Advertisement

Psychological Injury and Law

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 1–8 | Cite as

Are Forensic Evaluations “Health Care” and Are They Regulated by HIPAA?

  • Bruce G. Borkosky
  • Jon M. Pellett
  • Mark S. Thomas
Article

Abstract

Forensic mental health providers (FMHPs) typically do not release records to the examinee. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) federal regulations might change this position, given that they have created a basic right of access to health care records. This legislation has led to a disagreement regarding whether HIPAA regulates forensic evaluations. The primary argument (and the majority of scholarly citations) has been that such evaluations do not constitute “health care.” Specifically, in this position, the nature and purpose of forensic evaluations are not considered related to treatment (amelioration of psychopathology) of the patient. In addition, it asserts that HIPAA applies solely to treatment services; thus, forensic evaluations are inapplicable to HIPAA. We describe the evidence for and against this argument, the strengths and limitations of the evidence, and recent court decisions related to it. The weakest part of the “HIPAA does not regulate forensics” argument is that HIPAA has no exclusion criteria based on type of services. It only creates an inclusion criteria for providers; once “covered,” all services provided by that provider are thence forward “covered.” Authoritative evidence for patient access can be found in the HIPAA regulations themselves, the US Department of Health and Human Services’ commentaries, additional statements and disciplinary cases, the research literature, other agency opinion, and legal opinion. It appears that the evidence strongly suggests that, for those forensic mental health practitioners who are covered entities, HIPAA does apply to forensic evaluations. The implication is that FMHPs potentially face various federal, state, and civil sanctions for refusing to permit patient access to records.

