Medical Records Unlawful Search and Retrieval Fees Class Action

The complaint in this class action allege that the defendants—Acton Corporation, IM Records, Inc., Pro Impact Physical Therapy & Sports Performance, LLC, and Med-South, Inc.—all charged unlawful fees when the respective plaintiffs requested medical or health records from them. The amount that companies can charge for health records is regulated by federal law.

The class for this action is all individuals who were charged a “retrieval” or “search” fee, from January 1, 2013 to July 18, 2017, to obtain personal health information.

The complaint alleges that the defendants are all medical record retrieval companies and therefore “covered entities” under federal laws pertaining to medical and health records.

Under federal laws, the complaint says, patients have the right “to obtain from such covered entity a copy of [their protected health information] in an electronic format”. But laws governing fees for such information have evolved over time.

According to the complaint, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy Rule says that, if a person requests a copy of their protected health information (PHI), or agrees to receive a summary of the information, a covered entity may charge a reasonable, cost-based fee including only the costs of (1) labor for copying, (2) supplies for creating a paper or electronic copy, (3) postage if the PHI will be mailed, and/or (4) preparing an explanation or summary if the person agrees to that.

The complaint claims that the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH) and associated regulations provide a monetary motive for providers to convert to electronic medical records (EMRs), but also adds enforcement and sanctions provisions to the HIPAA rules because of increased concerns about PHI. It says that HITECH allows covered entities to charge only for its labor costs in responding to requests for copies.

In 2013, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) passed the Omnibus Rule, amending privacy, security, enforcement, and breach notification regulations for HIPAA and its revisions. Among the revisions of the Omnibus Rule, fees for electronic copies cannot include costs associated with searching for or retrieving requested information. HHS clarified this, saying that “[ t]he fee may not include costs associated with verification; documentation; searching for and retrieving the PHI; maintaining systems; recouping capital for data access, storage, or infrastructure; or other costs not listed above even if such costs are authorized by State law ”.

Thus, the complaint claims, covered entities such as the defendants in this case may not charge a retrieval fee for electronic or paper medical records. Also, because the Omnibus Rule also permits the individual to have the PHI sent to a third party, the complaint says, the same rules apply to requests for medical records to be sent to an individual’s attorney.

While the Alabama Code sets price limits on the provision of PHI, the complaint points out that where state law conflicts with federal, the state law is “without effect.” Therefore, the complaint says, the defendants were violating the law in charging the plaintiffs “retrieval fees” or “search fees” for their personal health information. 

Article Type: Lawsuit
Topic: Consumer
Tags: Unlawful Charges, Unlawful Charges for Medical/Health Records