Deebo Calls Out Adam Schefter...

[RuthlessBurgher]

Nothing wrong with reporting the finger amputation, which obviously will come to light as soon as the public is able to see JPP any time in the future with 9 fingers instead of 10. That's something you can't exactly hide.

A lot wrong with publishing a picture of someone's private medical records. There was no need for it, either. It wasn't like anyone was doubting his report of the amputation and required concrete proof right away.

I still trust Schefter's reporting over his replacement at the NFL Network, Ian Rapoport, though. We'll see if that changes if players and teams stop giving him the access they used to because of this major faux pas.

[flippy]

Whether Adam reports the lost finger or shows the medical record, it's essentially the same information being given. So if one is a HIPPA violation, wouldn't the other be just as bad?

I've always wondered this every time someone breaks an injury story in the NFL. Isn't every injury report a HIPPA violation? If any of them aren't, then what Adam has done seems no different than any other story breaking injury news in the NFL.

Given the general practice of reporting injuries of athletes, I really don't see anything wrong here. If it is wrong, everyone else is to blame for every single injury reported.

[papillon]

Whether Adam reports the lost finger or shows the medical record, it's essentially the same information being given. So if one is a HIPPA violation, wouldn't the other be just as bad?

I've always wondered this every time someone breaks an injury story in the NFL. Isn't every injury report a HIPAA violation? If any of them aren't, then what Adam has done seems no different than any other story breaking injury news in the NFL.

Given the general practice of reporting injuries of athletes, I really don't see anything wrong here. If it is wrong, everyone else is to blame for every single injury reported.

Maybe I can help a little, HIPAA laws are incredibly complex.

The first piece of information that you need to know is "Who" does HIPAA pertain to. HIPAA laws pertain to health plans (basically insurance companies), health care clearing houses (entities that process health information they receive from other healthcare entities), and health care providers (doctor, nurse, hospital staff, etc.) There are other entities that are covered but in an effort to keep this to a reasonable length there's no need to mention them (reporters are not included).

The second piece of information is "What" do HIPAA laws protect. What is protected is an individual's health condition, past, current and future; the treatment plan of the individual, past, current and future; and any financial data about the patient's ability to pay, past, current and future invoices.

So, in this instance, the hospital is the "who" is covered and the picture of JPPs diagnosis and treatment plan covers the "what" is covered.

Adam Schefter doesn't fit the "who", but releasing the picture would fit the "what" if he was a HIPAA covered entity, which he is not. He is guilty of poor judgment in this matter.

The hospital, OTOH, has begun an investigation into how JPPs diagnosis and treatment were released to the public (Schefter) and thereby violating HIPAA laws. If they are unable to determine the specific individual(s) that released the information they will have to fall on the sword, so to speak. This is clearly a HIPAA violation and all HIPAA covered entities must provide yearly HIPAA training to their staff. They are also responsible for controlling access to this information, both electronically and physically, personally identifiable medical information must be protected on a "need to know" basis and access to these types of records has to be documented in their HIPAA security document. If it turns out the the individual(s) that released the information did not have access to the information then the hospital's security policy will come under scrutiny and in all likelihood they will be fined severely. If, on the other hand, it was an individual(s) that was/were properly trained (it must be documented) and was/were given access (because they had a "need" to know) then the hospital will have done everything it was supposed to do and there will be little ramification to the hospital.

That's the skinny in as few as words as possible. I hope that helps.

Pappy

[phillyesq]

did Schaffer lie? If not, what's the problem?

Its not like there is a game next week and the team was trying to hide his injury.

Reporters have a job to dig for information. They aren't supposed to be liked by players IMO.

It's one thing to report information about a player's condition. It's something else entirely to publish copies of his medical records.

[SanAntonioSteelerFan]

Gee I don't know, isn't posession of the medical records and publishing them sort of like knowingly having and using stolen property?

[feltdizz]

It's one thing to report information about a player's condition. It's something else entirely to publish copies of his medical records.

Ok, I didnt know he published the records. I thought he reported his injury before it was made public.