scholarly journals The Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act and the Practice of Dentistry in the United States: System Security

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.

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


Author(s):  
Roy Rada

Privacy and security of health information is a global concern. However, this chapter will focus on approaches to security in the United States. In particular, the federal regulation of security in the form of the Security Rule will be studied. The HIPAA Security Rule details the system and administrative requirements that a covered entity must meet in order to assure that health information is safe from people without authorization for its access. By contrast, the Privacy Rule describes the requirements that govern the circumstances under which protected health information must be used or disclosed with and without patient involvement and when a patient may have access to his or her protected health information. The implementation of reasonable and appropriate security measures supports compliance with the Privacy Rule.


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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 120 (2) ◽  
pp. 279-283
Author(s):  
Christine Sun Kim ◽  
Amanda Cachia

In Six Types of Waiting in Berlin, Christine Sun Kim’s drawings provide a fascinating constellation of cultural and sensorial experiences with time. Originally from the United States, the artist shares her account of how time (and waiting) is measured differently according to the cities in which she has lived, with each place having its own advantages and drawbacks. While each environment in which one must tediously wait—an immigration office, the health insurance office, the doctor’s office, the bank, an art supplies shop, and the grocery store—is familiar, the subtext of the drawings is how the artist’s relationship with time is also measured by her style of communication. Kim uses American Sign Language and asks questions in a written form using an iPhone on a daily basis as she goes about her chores. “Crip time” is thus also punctuated by the pauses in writing/scrawling questions, in reading, and the creativity involved in ad-lib responding between deaf and non-deaf sensorial modalities.


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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (04/05) ◽  
pp. 162-178
Author(s):  
Pouyan Esmaeilzadeh

Abstract Background Patients may seek health care services from various providers during treatment. These providers could serve in a network (affiliated) or practice separately (unaffiliated). Thus, using secure and reliable health information exchange (HIE) mechanisms would be critical to transfer sensitive personal health information (PHI) across distances. Studying patients' perceptions and opinions about exchange mechanisms could help health care providers build more complete HIEs' databases and develop robust privacy policies, consent processes, and patient education programs. Objectives Due to the exploratory nature of this study, we aim to shed more light on public perspectives (benefits, concerns, and risks) associated with the four data exchange practices in the health care sector. Methods In this study, we compared public perceptions and expectations regarding four common types of exchange mechanisms used in the United States (i.e., traditional, direct, query-based, patient-mediated exchange mechanisms). Traditional is an exchange through fax, paper mailing, or phone calls, direct is a provider-to-provider exchange, query-based is sharing patient data with a central repository, and patient-mediated is an exchange mechanism in which patients can access data and monitor sharing. Data were collected from 1,624 subjects using an online survey to examine the benefits, risks, and concerns associated with the four exchange mechanisms from patients' perspectives. Results Findings indicate that several concerns and risks such as privacy concerns, security risks, trust issues, and psychological risks are raised. Besides, multiple benefits such as access to complete information, communication improvement, timely and convenient information sharing, cost-saving, and medical error reduction are highlighted by respondents. Through consideration of all risks and benefits associated with the four exchange mechanisms, the direct HIE mechanism was selected by respondents as the most preferred mechanism of information exchange among providers. More than half of the respondents (56.18%) stated that overall they favored direct exchange over the other mechanisms. 42.70% of respondents expected to be more likely to share their PHI with health care providers who implemented and utilized a direct exchange mechanism. 43.26% of respondents believed that they would support health care providers to leverage a direct HIE mechanism for sharing their PHI with other providers. The results exhibit that individuals expect greater benefits and fewer adverse effects from direct HIE among health care providers. Overall, the general public sentiment is more in favor of direct data transfer. Our results highlight that greater public trust in exchange mechanisms is required, and information privacy and security risks must be addressed before the widespread implementation of such mechanisms. Conclusion This exploratory study's findings could be interesting for health care providers and HIE policymakers to analyze how consumers perceive the current exchange mechanisms, what concerns should be addressed, and how the exchange mechanisms could be modified to meet consumers' needs.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document