09/30/2008 GAAS:690:08 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Governor Signs Bills to Protect Patient Privacy, Increase Enforcement Actions for Medical Errors
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced today that he has signed a
package of bills to improve patient privacy laws and to address repeated
breaches of confidential information that have occurred at health
facilities in recent months.
"Medical privacy is a fundamental
right and a critical component of quality medical care," Governor
Schwarzenegger said. "Repeated violations of patient confidentiality are
potentially harmful to Californians, which is why financial penalties are
needed to ensure employees and facilities do not breach confidential
medical information. Californians seeking care at a hospital or health
facility should never have to worry that their private medical information
will be shared."
Patients' legal right to confidential medical
services in health facilities is strongly recognized and clearly defined
in both state and federal law. However, under current law it is difficult
to impose and enforce penalties when breaches occur unless a district
attorney or the state Attorney General takes action.
The bills
signed by Governor Schwarzenegger give the state tools to assess and
enforce fines against health facilities and individuals who
inappropriately obtain, use or disclose medical information.
SB
541 by Senator Elaine Alquist (D-Santa Clara) sets health facility
fines for privacy breaches and increases the fines for serious medical
errors in hospitals. The new law ensures that health care providers face
real consequences when they fail to protect patients. For facilities,
fines for disclosing private medical information would range from $25,000
to $250,000 per reported event. The California Department of Public Health
(CDPH) would assess an administrative penalty of $25,000 per patient whose
medical information was breached and a penalty of $17,500 per subsequent
breach. If several individuals access the same patient's file, for
example, the penalty would be $25,000 plus $17,500 for each additional
person who violated the same file, up to a maximum of $250,000.
AB
211 by Assemblymember Dave Jones (D-Sacramento) requires health
providers to prevent unlawful access, use or disclosure of patients'
medical information and hold health care providers and other individuals
accountable for ensuring the privacy of patients. The legislation creates
the Office of Health Information Integrity within the California Health
and Human Services Agency to assess administrative penalties against
individuals up to $250,000. The legislation will also refer individuals,
if licensed, to appropriate licensing boards.
In 2006, Governor
Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-12-06 which convened a
California eHealth Action Forum. Among its stated duties, the Forum is
identifying and developing strategies for the continued protection of
confidentiality and privacy of health information in an electronic
environment.
In 2004, Governor Schwarzenegger signed SB 1633 which
prohibits businesses from seeking to obtain medical information for
marketing purposes without the express consent of the consumer.
CHART 1
Hypothetical
Examples of How the Proposed Legislation Will Affect Health
Facilities and Individuals When Private Medical Records are
Breached
| Example |
Penalties/Enforcement
Under Current Law |
Under Proposed
Law | ||
| 1. SELLING
INFORMATION: Hospital employee knowingly and willfully accesses medical information without authorization and sells the information to a third party (such as a tabloid news outlet, private investigator, etc.) |
No specific requirement to
report the violation to the patient or the state and no fine for
late reporting. Employer may or may not take disciplinary action. Attorney General or district attorneys who could enforce monetary penalties in current law may or may not learn of incident; action is rare. Licensing board may or may not learn about incident; action is rare. |
Employing health facility must report all
incidents to the patient and the California Department of Public
Health or face fines for non-reporting ($100/day beginning 5
days after detection). Hospital may be fined $25,000 for initial breach and $17,500 for subsequent breaches up to $250,000. CDPH would refer the individual to the Office of Health Information Integrity, which would: 1) assess an administrative penalty on the employee of up to $250,000; 2) report the individual (if licensed) to the proper licensing board; and/or, 3) refer the individual to local district attorney and the state Attorney General for action. | ||
| 2.
SHARING: Physician, nurse or other health facility employee inappropriately accesses confidential medical information about a friend's fiancée and relays the information at a social event. |
No specific requirement to report
violation to patient or to state and no fine for late
reporting. Employer may or may not take disciplinary action. Attorney General or district attorneys could take action in current law; may or may not learn of incident; action is rare. Licensing board may or may not learn about incident; action is rare. |
Employing health facility must
report all incidents to the patient and the Department of Public
Health or face fines for non-reporting ($100/day beginning 5
days after detection). Facility may be fined $25,000 for initial breach and $17,500 for subsequent breaches up to $250,000. DPH would refer the individual to the Office of Health Information Integrity which would: 1) assess an administrative penalty of $2,500 to $25,000; 2) report the individual (if licensed) to the proper licensing board; and/or; 3) refer the individual to local district attorney and the state Attorney General for action. | ||
| 3.