Keywords

HIPAA Patient access rights Forensic evaluations Medical records Health care 

References

  1. Acosta v. Byrum, 638 S.E.2d 246 (N.C. Ct. App. 2006).Google Scholar
  2. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. (2005). Ethics guidelines for the practice of forensic psychiatry. Bloomfield, CT: Author. http://bit.ly/O1cxfl
  3. American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060–1073. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.57.12.1060 Google Scholar
  4. American Psychological Association. (2007). Record keeping guidelines. The American Psychologist, 62, 993–1004. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.62.9.993
  5. American Psychological Association. (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. The American Psychologist, 68(1), 7–19. doi: 10.1037/a0029889
  6. Barsky, A. E., & Gould, J. W. (2002). Clinicians in court: A guide to subpoenas, depositions, testifying, and everything else you need to know (p. 256). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  7. Bennett, B. E., Bricklin, P. M., Harris, E., Knapp, S., VandeCreek, L., & Younggren, J. N. (2006). Assessing and managing risk in psychological practice: An individualized approach (p. 265). Rockville: American Psychological Association Insurance Trust.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blase, J. (2008). Trained third-party presence during forensic neuropsychological evaluations. In A. M. Horton Jr. & D. Wedding (Eds.), The neuropsychology handbook (3rd ed., pp. 499–514). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Borkosky, B. (2012). Why forensic records are no longer “owned” by the referral source: Requirements for psychologists to permit patient access and release of forensic records. Florida Psychologist, 63, 8–9. 22–23.Google Scholar
  10. Bush, S. S. (2007). Ethical decision making in clinical neuropsychology (p. 168). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bush, S. S. (2008). Geriatric mental health ethics: A casebook (p. 184). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Bush, S. S., Connell, M. A., & Denney, R. L. (2006a). The interface of law and psychology. Ethical practice in forensic psychology: A systematic model for decision making (pp. 9–35). Washington: American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/11469-000
  13. Bush, S. S., Connell, M. A., & Denney, R. L. (2006b). Documentation of findings and opinions. Ethical practice in forensic psychology: A systematic model for decision making (pp. 91–112). Washington: American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/11469-005
  14. Bush, S. S., Grote, C. L., Johnson-Greene, D. E., & Macartney-Filgate, M. (2008). A panel interview on the ethical practice of neuropsychology. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 22, 321–344. doi: 10.1080/13854040601139187
  15. Bush, S. S., & Lees-Haley, P. R. (2005). Threats to the validity of forensic neuropsychological data. Journal of Forensic Neuropsychology, 4, 45–66. doi: 10.1300/J151v04n03_04
  16. Bush, S. S., MacAllister, W. S., & Goldberg, A. (2012). Ethical issues in pediatric forensic neuropsychology. In E. M. S. Sherman & B. L. Brooks (Eds.), Pediatric forensic neuropsychology (pp. 24–40). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Bush, S. S., & Martin, T. A. (Eds.) (2005). Geriatric neuropsychology: Practice essentials (p. 552). Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis. Google Scholar
  18. Bush, S. S., & Martin, T. A. (2006a). The ethical and clinical practice of disclosing raw test data: Addressing the ongoing debate. Applied Neuropsychology, 13(2), 115–124. doi: 10.1207/s15324826an1302_6 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bush, S. S., & Martin, T. A. (2006b). Applied neuropsychology: Special issue: Ethical controversies in neuropsychology. Applied Neuropsychology, 13, 63–67. doi: 10.1207/s15324826an1302_1
  20. Bush, S. S., & Martin, T. A. (2010). Privacy, confidentiality, and privilege in forensic neuropsychology. In J. A. M. Horton & L. C. Hartlage (Eds.), The handbook of forensic neuropsychology (2nd ed., pp. 235–244). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Bush, S. S., & NAN Policy & Planning Committee. (2005). Independent and court-ordered forensic neuropsychological examinations: Official statement of the National Academy of Neuropsychology. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 20, 997–1007. doi: 10.1016/j.acn.2005.06.003. http://bit.ly/P03UpH PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Chadda, R., & Stein, S. J. (2005). Test publisher’s perspective: Release of test data to non-psychologists. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 5, 59–69. doi: 10.1300/J158v05n02_04 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cleghorn v. Hess, 853 P.2d 1260 (Nev. 1993).Google Scholar
  24. Committee on Psychological Tests and Assessment. (1996). Statement on the disclosure of test data. The American Psychologist, 51, 644–648. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.51.6.644
  25. Connell, M. A., & Koocher, G. P. (2003). HIPAA and forensic practice. AP-LS News, 23, 16–19. http://bit.ly/O563Ls Google Scholar
  26. Corey, D. M. (2011). Principles of fitness-for-duty evaluations for police psychologists. In J. Kitaeff (Ed.), Handbook of police psychology (pp. 263–294). Routledge/New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  27. DeKraai, M. B., & Sales, B. D. (1984). Confidential communications of psychotherapists. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 21, 318–318. doi: 10.1037/h0086091
  28. Department of Health and Human Services. (2000). Standards for privacy of individually identifiable health information; final rule. Federal Register, 65(250). http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/administrative/privacyrule/privrulepd.pdf
  29. Department of Health and Human Services. (2013). Modifications to the HIPAA privacy, security, enforcement, and breach notification rules under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act; other modifications to the HIPAA rules. Federal Register, 78(17), 5566–5702. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-01-25/pdf/2013-01073.pdf
  30. DOH v. Hulbert, Case No. 049171 (DOH 2001, DOAH Case No. 00-1115)Google Scholar
  31. DOH v. Kashlak, Case No. 12709 (DOH 2002)Google Scholar
  32. DOH v. Krop, Case No. 33680 (DOH 2004)Google Scholar
  33. DOH v. Rosenberg, Case No. 37972 (DOH 2004)Google Scholar
  34. DOH v. Madsden, Case No. 16914 (DOH 2008)Google Scholar
  35. DOH v. Owens, Case No. 00719 (DOH 2009)Google Scholar
  36. Erard, R. E. (2004). Release of test data under the 2002 ethics code and the HIPAA privacy rule: A raw deal or just a half-baked idea? Journal of Personality Assessment, 82, 23–30. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa8201_4. http://bit.ly/NLOi9l PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Fisher, M. A. (2009). Replacing “who is the client?” with a different ethical question. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40, 1–7. doi: 10.1037/a0014011
