scholarly journals Researching the Appropriateness of Care in the Complementary and Integrative Health Professions Part 2: What Every Researcher and Practitioner Should Know About the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and Practice-based Research in the United States

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 (9) ◽  
pp. 807-813 ◽  
Author(s):  
Praise O. Iyiewuare ◽  
Ian D. Coulter ◽  
Margaret D. Whitley ◽  
Patricia M. Herman
2003 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph E. Chasteen ◽  
Gretchen Murphy ◽  
Arden Forrey ◽  
David Heid

Abstract This paper introduces the reader to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 legislation in the context of its relationship to the Electronic Oral Health Record (EOHR). Privacy and confidentiality issues for administrative data are addressed in terms of the broader relationship of such data to the EOHR leaving the HIPAA-defined administrative transactions and security issues for the entire practice for a subsequent presentation. Educational requirements are presented that aid the dentist and the practice staff in understanding the broad and long-term implications of the HIPAA legislation. Citation Chasteen JE, Murphy G, Forrey A, et.al. The Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act: Practice of Dentistry in the United States: Privacy and Confidentiality. J Contemp Dent Pract 2003 February;(4)1:059-070.


2004 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 158-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph E. Chasteen ◽  
Gretchen Murphy ◽  
Arden Forrey ◽  
David Heid

Abstract This article reviews the issues related to the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) security rule that apply to dental practice. The security rule specifically addresses individually identifiable health information that is transmitted or maintained in electronic media. System security must be applied to the entire technical infrastructure for the practice environment as well as to the work culture on a daily basis and must be thought of as an enterprise asset. Security refers to all of the policies, procedures, tools, and techniques used to assure that privacy and confidentiality are adequately addressed in a healthcare system. HIPAA requires all covered entities that transmit or maintain electronic health information perform, and document, a risk assessment for security and develop a security plan to address major areas of concern. A self-assessment tool is provided in this article. Citation Chasteen JE, Murphy G, Forrey A, Heid D. The Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act and the Practice of Dentistry in the United States: System Security. J Contemp Dent Pract 2004 August;(5)3:158-167.


2003 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 108-120
Author(s):  
Joseph E. Chasteen ◽  
Gretchen Murphy ◽  
Arden Forrey ◽  
David Heid

Abstract This article reviews the kinds of electronic transactions required under the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) and relates them to relevant data contained in an electronic oral health record (EOHR). It also outlines the structure of HIPAA transactions using the claim transaction as an example. The relationship of the HIPAA resource management function to those of patient care are discussed. The discussion points out potential future uses of other existing resource management transactions to realize the maximum potential of linking the primary patient care functions to those functions related to managing resources in support of that care. This is needed in all aspects of oral health using the informatics standards activities in which the American Dental Association (ADA) actively participates. The article concludes by providing the dentist a perspective on how to relate these capabilities to his/her individual practice setting. Citation Chasteen JE, Murphy G, Forrey A, et. al. The Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act and the Practice of Dentistry in the United States: Electronic Transactions. J Contemp Dent Pract 2003 November;(4)4: 108-120.


2015 ◽  
Vol 18;4 (4;18) ◽  
pp. E485-E495
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti

The forced implementation of ICD-10-CM (International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification) codes that are specific to the United States, scheduled for implementation October 1, 2015, which is vastly different from ICD-10 (International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision), implemented worldwide, which has 14,400 codes, compared to ICD-10-CM with 144,000 codes to be implemented in the United States is a major concern to practicing U.S. physicians and a bonanza for health IT and hospital industry. This implementation is based on a liberal interpretation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which requires an update to ICD-9- CM (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification) and says nothing about ICD-10 or beyond. On June 29, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency unreasonably interpreted the Clean Air Act when it decided to set limits on the emissions of toxic pollutants from power plants, without first considering the costs on the industry. Thus, to do so is applicable to the medical industry with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) unreasonably interpreting HIPAA and imposing existent extensive regulations without considering the cost. In the United States, ICD-10-CM with a 10-fold increase in the number of codes has resulted in a system which has become so complicated that it no longer compares with any other country. Moreover, most WHO members use the ICD-10 system (not ICD-10-CM) only to record mortality in 138 countries or morbidity in 99 countries. Currently, only 10 countries employ ICD-10 (not ICD-10-CM) in the reimbursement process, 6 of which have a single payer health care system. Development of ICD-10-CM is managed by 4 non-physician groups, known as cooperating parties. They include the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), CMS, the American Hospital Association (AHA), and the American Health Information Management Association (AHIMA). The AHIMA has taken the lead with the AHA just behind, both with escalating profits and influence, essentially creating a statutory monopoly for their own benefit. Further, the ICD-10-CM coalition includes 3M which will boost its revenues and profits substantially with its implementation and Blue Cross Blue Shield which has its own agenda. Physician groups are not a party to these cooperating parties or coalitions, having only a peripheral involvement. ICD-10-CM creates numerous deficiencies with 500 codes that are more specific in ICD-9-CM than ICD-10-CM. The costs of an implementation are enormous, along with maintenance costs, productivity, and cash disruptions. Key words: ICD-10-CM, ICD-10, ICD-9-CM (International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Ninth revision, Clinical Modification), Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), Health Information Technology (HIT), costs of implementation


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 216495612110233
Author(s):  
Malaika R Schwartz ◽  
Allison M Cole ◽  
Gina A Keppel ◽  
Ryan Gilles ◽  
John Holmes ◽  
...  

