The privacy and security provisions of HIPAA are complex. HIPAA allows states to establish stricter standards than those in HIPAA, but not less strict versions.
For this assignment, research two real-life examples of HIPAA violations of privacy or security laws that occurred in the U.S. since the passage of the HIPAA law (after 1996). Each violation described should be serious. and one that resulted in a fine or penalty for the individual or company involved.
You can find real-life examples of HIPAA violations in news reports, medical journals, professional health care publications, and other similar reliable factual sources For each example violation, include the following information:
- A complete, descriptive summary of the case:
How did the HIPAA violation occur? What policies, if any, did the organization have in place to protect against the violation? What was the penalty for the violation (fine, prison terms, termination of employment. etc?) 2. Finally, describe three ways in which the organization could have prevented the violations.
effort is an account of the circumstances of justice (inspired by David Hume), and a fair choice situation (closer in spirit to Immanuel Kant) for parties facing such circumstances. Principles of justice are sought to guide the conduct of the parties. These parties face moderate scarcity, and they are neither naturally altruistic nor purely egoistic: they have ends which they seek to advance, but desire to advance them through cooperation with others on mutually acceptable terms. Rawls offers a model of a fair choice situation (the original position with its veil of ignorance) within which parties would hypothetically choose mutually acceptable principles of justice. Under such constraints, Rawls believes that parties would find his favored principles of justice to be especially attractive, winning out over varied alternatives, including utilitarian and libertarian accounts. In 1974, Rawls’ colleague at Harvard, Robert Nozick, published a defense of libertarian justice, Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Because it is, in part, a reaction to A Theory of Justice, the two books are now often read together. Another Harvard colleague, Michael Walzer, wrote a defence of communitarian political philosophy, Spheres of Justice, as a result of a seminar he co-taught with Nozick. In a related line of criticism, Michael Sandel (also a Harvard colleague) wrote Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, which took Rawls to task for asking us to think about justice while divorcing ourselves from the very values and aspirations that define us. Sandel’s line of argument in part draws on critiques of Rawls advanced by both Charles Taylor and Alasdair MacIntyre who argue for the importance that moral ontologies have on ethical arguments. Robert Paul Wolff wrote Understanding Rawls: A Critique and Reconstruction of A Theory of Justice immediately following the publication of A Theory of Justice, which criticized Rawls from a roughly Marxist perspective. Wolff argues in this work that Rawls’ theory is an apology for the status quo insofar as it constructs justice from existing practice and forecloses the possibility that there may be problems of injustice embedded in capitalist social relations, private property or the market economy. Feminist critics of Rawls, such as Susan Moller Okin, largely focused on the extent to which Rawls’ theory could account for (if at all) injustices and hierarchies embedded in familial relations. Rawls argued that justice ought only to apply to the “basic structure of society”. Feminists, rallying around the theme of ‘the personal is political’, took Rawls to task for failing to account for injustices found in patriarchal social relations and the gendered division of labor, especially in the household. The assumptions of the original position, and in particular, the use of maximin reasoning, have also been criticized (most notably by Kenneth Arrow and John Harsanyi), with the implication either that Rawls designed the original position to derive the two principles, or that an original position more faithful to its initial purpose would not lead to his favored principles. In reply Rawls has emphasized the role of the original position as a “device of representation” for making sense of the idea of a fair choice situation for free and equal citizens. Rawls has also emphasized the relatively modest role that maximin plays in his argument: it is “a useful heuristic rule of thumb” given the curious features of choice behind the veil of ignorance. Some egalitarian critics have raised concerns over Rawls’ emphasis on primary social goods. For instance, Amartya Sen has argued that we should attend not only to the distribution of primary goods, but also how effectively people are able to use those goods to pursue their ends. In a related vein, Norman Daniels has wondered why healthcare shouldn’t be treated as a primary good, and some of his subsequent work has addressed this question, arguing for a right to health care within a broadly Rawlsian framework.>