A Cincinnati newspaper, citing state public access to documents, successfully argued that HIPAA does not prevent them from finding out homes with lead paint - discovered and tracked by testing children by the state health agency.  Considered a landmark decision, as the first time state law and federal HIPAA laws conflicted (the state supreme court deciding that state law trumped when all else is equal).  The article documents that the state agency is not a HIPAA covered entity, so cannot hide behind this as a reason for not releasing information.  And, the presence of lead paint in a home is not protected health information in a strict interpretation.
 
I’m not sure the spirit of the law is being upheld, unfortunately.  While not truly medical information, there are extrapolations that can be made about the people living in those homes that was best kept private.  Much like knowing someone went to a clinic, you don’t know the details but certain conclusions can be drawn if the services the clinic offers are narrow enough.  We don’t know any specific health effects, but there are common results from overexposure to lead.
 
This seems to be the correct ruling.  But it feels like a bad direction.  Can the public good be served and protect individual health information?  Is the end result that people will try and hide lead paint and not point out places it exists?  In an era of needing bio-surveillance, outcomes studies, and healthcare data mining, is it really possible to keep patient information confidential in the long run?
 
Picture is a fake Liberty in Las Vegas.
April 5, 2006
Ohio and HIPAA
Watching Healthcare IT