  38. Foote, W. E., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2005). Forensic evaluation: Practical, legal, and ethical contours. In W. E. Foote & J. Goodman-Delahunty (Eds.), Evaluating sexual harassment: Psychological, social, and legal considerations in forensic examinations (pp. 73–99). Washington: American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/10827-004
  39. Frankel, A. S., & Alban, A. (2011). Responding to evaluee requests for fitness-for-duty evaluation records when the “client” controls record release. The California Psychologist, 44, 27–28. http://bit.ly/SnczBG Google Scholar
  40. Gold, L. H., Anfang, S. A., Drukteinis, A. M., Metzner, J. L., Price, M., Wall, B. W., & Wylonis, L. (2008). AAPL practice guideline for the forensic evaluation of psychiatric disability. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 38, S3–S50. http://bit.ly/PqestT Google Scholar
  41. Gold, L. H., & Metzner, J. L. (2006). Psychiatric employment evaluations and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. American Journal of Psychiatry, (November), 1878–1882. http://bit.ly/NVnS52
  42. Gold, L. H., & Shuman, D. W. (2009). Evaluating mental health disability in the workplace: Model, process, and analysis (p. 349). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Harris v. Kreutzer, 624 S.E.2d 24 (Va. 2006).Google Scholar
  44. Harris, E., Bennett, B., & Bennett, J. (2003). HIPAA update: Resolving some areas of continuing confusion. MassPsych: The Journal of the Massachusetts Psychological Association, 47(18–22), 29.Google Scholar
  45. Harris, E., Bennett, B. E., & Younggren, J. N. (2001). Forensic informed consent contract. Washington, DC. http://bit.ly/OoJQd8
  46. Kane, A. W., & Dvoskin, J. (2011). Evaluation for personal injury claims (p. 272). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Klein, C. A. (2011). Cloudy confidentiality: Clinical and legal implications of cloud computing in health care. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 39(4), 571–578. http://www.jaapl.org/content/39/4/571.full.pdf
  48. Law v. Zuckerman, 307 F.Supp.2d 705 (D. Md. 2004).Google Scholar
  49. Lee v. Superior Court, 177 Cal.App.4th 1108 (Cal. 4th App. Dist. 2009).Google Scholar
  50. Lees-Haley, P. R., & Courtney, J. C. (2000). Disclosure of tests and raw test data to the courts: A need for reform. Neuropsychology Review, 10, 169–174. discussion 175–182. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10983900 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lees-Haley, P. R., Courtney, J. C., & Dinkins, J. P. (2005). Revisiting the need for reform in the disclosure of tests and raw test data to the courts: The 2002 APA ethics code has not solved our dilemma. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 5, 71–81. doi: 10.1300/J158v05n02_05
  52. Lewis, D., Rubin, P., & Drake, C. (2006). Expanding the net: Suggestions for forensic mental health examiners on identifying and obtaining third-party information. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 6, 39–51. doi: 10.1300/J158v06n02_03. http://bit.ly/Ovjmsa CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Malina, A. C., Nelson, N. W., & Sweet, J. J. (2005). Framing the relationships in forensic neuropsychology: Ethical issues. Journal of Forensic Neuropsychology, 4, 21–44. doi: 10.1300/J151v04n03_03
  54. McGreal v. Ostrov, 368 F.3d 657 (7th Cir., 2004).Google Scholar
  55. Norskog v. Pfiel, 755 NE.2d 1 (Ill. 2001).Google Scholar
  56. Petrila, J., & Fader-Towe, H. (2010). Information sharing in criminal justice—Mental health collaborations: Working with HIPAA and other privacy laws. New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center. http://1.usa.gov/QQCa1m Google Scholar
  57. Pickar, D. B., & Kahn, J. J. (2011). Settlement-focused parenting plan consultations: An evaluative mediation alternative to child custody evaluations. Family Court Review, 49, 59–71. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-1617.2010.01353.x. http://drjeffkahn.com/Settlement-Focus.pdf
  58. Rapp, D. L., Ferber, P. S., & Bush, S. S. (2008). Unresolved issues about release of raw test data and test materials. The neuropsychology handbook (3rd ed.) (pp. 469–497). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  59. Shapiro, D. L., & Smith, S. R. (2011). Negligence in professional practice. In D. L. Shapiro & S. R. Smith (Eds.), Malpractice in psychology: A practical resource for clinicians (pp. 25–43). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/12320-002
  60. Shepel, L., & Cameron, R. (1981). Strategies for preserving the confidentiality of psychological reports. Canadian Psychology, 22, 191–193. doi: 10.1037/h0081187
  61. Smith, B. L., & Evans, F. B., III. (2004). The end of the world as we know it (and I feel fine): Comment on Erard. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82(1), 39–43. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa8201_7 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. State v. Cote, Case No. E2008-02483-CCA-R9-CD, 2010 WL 3760637 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2009).Google Scholar
  63. Stiles, P. G.,& Petrila, J. (2011). Research and confidentiality: Legal issues and risk management strategies. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17, 333–356. American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/a0022507
  64. Stock, H. V. (2006). Workplace violence: Advances in consultation and assessment. In A. M. Goldstein (Ed.), Forensic psychology: Emerging topics and expanding roles (pp. 511–552). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  65. Stolar, A., & Koblenz, L. M. (2005). Privacy violation in fitness-for-duty evaluation. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 33, 272–274. http://bit.ly/R0ErHE Google Scholar
  66. Todd v. Angelloz, 844 So.2d 316 (La. 1st Cir., 2003).Google Scholar
  67. Tossell, B., Stewart, E., & Goldman, J. (2006). The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule and patient access to medical records (pp. 1–39). Washington: AARP. http://bit.ly/Nh63NI
  68. Vanderpool, D. L. (2011). Risks of harm to the forensic expert: The legal perspective. In R. Sadoff, J. Baird, S. Bertoglia, E. Valenti, & D. Vanderpool (Eds.), Ethical issues in forensic psychiatry: Minimizing harm (pp. 198–211). New York: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruce G. Borkosky
    • 1
  • Jon M. Pellett
    • 2
  • Mark S. Thomas
    • 3
  1. 1.Independent PracticeSebringUSA
  2. 2.Barr, Murman, & TonelliTampaUSA
  3. 3.Thomas Health Law GroupGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations