretary Sebelius argues that the ARRA did not imply a harm standard in the breach notification requirements, and requests that HHS repeal the harm standard that was included in the interim final regulations on Breach Notification for Unsecured Protected Health Information. [...]