Save Thousands on Medical Records: Implement HITECH Today
Whether representing hundreds of clients in a mass tort, or a single client in a personal injury case, medical records are an integral piece of the puzzle. How many times have you received an invoice for medical records and been shocked by the cost?
March 09, 2018 at 02:50 PM
7 minute read
Whether representing hundreds of clients in a mass tort, or a single client in a personal injury case, medical records are an integral piece of the puzzle. How many times have you received an invoice for medical records and been shocked by the cost? These invoices often include charges for per page copies, search and postage fees and other facility charges. You simply pay these invoices and consider it a necessary expense as your case is often dependent on documenting an injury, course of treatment or surgical outcome. However, under the HITECH Act, this necessary expense can be drastically reduced and we can save not only our clients, but our firms, a significant amount of money.
|What Is the HITECH Act?
The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH) was enacted under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. HITECH is enforced by the Department of Health and Human Services—Office of Civil Rights and was implemented as an amendment to HIPPA. Although it was created to aid in the implementation of electronic health records, some of its key provisions have not been widely utilized. Not surprisingly, hospitals, health care providers and medical record companies are not rushing to inform patients that they can obtain their medical records for a fraction of what they may otherwise be charged. There are also many health care providers who are still unaware of HITECH's provisions regarding patient requested medical records. Since the Office of Civil Rights recently provided an FAQ to clarify some of HITECH's provisions, the legislation and its potential benefits have been receiving increased attention.
There is no question that patients are entitled to their medical records. Yet, for years that entitlement has been preceded by a large invoice which effectively prevented some patients from obtaining their records. HITECH has given patients a mechanism to remove that roadblock and quickly and cost efficiently obtain their medical records. It is critical to understand and utilize HITECH's provisions when obtaining medical records to provide our clients with the full benefits available to them.
|Requirements Under HITECH
HITECH applies to all facilities/providers (called covered entities) who maintain electronic medical records. Under 42 U.S.C. Section 17935 (e), if a covered entity uses or maintains an electronic health record with respect to protected health information (PHI) of an individual:
- The individual shall have a right to obtain from such covered entity a copy of such information in an electronic format and, if the individual chooses, to direct the covered entity to transmit such copy directly to an entity or person designated by the individual, provided that any such choice is clear, conspicuous and specific.
Under HITECH, a client may request that the covered entity provide records directly to his attorney. The client's request must be in writing, signed by the client and clearly identify the designated person where the PHI should be sent. See 45 C.F.R. Section 164.524(c)(3)(ii). This must be a patient request and should specify (and possibly note it repeatedly) that the patient is requesting electronic records pursuant to HITECH and not paper copies. If the request does not specify that electronic records are being requested, paper copies and a corresponding larger bill will be provided. The request also needs to clearly indicate the attorney/law firm where the records should be sent and must be dated and signed by the patient/client. This request should not require an accompanying HIPPA as it is coming directly from the patient.
It is also important to note that the request cannot be denied under HITECH simply because it was mailed from an attorney/law firm. If the request is coming from the patient (i.e., directly or forwarded by a third party on behalf of and at the direction of the patient), HITECH is applicable.
|How Much Can I Save Under HITECH?
Under HITECH, the fee cannot be greater than the entity's costs in responding to the request, see 45 C.F.R Section 164.524(c)(4). This limits the costs to the actual labor for copying the PHI requested in an electronic format, the actual cost of supplies (i.e., a CD or USB drive) and postage. The invoice cannot include costs such as verification, storage fees or searching for/retrieving the medical records even if such costs are authorized by the applicable state law. Although HITECH allows charges by the covered entity for labor, supplies and postage, it does not include costs incurred by other agents such as a copy service. To the contrary, the covered entity is responsible for any cost of outsourcing their medical records to a business associate. Although HITECH provides a limit on the fees charged, the Office of Civil Rights notes that covered entities should endeavor to provide the patient a copy of their PHI free of charge.
|An Example of HITECH Savings
My practice includes handling mass tort cases, so in any particular litigation we often represent hundreds of individual clients. For example, in our Proton Pump Inhibitor cases (medications to reduce stomach acid which have been linked to an increased risk of kidney disease), medical records obtained prior to using HITECH may cost close to, or exceed, $1,000 per client. However, under HITECH we have consistently received bills under $25 per provider for hundreds of pages of records. This is a great savings for our clients but the benefits don't end there. As we all know, sometimes after a medical record review is complete it turns out a client may not have a viable case. In those instances, your firm is absorbing far lower costs under HITECH than previously seen. HITECH provides a benefit not only to our clients but also to our firms by dramatically reducing the cost of medical records.
|30-Day Requirement
Another benefit of HITECH is that the records must be provided within 30 days after receipt of the request. If the request cannot be fulfilled within 30 days, the covered entity may extend the time by no more than 30 days but they must provide a written statement indicating the reason for the delay and a date by which the request will be completed. See 45 C.F.R. Section 164.524(b)(2). In fact, the 30-day requirement is considered an “outer limit” and HITECH encourages covered entities to provide the medical records as soon as possible.
|Enforcement of HITECH
Failure to abide by the requirements of HITECH can result in hefty penalties and fines. Although you can easily file a complaint for failure to abide by HITECH, informing the covered entity of their HITECH responsibilities and notifying them that a complaint can be filed with the Office of Civil Rights is usually sufficient to get the medical records in a timely and cost-efficient manner. It is also important to note that since a copy service is a business associate of the covered entity, they are also subject to fines for noncompliance.
|Update Your Medical Record Procedure
The saying “change is good” is certainly applicable in this situation. When our firm began utilizing HITECH it required taking a fresh look at our medical record procedures, training our staff, educating covered entities as to their responsibilities and implementing new processes. However, the benefits of change are evident every time we save our clients' money by drastically reducing their costs. Firms should not pass up the opportunity to put more money in their clients' pockets while also obtaining medical records quickly and efficiently through HITECH.
Shayna T. Slater, a partner at Anapol Weiss, concentrates her practice on mass tort, products liability and other civil litigation. Her practice involves both pharmaceutical and medical device mass tort litigation. Contact her at [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPa. Federal District Courts Reach Full Complement Following Latest Confirmation
The Defense Bar Is Feeling the Strain: Busy Med Mal Trial Schedules Might Be Phila.'s 'New Normal'
7 minute readFederal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank
5 minute readJudge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Pardoning Jan. 6 Defendants May Send Bad Message About Insurrection, Rule of Law
- 2Looming Clash Over Abortion Pills Shows Overturning 'Roe v. Wade' Settled Nothing
- 33rd Circuit Strikes Down NLRB’s Monetary Remedies for Fired Starbucks Workers
- 4Latest Class of Court Officers Sworn into Service in New York
- 5Kirkland's Daniel Lavon-Krein: Staying Ahead of Private Equity Consolidation
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250