HIPAA is really not the issue. Essent used that to force the action of the judge. When the deputy director for health privacy issues which is charged with enforcement says the following, we must look carefully at motivation:
Defamation? By its actions, Essent has defamed itself. It doesn't take myself or the commenters to do anything but show examples. Defamation is a 'false statement of fact.' Has the hospital stalled evaluations of its employees? Has it employed what would be considered in the industry large numbers of temporary nurses and technologists? Has it put out that they will suspend employees that state that we are running short staffed?
The hospital has offered to 'possibly' mitigate punishment for those who turn themselves in prior to the start of legal proceedings...and everyone is waiting with baited breath. Is that the reason for the 'delay' in action? Are people lining up for strokes of a paddle? "Thank you sir, may I have another one?"
One other thing occurs to me: If the court can compel Suddenlink to forgo their confidentiality agreement, why can't they do that with the non-disclosure agreements with former Essent employees???? They are as germaine to the respondent case as the Suddenlink records are to the complainant.
Parading a string of witnesses such as Hal, Mal, Anna, Essent hospital CFOs, and the like might give us all a different perspective....
"Either innocently or purposefully, entities often use this as an excuse," she said. "They say 'HIPAA made me do it' when, in fact, they chose for other reasons not to make the permitted disclosures."
Defamation? By its actions, Essent has defamed itself. It doesn't take myself or the commenters to do anything but show examples. Defamation is a 'false statement of fact.' Has the hospital stalled evaluations of its employees? Has it employed what would be considered in the industry large numbers of temporary nurses and technologists? Has it put out that they will suspend employees that state that we are running short staffed?
The hospital has offered to 'possibly' mitigate punishment for those who turn themselves in prior to the start of legal proceedings...and everyone is waiting with baited breath. Is that the reason for the 'delay' in action? Are people lining up for strokes of a paddle? "Thank you sir, may I have another one?"
One other thing occurs to me: If the court can compel Suddenlink to forgo their confidentiality agreement, why can't they do that with the non-disclosure agreements with former Essent employees???? They are as germaine to the respondent case as the Suddenlink records are to the complainant.Parading a string of witnesses such as Hal, Mal, Anna, Essent hospital CFOs, and the like might give us all a different perspective....
No comments:
Post a Comment