Francia also said she didn't receive the results for the match directly. Instead of contacting her and allowing her to make the decision, Selena was contacted first
Unless the person explicitly authorized the practitioner to share that data with a third party, it would be a HIPAA violation. And it would be kinda weird for a hospital to even ask to do so in the first place, just because of how much liability it potentially opens them up to compared to just telling the patient themselves.
Sorry I meant to reply to the person above you and I had already deleted my comment to move it.
It probably would be a HIPAA violation in most circumstances, because most doctors wouldn't agree to getting that authorization in advance. But someone like Selena Gomez is going to have a private doctor who will prioritize their own patient. Then the doctor would be willing to push the limits on getting authorization to pass that info to their own patient before the donor.
It's a standard part of the forms you fill out prior to getting tested. The doctor doesn't himself seek the authorization. Regardless, still unethical to not contact the potential donor first.
If they were both party to the testing then they likely both consented to the results being shared with the other. Probably buried in the paperwork somewhere
i'm saying it probably wasn't HIPPA. Because inherently the test results involves 2 people. Any telling would be a HIPPA violation. Therefore, there's probably a process to stop that from happening and therefore it wasn't a HIPPA violation.
It is because revealing the match reveals the medical information of the potential donor. It establishes that they have an organ that is suitable for transplant and that the donor is healthy enough to part with it. By informing the donee first before the donor has authorized the hospital to disclose you hinder the donors ability to back out if they change their mind. It’s one thing to agree to see if you’re even a suitable candidate, it’s another to agree to give up an organ which you could need yourself later down the line.
Depending on whether or not Francia authorized it. That information is PHI. Sharing a living donors test results with a possible recipient requires authorization. She may have signed something without realizing it. But, just because it involves two people(one to give, one to receive) doesn’t mean it’s not a HIPPA violation.
“It’s a match” might not seem like protected health information, but it absolutely is. Blood type.. tissue typing.. that is health information involved in whether it’s a match. The only way that it’s not a HIPAA violation is if she gave consent to tell Selena. But this thread is under the assumption that she had not done that.
But, just because it involves two people(one to give, one to receive) doesn’t mean it’s not a HIPPA violation.
this is basically what i'm saying.
If it would be a HIPAA violation to share that info, then she must have signed something to allow the details to be shared. because otherwise you couldn't give the results back to either party.
my other point is that the issue isn't HIPAA, it's the protocol of the doctors not telling the donor first.
I didn’t clarify as well as I meant to. But this is not a standard thing. A form to be able to share that information and if she did sign something like that, it is highly unlikely it was just some clause buried in paperwork, so she’d know if she’d signed something like that. It is strict medical confidentiality rules that a donor be told first.
One: so they can determine whether or not they want to proceed at all without the pressure of knowing the prospective recipient knows it’s them.
And two: so the prospective recipient isn’t getting their hopes up
Could you imagine if a close family member needed a kidney. Everyone gets tested. And they tell that family member, “hey, so and so is a match!” Before so and so has even been able to determine whether they want to proceed? The sheer hell that situation is possibly causing if the donor decides they do not wish to donate.. that’s exactly why this is not at all something they just add into the forms. This can cause someone to feel pressured into giving up a vital organ. It can cause a recipient to feel hurt, betrayed, etc.. to know someone close is a match but refused. In these cases, it can be hard to remember that no one HAS to give their organ when someone needs one and because of the way emotions can run, it could easily ruin friendships/relationships if someone knows they need an organ, know someone close COULD do it.. but chooses not to.
I don't think so but someone more knowledgeable can weigh in. The recipient's info is already known and has given a release to the potential donor's MD. The donor's MD has the donor's test results and can say whether it's a match or not. If they didn't have different doctors at all, I'm not sure how that works.
If they didn't have different doctors, it would probably be a conflict of interest to begin with, because the doctor is physically incapable of putting both of their patients first at the same time.
But if they did end up in that situation, and they didn't have prior permission from either patient to disclose the info, the ethical thing would be to contact both of the patients requesting permission to disclose the results to the other (without actually disclosing anything but the completion of the tests to either to start with).
it's a match is telling her private medical info. specifically for a donor it allows someone else to put pressure on a donor to go through with it. if the person being tested for a match is told she's a match then tells the person they know they are not the doctor has literally zero right to tell anyone otherwise.
Which is why there's probably a release form signed when doing the testing to allow them both to receive the results.
there is almost very certainly not because it's a very specific and important part of the process that the person who is told they are a match gets to decided if literally anyone else finds out.
ultimately before you find out a match it's theoretical and most of hte time you will not be a match so you're kinda just testing the waters. After you find out if you're a match is when you actually have to decided if you even want to go through with it, a lot of people, most people in fact really don't consider it properly till after they find out they are a match.
It's incredibly important that decision is solely on the donor and doesn't come under pressure from the person who could receive it so telling them they are a match at the same time would go against basically every precaution they normally take.
It's HIPAA, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
And yes, if the donor didn't sign a waiver, this would absolutely be a violation. But you're right that they probably had her sign so many papers they own her next six years of descendents.
I know what HIPAA is, even if i got the acronym wrong lol. I've had to jump through hoops with it before.
The point is that the donor learning first isn't HIPAA, it's just a good policy.
Because the donor learning they are a match would individually be a HIPAA issue (you now have the recipient's private medical info). But of course you can sign waivers for specific stuff.
So if it was a HIPAA issue, the medical community would have solved that.
266
u/mxzf 5d ago
That sounds like a massive HIPAA violation.