All your points being incorrect is the cake; misspelling HIPAA is just the frosting.
So, at this point, when representatives from healthcare, law, insurance and clinical research (I may have missed a few) have explained how HIPAA applies in this case, are you still throwing shade at the rest of the BBS? Or have you caught up with the fact that in Texas,
-there was no crime
-the not-crime did not take place on hospital property
-would have been reported through the hospital first, not straight to the DA
-any crime relating to abortion in Texas would involve healthcare workers, not the patient; thus disclosure of patient confidential information was not necessary unless compelled
Another really important fact you (somehow) might not have picked up from your HIPAA training is the concept of minimum disclosure; namely, that when a disclosure is required, it be done so while revealing the minimum possible patient data. In this case, if there had been an abortion performed at the hospital and these healthcare workers had been questioned by police, they had an obligation to reveal the least possible patient data to comply with the requirement. So in Texas, that would be limited to which hospital, which provider, and the date and approximate time. Believe it or not, that information along with the procedure type constitutes confidential patient data because it can be traced back to a patient. Revealing the patient name or even their hair color would be a HIPAA violation, even while sitting in an interrogation room at a police station.
If you are working or volunteering in a job that handles confidential patient data, you need to know the above so as not to get in trouble with federal law yourself. It is not sufficient excuse under HIPAA to upload a patients full health record to the internet just because you think they may be running an unlicensed daycare. That is how tenuous your argument in this thread is.
