206165 Comparison of protected health information laws among states

Monday, November 9, 2009: 10:30 AM

Ann Idell Kruckeberg, BS, MPH , Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK
Ann F. Chou, PhD, MPH , College of Public Health & College of Medicine, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK
Rob C. Wild, MS, MPH, CPH , College of Public Health, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK
Katrina Claiborne Garcia, BS, MPH , Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK
Steven Mattachione, JD , University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK
Background: The Privacy Rule of 1996 provides federal guidelines for privacy requirements related to the disclosure of protected health information (PHI). However, most states have passed more stringent legislation to provide greater privacy rights. Variations among state privacy laws create difficulties to disclose PHI across state lines.

Objective: Study objectives are to identify PHI disclosure and consent requirements in 11 participating states and describe state's laws about the duration of PHI consent.

Methods: Data were collected via semi-structured discussions or facilitated group sessions from 11 geographically diverse states. Project team members in each state were asked to respond to situations where limitations may occur on inter-state exchange of public health data. Responses were qualitatively analyzed to determine patterns of variations of PHI disclosure between and within the states.

Results: Five of the 11 states have no constraints or no mention of limits to the duration of consent. Maine, Oklahoma, and New Hampshire's limitations are time-specific. New York and Utah only allow for a one-time disclosure for records already in possession. In Vermont, consent can be on-going, but must provide a date indicating expiration. Wisconsin law does not specifically describe how long consent is effective, but allows for the patient to decide.

Conclusions: Variations in state consent and disclosure laws indicate a clear need for a guide to each state's requirements to facilitate the disclosure of PHI across state lines. Inter-state PHI exchange may be difficult due to these wide variations and therefore shows that a set of common guidelines to govern inter-state PHI exchange may be warranted.

Learning Objectives:
Identify protected health information (PHI) disclosure and consent requirements in the 11 participating states. Describe state’s laws about the duration of PHI consent.

Keywords: Health Information, Health Law

Presenting author's disclosure statement:

Qualified on the content I am responsible for because: I have experience in health information research.
Any relevant financial relationships? No

I agree to comply with the American Public Health Association Conflict of Interest and Commercial Support Guidelines, and to disclose to the participants any off-label or experimental uses of a commercial product or service discussed in my presentation.