[edge919]

I'm afraid it's not that simple. Yes, HIPAA allows information on a patient's location to be released as part of the facility directory. Please note that it applies to patients currently in the facility or recently released, not patients from 40 plus years ago. And even for this "directory exception" the patient or authorized person must be given the opportunity to object. In emergency circumstances, the patient may be included in the directory, but must be offered the chance to withdraw from the directory as soon as practicable.

I'm afraid it is that simple. A lot of hospitals have had a general practice over the years prior to the passage of HIPAA of releasing admissions information in newspapers and/or on the radio. I remember seeing this as a kid when I was growing up. They can't retroactively disallow information that has already been made public. It would be an administrative nightmare. The law also allows leeway for personal judgment calls to be made by hospital administrators. It's extremely doubtful that any hospital is going to get in trouble for saying SAD was treated and released at Kapiolani hospital ... I don't see a rule that prevents them from saying she was never there, if such is the case. If they can say a patient was treated and released or in their directory, they should by simple logic, be able to say a patient wasn't there.

[sometime lurker]

I'm afraid it is that simple. A lot of hospitals have had a general practice over the years prior to the passage of HIPAA of releasing admissions information in newspapers and/or on the radio. I remember seeing this as a kid when I was growing up. They can't retroactively disallow information that has already been made public. It would be an administrative nightmare.

If you read up, you'll see that the HIPAA law doesn't have a lot to do with common sense sometimes. It does not matter that something is already a matter of public record, the hospital still has duty to keep PHI confidential. The fact that the material was never confidential before 2003 doesn't excuse them from what the law instituted on that date. They can't 'take it back,' but they are no longer permitted to release it except in specified circumstances. (Try using, "it wasn't illegal before" to the judge, and see what happens.)

The law also allows leeway for personal judgment calls to be made by hospital administrators.

The "judgment calls" you refer to are based on "minimum necessary". While we can argue that it's necessary for the country's health, I suspect that won't cut it with a hospital administrator facing a fine up to $250,000 and up to 10 years in prison.

It's extremely doubtful that any hospital is going to get in trouble for saying SAD was treated and released at Kapiolani hospital ... I don't see a rule that prevents them from saying she was never there, if such is the case.

Requests for information are first checked to see if the requester has the right to that information. If the answer is “no” the hospital isn’t going to bother looking it up. I can also tell you the feds take HIPAA very seriously, and yes, very good chance they would get in big time trouble for giving out PHI. Here are a few of the higher profile cases with fines. Note that in some cases the information wasn't even publicly released, but the hospital was fined because hospital workers looked at records they shouldn't.

If they can say a patient was treated and released or in their directory, they should by simple logic, be able to say a patient wasn't there.

“Simple logic” is not how anyone I know would describe HIPAA, but it’s the law nonetheless. The "hospital directory" rule applies to patients currently in the hospital or recently released. Not to what happened years ago. If you call and ask if 0bama is currently a patient in their hospital, technically they can tell you yes or no.

If you have a citation for a legal or medical source that says otherwise, I'd like to see it. If you want more links to read up, I can supply some. I had to learn more than I wanted to about HIPAA.