What privacy regulation was violated when a coach left a detailed voicemail for their client?

What privacy regulation was violated when a coach left a detailed voicemail for their client?

• A. Minimum necessary rule
• B. Authorization rule
• C. Access rule
• D. Coaching contract

Answer: (A)

The minimum necessary rule is a fundamental principle within privacy regulations, particularly under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). This rule mandates that covered entities and their associates must limit the use, disclosure, and requests for protected health information to the minimum necessary to accomplish the intended purpose. In this scenario, when a coach leaves a detailed voicemail for a client, they may disclose more sensitive information than is necessary for communication purposes. This action could potentially expose the client's private information to unintended listeners and represents a violation of the need to limit disclosures to only what is essential for the interaction. In contrast, the authorization rule pertains to the requirement for a client's explicit permission before sharing their health information with third parties. The access rule allows clients to access their own health information but does not address the manner in which information is communicated. While the coaching contract may outline confidentiality expectations, it does not specifically pertain to violations of privacy regulations like the minimum necessary rule does. Therefore, the best response to the question of what privacy regulation was violated is the minimum necessary rule, as it encapsulates the essence of maintaining confidentiality in communications.

The minimum necessary rule is a fundamental principle within privacy regulations, particularly under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). This rule mandates that covered entities and their associates must limit the use, disclosure, and requests for protected health information to the minimum necessary to accomplish the intended purpose. In this scenario, when a coach leaves a detailed voicemail for a client, they may disclose more sensitive information than is necessary for communication purposes. This action could potentially expose the client's private information to unintended listeners and represents a violation of the need to limit disclosures to only what is essential for the interaction.

In contrast, the authorization rule pertains to the requirement for a client's explicit permission before sharing their health information with third parties. The access rule allows clients to access their own health information but does not address the manner in which information is communicated. While the coaching contract may outline confidentiality expectations, it does not specifically pertain to violations of privacy regulations like the minimum necessary rule does. Therefore, the best response to the question of what privacy regulation was violated is the minimum necessary rule, as it encapsulates the essence of maintaining confidentiality in communications.