OBGYN at Foxhall stole their list when she exited the practice and handed it to new employer

[Anonymous]

Here is the letter we received.

[Anonymous]

While it might be difficult to imagine what the big deal is here, the point of HIPAA is to protect the patient's private health information, and that includes whether they were a patient at that practice. Imagine if it had been a list of patients at a specialized cancer treatment center, or a substance abuse rehab center, or mental health provider. Would you be comfortable with the provider then selling that information or making it available where an insurance company or background check or employer can access it? What if a Planned Parenthood employee went rogue and published their patient lists? The mere fact that a person has sought treatment with a medical provider is private information, and the point of HIPAA is to keep it private. And given the speculation about why the letter was written in the way that it was, HIPAA (like many privacy laws) has specific notification requirements so that a person whose information has been accessed is informed of the issue.

[Anonymous]

Wow, Foxhall isn't even offering to pay for credit monitoring. Cheapskates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, Foxhall isn't even offering to pay for credit monitoring. Cheapskates.

Why would they pay for credit monitoring? It doesn’t seem that SSNs or financial information was stolen?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dunno. If I have a doctor, my relationship is with them, not the firm. I appreciate knowing where they land.

+1

I hate when practices won’t tell you where the good doctors go after they leave the practice.

Fox hall should have given her patients her new info from the start.

It sounds like she’s not practicing anymore, no? She’s working for a menopause product company.

Taking a list of patients who aren’t yours in order to hawk products is shitty at the very least. [/quote

Oh, that DEFINITELY violates HIPAA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dunno. If I have a doctor, my relationship is with them, not the firm. I appreciate knowing where they land.

+1

I hate when practices won’t tell you where the good doctors go after they leave the practice.

Fox hall should have given her patients her new info from the start.

It sounds like she’s not practicing anymore, no? She’s working for a menopause product company.

Taking a list of patients who aren’t yours in order to hawk products is shitty at the very least. [/quote

Oh, that DEFINITELY violates HIPAA.

Correct:

https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-individuals/faq/275/does-hipaa-expand-providers-ability-to-use-protected-health-information-for-marketing/index.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While it might be difficult to imagine what the big deal is here, the point of HIPAA is to protect the patient's private health information, and that includes whether they were a patient at that practice. Imagine if it had been a list of patients at a specialized cancer treatment center, or a substance abuse rehab center, or mental health provider. Would you be comfortable with the provider then selling that information or making it available where an insurance company or background check or employer can access it? What if a Planned Parenthood employee went rogue and published their patient lists? The mere fact that a person has sought treatment with a medical provider is private information, and the point of HIPAA is to keep it private. And given the speculation about why the letter was written in the way that it was, HIPAA (like many privacy laws) has specific notification requirements so that a person whose information has been accessed is informed of the issue.

This was very well-explained, thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While it might be difficult to imagine what the big deal is here, the point of HIPAA is to protect the patient's private health information, and that includes whether they were a patient at that practice. Imagine if it had been a list of patients at a specialized cancer treatment center, or a substance abuse rehab center, or mental health provider. Would you be comfortable with the provider then selling that information or making it available where an insurance company or background check or employer can access it? What if a Planned Parenthood employee went rogue and published their patient lists? The mere fact that a person has sought treatment with a medical provider is private information, and the point of HIPAA is to keep it private. And given the speculation about why the letter was written in the way that it was, HIPAA (like many privacy laws) has specific notification requirements so that a person whose information has been accessed is informed of the issue.

This was very well-explained, thank you.

+1 and thank you for mentioning the notification requirements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is the letter we received.

Geez. So many PP’s in this thread sound moronic. Cleary it was a HIPAA violation and it’s totally irrelevant whether it bothered some patients or not. Do you think she lawyered up for no good reason? Dr. Malone sounds like a greedy and unsophisticated doctor who I would never trust with my healthcare. Oh and I’m NOT a Republican! The fact that her husband was the AG over seeing health care fraud cases both when he was an attorney in the fraud section at DOJ, a DAG overseeing the fraud section at DOJ and then the AG overseeing the entire criminal division makes it worse. Like she never thought to ask her husband, “ “hey honey, can or should I do this”? What an idiot.

[Anonymous]

Um. Literally while he was AG he was listed as the attorney for the practice on one malpractice suit. ( I think where he is also named as a defendant in a wacky accusation ) — search from 2012-2013 — some frivolous suits against the practice —but still it seems off that he would have taken that on formally —

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the letter we received.

Geez. So many PP’s in this thread sound moronic. Cleary it was a HIPAA violation and it’s totally irrelevant whether it bothered some patients or not. Do you think she lawyered up for no good reason? Dr. Malone sounds like a greedy and unsophisticated doctor who I would never trust with my healthcare. Oh and I’m NOT a Republican! The fact that her husband was the AG over seeing health care fraud cases both when he was an attorney in the fraud section at DOJ, a DAG overseeing the fraud section at DOJ and then the AG overseeing the entire criminal division makes it worse. Like she never thought to ask her husband, “ “hey honey, can or should I do this”? What an idiot.

Neither the doctor nor her husband are stupid. They just do shady stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Um. Literally while he was AG he was listed as the attorney for the practice on one malpractice suit. ( I think where he is also named as a defendant in a wacky accusation ) — search from 2012-2013 — some frivolous suits against the practice —but still it seems off that he would have taken that on formally —

Your post makes zero sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dunno. If I have a doctor, my relationship is with them, not the firm. I appreciate knowing where they land.

+1

I hate when practices won’t tell you where the good doctors go after they leave the practice.

Fox hall should have given her patients her new info from the start.

It sounds like she’s not practicing anymore, no? She’s working for a menopause product company.

Taking a list of patients who aren’t yours in order to hawk products is shitty at the very least. [/quote

Oh, that DEFINITELY violates HIPAA.

I know lots of physicians who now earn more working for pharma.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Um. Literally while he was AG he was listed as the attorney for the practice on one malpractice suit. ( I think where he is also named as a defendant in a wacky accusation ) — search from 2012-2013 — some frivolous suits against the practice —but still it seems off that he would have taken that on formally —

Your post makes zero sense.

There was a crazy lawsuit against the practice, against many of the Holders including Eric (the AG) and also it named Malone ----filed in DC for assault and battery in 2012. It was dismissed. While he was named as a defendant he didn't serve as an attorney.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Um. Literally while he was AG he was listed as the attorney for the practice on one malpractice suit. ( I think where he is also named as a defendant in a wacky accusation ) — search from 2012-2013 — some frivolous suits against the practice —but still it seems off that he would have taken that on formally —

Your post makes zero sense.

There was a crazy lawsuit against the practice, against many of the Holders including Eric (the AG) and also it named Malone ----filed in DC for assault and battery in 2012. It was dismissed. While he was named as a defendant he didn't serve as an attorney.

Interesting.