01.05.2014 Views

Preemption Analysis of Texas Laws Relating to the Privacy of Health ...

Preemption Analysis of Texas Laws Relating to the Privacy of Health ...

Preemption Analysis of Texas Laws Relating to the Privacy of Health ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>Texas</strong> <strong>Health</strong> & Safety Code<br />

Section/<br />

Chapter<br />

Related/<br />

Contrary<br />

Explanation<br />

<strong>Preemption</strong><br />

Exception<br />

Is State Law<br />

Preempted?<br />

Recommendation<br />

HIPAA allows no access <strong>to</strong> psycho<strong>the</strong>rapy notes. See 45<br />

C.F.R. § 164.524(a)(1). To <strong>the</strong> extent this state statute<br />

permits access <strong>to</strong> psycho<strong>the</strong>rapy notes, it is saved by 45<br />

C.F.R. § 160.203(b) as it is more stringent--allows greater<br />

access than HIPAA.<br />

§ 611.0045(a)-(b)<br />

Right <strong>to</strong> Mental<br />

<strong>Health</strong> Record<br />

Related/<br />

Contrary<br />

However, § 611.0045(b) is contrary <strong>to</strong> HIPAA, possibly under<br />

<strong>the</strong> first definition but clearly under <strong>the</strong> second definition <strong>of</strong><br />

"contrary." HIPAA prescribes a high threshold and a great<br />

number <strong>of</strong> administrative restrictions on <strong>the</strong> denial <strong>of</strong> access<br />

<strong>to</strong> a record. Specifically, under HIPAA, a pr<strong>of</strong>essional would<br />

be required <strong>to</strong> find that <strong>the</strong> provision <strong>of</strong> access is "reasonably<br />

likely <strong>to</strong> endanger <strong>the</strong> life or physical safety <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> individual<br />

or ano<strong>the</strong>r person." <strong>Texas</strong> requires only that <strong>the</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>essional<br />

determine that access may be "harmful," a much lower<br />

threshold for denying access.<br />

Yes<br />

Provisions governing<br />

denial <strong>of</strong> access for<br />

inspection purposes<br />

should be made<br />

consistent with HIPAA.<br />

See 25 TAC chapter 404, subchapter E for corresponding<br />

rules.<br />

Also worth noting that under subsections (c) & (d), covered<br />

entities would have <strong>to</strong> follow both HIPAA and <strong>Texas</strong> law. In<br />

this regard, <strong>Texas</strong> has an additional requirement that <strong>the</strong><br />

documentation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> denial track which portion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> record<br />

<strong>to</strong> which access was denied. See 45 C.F.R. § 164.524.<br />

Subsection (e) is not contrary. Subsection (f) is also not<br />

contrary but <strong>the</strong>re is no "out" for provision <strong>of</strong> access where<br />

apatient may be abused by a guardian. Ano<strong>the</strong>r difference,<br />

(albeit not a difference that rises <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong> "contrary") is<br />

<strong>the</strong> fact that HIPAA permits a provider <strong>to</strong> deny access <strong>to</strong><br />

records that identify a person if such access is reasonably<br />

likely <strong>to</strong> cause substantial harm <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r person. <strong>Texas</strong><br />

law imposes a non-discretionary requirement that <strong>the</strong><br />

provider remove most information related <strong>to</strong> ano<strong>the</strong>r person.<br />

See <strong>Health</strong> & Safety Code § 611.0045(g). Subsections (h)-(k)<br />

are not contrary.<br />

No<br />

308

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!