Background The demand for complementary and integrative health (CIH) is increasing by patients who want to receive more CIH referrals, in-clinic services, and overall care delivery. To promote CIH within the context of primary care, it is critical that providers have sufficient knowledge of CIH, access to CIH-trained providers for referral purposes, and are comfortable either providing services or co-managing patients who favor a CIH approach to their healthcare. Objective The main objective was to gather primary care providers’ perspectives across the northwestern region of the United States on their CIH familiarity and knowledge, clinic barriers and opportunities, and education and training needs. Methods We conducted an online, quantitative survey through an email invitation to all primary care providers (n = 483) at 11 primary care organizations from the WWAMI (Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana and Idaho) region Practice and Research Network (WPRN). The survey questions covered talking about CIH with patients, co-managing care with CIH providers, familiarity with and training in CIH modalities, clinic barriers to CIH integration, and interest in learning more about CIH modalities. Results 218 primary care providers completed the survey (45% response rate). Familiarity with individual CIH methods ranged from 73% (chiropracty) to 8% (curanderismo). Most respondents discussed CIH with their patients (88%), and many thought that their patients could benefit from CIH (41%). The majority (89%) were willing to co-manage a patient with a CIH provider. Approximately one-third of respondents had some expertise in at least one CIH modality. Over 78% were interested in learning more about the safety and efficacy of at least one CIH modality. Conclusion Primary care providers in the Northwestern United States are generally familiar with CIH modalities, are interested in referring and co-managing care with CIH providers, and would like to have more learning opportunities to increase knowledge of CIH.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ianita Zlateva ◽  
Amanda Schiessl ◽  
Nashwa Khalid ◽  
Kerry Bamrick ◽  
Margaret Flinter

Abstract Background In recent years, health centers in the United States have embraced the opportunity to train the next generation of health professionals. The uniqueness of the health centers as teaching settings emphasizes the need to determine if health professions training programs align with health center priorities and the nature of any adjustments that would be needed to successfully implement a training program. We sought to address this need by developing and validating a new survey that measures organizational readiness constructs important for the implementation of health professions training programs at health centers where the primary role of the organizations and individuals is healthcare delivery. Methods The study incorporated several methodological steps for developing and validating a measure for assessing health center readiness to engage with health professions programs. A conceptual framework was developed based on literature review and later validated by 20 experts in two focus groups. A survey-item pool was generated and mapped to the conceptual framework and further refined and validated by 13 experts in three modified Delphi rounds. The survey items were pilot-tested with 212 health center employees. The final survey structure was derived through exploratory factor analysis. The internal consistency reliability of the scale and subscales was evaluated using Chronbach’s alpha. Results The exploratory factor analysis revealed a 41-item, 7-subscale solution for the survey structure, with 72% of total variance explained. Cronbach’s alphas (.79–.97) indicated high internal consistency reliability. The survey measures: readiness to engage, evidence strength and quality of the health professions training program, relative advantage of the program, financial resources, additional resources, implementation team, and implementation plan. Conclusions The final survey, the Readiness to Train Assessment Tool (RTAT), is theoretically-based, valid and reliable. It provides an opportunity to evaluate health centers’ readiness to implement health professions programs. When followed with appropriate change strategies, the readiness evaluations could make the implementation of health professions training programs, and their spread across the United States, more efficient and cost-effective. While developed specifically for health centers, the survey may be useful to other healthcare organizations willing to assess their readiness to implement education and training programs.


2021 ◽  
pp. 107755872110158
Author(s):  
Priyanka Anand ◽  
Dora Gicheva

This article examines how the Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansions affected the sources of health insurance coverage of undergraduate students in the United States. We show that the Affordable Care Act expansions increased the Medicaid coverage of undergraduate students by 5 to 7 percentage points more in expansion states than in nonexpansion states, resulting in 17% of undergraduate students in expansion states being covered by Medicaid postexpansion (up from 9% prior to the expansion). In contrast, the growth in employer and private direct coverage was 1 to 2 percentage points lower postexpansion for students in expansion states compared with nonexpansion states. Our findings demonstrate that policy efforts to expand Medicaid eligibility have been successful in increasing the Medicaid coverage rates for undergraduate students in the United States, but there is evidence of some crowd out after the expansions—that is, some students substituted their private and employer-sponsored coverage for Medicaid.


2017 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 46-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael F. Pesko ◽  
Johanna Catherine Maclean ◽  
Cameron M. Kaplan ◽  
Steven C. Hill

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document