FUNDRAISING: A licensed medical facility provides patient information to a private contractor for fundraising purposes. No specific medical information is provided except the patient name and treatment facility. |
Limited enforcement of existing state and
federal laws to protect this private medical
information. |
Employing health facility must
report all incidents to the patient and the California Department of
Public Health or face fines for non-reporting ($100/day
beginning 5 days after detection). The Department would investigate and may assess a penalty against the facility of up to $250,000 for the release of this private medical information. The Office of Health Information Integrity would investigate and could assess penalty against the individual who gave the information as well as a penalty of $250,000 against the entity/individual who received the information. | ||
| 4. NEGLIGENCE: A
hospital administrative clerk discards hundreds of paper medical
records into a dumpster without shredding the
documents. |
No specific requirement to report
violation to patient or to state and no fine for late
reporting. Employer may or may not take disciplinary action. Attorney General or district attorneys could take action in current law; may or may not learn of incident; action is rare. Fines available under current state and federal law are rarely enforced. |
Employing health facility must
report all incidents to the patient and the California Department of
Public Health or face fines for non-reporting ($100/day
beginning 5 days after detection). Facility may be fined $25,000 for initial breach and $17,500 for subsequent breaches up to $250,000. DPH would refer the individual to the Office of Health Information Integrity which would: 1) assess an administrative penalty of $2,500 to $25,000; 2) report the individual (if licensed) to the proper licensing board; and/or; 3) refer the individual to local district attorney and the state Attorney General for action. | ||
CHART 2
Real Examples of Administrative
Penalties Issued in 2007 & 2008 and How the Administrative
Penalties Would Change Under Proposed Legislation
(For a
complete list of 39 penalties issued by facility, visit http://www.cdph.ca.gov/)
- An administrative penalty is a civil monetary penalty for a violation or deficiency constituting an immediate jeopardy to the health and safety of a patient. These penalties are assessed against general acute care hospitals, acute psychiatric hospitals and special hospitals after an investigation of a facilities' non-compliance of licensure. These penalties are assessed and investigations are conducted by the California Department of Public Health, Licensing and Certification Program.
- "Immediate jeopardy" isa situation in which the hospital's noncompliance with one or more requirements of licensure has caused, or is likely to cause, serious injury or death to the patient.
| Example |
Penalty Assessed Under Current
Law |
Proposed Law Would Allow
|
| Medication Error:
Three pediatric patients were given a thousand times the
intended dosage of heparin, a blood thinner. The babies required
emergency drug reversal agents in order to prevent serious injury or
death from uncontrolled bleeding. |
$25,000 (Fines would rise to $50,000 after regulations are written) |
$50,000 - 1st
violation $75,000 - 2nd violation $100,000 - 3rd violation Fines will rise by $25,000 (to $75,000, $100,000, and $125,000) when regulations are written |
| Wrong Surgical
Procedure: A hospital fails to implement
patient safety in the course of providing surgical services.
The surgical staff does not verify the surgery site of a patient and
does not review the patient's history and physical. As a
result, surgery is performed on the wrong knee. | ||
| Medication Error: A
hospital mixes up two patient records. This results in the death of
one patient who mistakenly receives a potent narcotic. | ||
| Medication Error: A
patient is mistakenly given a medication mix that increases the
potential for excessive bleeding and/or hemorrhaging. The
patient falls, sustains an injury to the head. A delayed CAT
scan reveals a large subdural hemorrhage. The patient dies.
| ||
| Inadequate Supply of
Medication: A hospital fails to ensure the availability of
required medications 24 hours a day. A delay in treatment
results in a patient's death. | ||
| Use of unsterilized surgical
instruments: A hospital fails to ensure that surgical
instruments are sterilized and cleaned before surgery. A
patient undergoes surgery with instruments that are not sterile.
|
