hotels travel medical english resort health atlantic online rentals center rental publishing hepatitis school dermatology guardian business football insurance ambulance mortgage norway microsoft software equity hosting inclusive desktop vacation sports tennis apartment websites fishing credit bangkok soccer articles tickets internet packages service google resorts learning adsense results services programs madrid
User: Which regulation summarizes DoD’s implementation of the HIPAA Privacy Rule issued by the Department of Health and Human Services? Weegy: Which regulation summarizes the hipaa privacy rule issued by the department of health and human services?
Which Regulation Summarizes Dods Implementation Of The Hipaa Privacy Rule Issued By The Department at Askives: Date: 01.05.2013(see all posts) Keyword: which regulation summarizes dod s implementation of the hipaa privacy rule issued by the department of health and human services:
The ostensible purpose of the Statistical Reporting of Abortion Law is to collect data about abortions to inform lawmakers about abortion practices in the State. The Davis lawsuit alleges the law violates Oklahoma's constitution (for reasons unrelated to privacy concerns), but others have expressed concerns that the law violates the spirit, and perhaps the actual provisions, of HIPAA. Some commentators have noted that the information could be used to identify women who have obtained abortions, particularly when they live in small towns. Under HIPAA, "de-identified" protected health information ("PHI") may be used or disclosed for various purposes, including research. De-identified PHI (that is, information that is stripped of details that would identify the patient, such as name, street address, city, county, etc.) can be used or disclosed without restriction, however, HIPAA requires that entities have no actual knowledge that the remaining information could be used alone or in combination with other information to identify an individual. Opponents of the law's reporting provisions believe that under certain circumstances women can be identified based on the information requested, resulting in a violation of HIPAA. More to come as the lawsuit continues.
Florida law requires nursing homes to “furnish to the spouse, guardian, surrogate, proxy, or attorney in fact . . . of a former resident . . . a copy of that resident’s records which are in the possession of the facility.” Further, the law provides that “copies of such records shall not be considered part of the deceased resident’s estate and may be made available prior to the administration of an estate, upon request, to the spouse, guardian, surrogate, proxy, or attorney in fact.” FLA. STAT. § 400.145 . . . Plaintiffs claim that their non-compliance is excusable because Section 400.145 is preempted by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPPA”). They seek a declaratory judgment that Section 400.145 is invalid and injunctive relief prohibiting its enforcement. [For whatever reason, the Opus Order uses the definition “HIPPA” rather than the much more widely-used acronym “HIPAA.” Except in quotations taken directly from the OPIS Order, this posting will use the more prevalent “HIPAA.”]
Many other federal laws, regulations and administrative agency actions, as well as investigator-initiated commitments to research sponsors and others, affect the conduct of human research. For example, while the Common Rule requires that researchers protect the privacy of study participants, privacy regulations issued under HIPAA further restrict the use and disclosure of individually identifiable health information by health care providers, health plans and health care clearinghouses that create and maintain much of the data necessary for many research activities. Federal and state fraud and abuse laws regulate billing for research-related services and payments to researchers and research staff; they also prohibit misrepresentation to induce participation in studies or in the conduct of studies. The Internal Revenue Service enforces rules requiring institutions such as the University of Michigan to maintain documentation of and in some cases report payments made to subjects in return for their participation in research. Civil rights, employment and non-discrimination laws impact research project administration. National security laws regulate who may be involved in certain sensitive research and whether and under what circumstances investigational test articles may be exported to other countries. The list goes on.
It is impossible to summarize all of the laws and regulations that affect in one way or another the conduct of human research. This section describes some of the legal standards that apply to research routinely performed by University faculty, staff and trainees. It is not intended to serve as a comprehensive resource and addresses only federal and Michigan requirements. Research proceeding in other states or abroad may be subject to different requirements. For example, the definition of "child" under the Common Rule is a person who has not "attained the legal age for consent to treatments or procedures involved in the research, under the applicable law of the jurisdiction in which the research will be conducted." 45 C.F.R. § 46.402(a); see also 21 C.F.R. § 50.3(o). Most, but not all states set the "age of majority" at 18; several, though, set the age higher. State laws on virtually every other aspect of human research vary to some degree, including: requirements for informed consent; confidentiality, privacy and security standards; public health reporting mandates; limitations on participation of vulnerable populations in research; professional licensing requirements; and use of lotteries or other incentives.