Access to this page has been denied
www.houstonchronicle.com
px-captcha

The doctor has publicly identified himself as the person who released information to a conservative activist about the transgender care program at Texas Children’s. Citing “whistleblower documents,” the activist published a story in May 2023 saying Texas Children’s provided transgender care, which was legal at the time, “in secret.”

Texas Children’s on Monday declined to comment on the charges against Haim. In previous statements, hospital officials said its doctors have always provided care within the law.

Transgender care has become a popular talking point in Texas and other Republican-dominated states where lawmakers claim such treatment is harmful to children. It describes a range of different social, psychological, behavioral or medical interventions that support people whose assigned sex at birth does not align with their gender identity. This can include mental health counseling, hormone therapy or surgery, which is rare for people under 18.

Such treatment, which is supported by every major medical association in the U.S., was offered at Texas Children’s and other pediatric hospitals in Texas. Lawmakers have since implemented a statewide ban, and Texas Children’s said it would discontinue its program.

Meanwhile, Haim has publicly decried the investigation against him as “political.”

In the arraignment hearing, Ho said the indictment identified three different patients whose health information was compromised. Addressing reporters, Patrick declined to speak about the facts of the case but described the charges against his client as a “huge contradiction.”

  • geekwithsoul@lemm.eeEnglish
    01·
    4 months ago

    You seem very confident in your answer, but the actual text doesn’t seem to match your assertions?

    https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/breach-notification/index.html

    There are three exceptions to the definition of “breach.” The first exception applies to the unintentional acquisition, access, or use of protected health information by a workforce member or person acting under the authority of a covered entity or business associate, if such acquisition, access, or use was made in good faith and within the scope of authority. The second exception applies to the inadvertent disclosure of protected health information by a person authorized to access protected health information at a covered entity or business associate to another person authorized to access protected health information at the covered entity or business associate, or organized health care arrangement in which the covered entity participates. In both cases, the information cannot be further used or disclosed in a manner not permitted by the Privacy Rule. The final exception applies if the covered entity or business associate has a good faith belief that the unauthorized person to whom the impermissible disclosure was made, would not have been able to retain the information.

    • secretlyaddictedtolinux@lemmy.world
      0·
      4 months ago

      Also to clarify, under the rules, certain actions may not constitute a breach to begin with and therefore the breach rules may not apply and also the exceptions may not apply.

      • geekwithsoul@lemm.eeEnglish
        01·
        4 months ago

        The big difference is that all those exceptions only apply to an authorized party, i.e. a health care provider authorized to care for the patient. In this case, the doctor in question was never authorized - none of the patients were in his care.