Can HIPAA be waived by contract with doctor and what constitutes one&#39;s &#39;medical status&#39;?
<p>I was at a doctor’s office, and in all of those forms was something that said something along the lines of <code>I authorize the doctor to discus my medical status as his patient with government agencies.</code> However, I know that I would generally need to authorize such a release of my medical records. Does this actually void such rights?</p>

<p>When I go to <a href="http://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-individuals/notice-privacy-practices/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-individuals/notice-privacy-practices/</a> , it explains that</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Signing [a doctor's privacy policy] does not mean that you have agreed to any special uses or
  disclosures (sharing) of your health records.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>However, this wasn't a privacy policy. It was on the same page as other legal clauses about arbitration in the event of a dispute, etc...</p>

<p>I suppose this is a two-part question: </p>

<p>1) Does "medical status" include past diagnoses that are no longer being treated by the doctor? (Eg. suppose someone has arthritis but is no longer treated for it by the doctor. Is this medical history part of their "medical status"?)</p>

<p>2) Does signing such a release actually allow the doctor to release such records without additional consent?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=cd65fda336073127c9ca168b477e414e&amp;mc=true&amp;node=sp45.1.164.e&amp;rgn=div6" rel="nofollow noreferrer">HIPAA privacy regulations</a> do not rely on the term "status", but it is used as an ordinary-language way of talking about a person's condition. A full medical record is pretty detailed, and the restrictions on disclosure are not just on records. A doctor can't tell a friend health-status thing like "He has 2 months to live" or "He broke his arm", without the consent of the covered entity (a.k.a. patient). The two main elements that go into a doctor talking about a patient are patient consent and relevance (<a href="https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2003-title45-vol1/xml/CFR-2003-title45-vol1-sec164-510.xml" rel="nofollow noreferrer">subsection (b) here</a>). It could be relevant to discuss payment options with adult family members, but not with children or the taxi driver. There should be more detailed information to go with the form you signed which would explain why they would ever talk to a government agency, though often you get a sheaf of paper and corresponding prompts on a signature pad.</p>

<p>The clause does not say what you think it does. Your status is either "current patient" or "former patient".</p>

contract-law privacy health