/ en Wed, 30 Apr 2025 09:26:22 -0500 Thu, 29 Aug 24 14:18:54 -0500 /news/headline/2024-08-29-hhs-will-not-appeal-aha-court-victory-online-tracking-case <p>The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will not appeal its loss in <em>șÚÁÏŐęÄÜÁż Association v. Becerra</em>. The AHA, joined by the Texas Hospital Association, Texas Health Resources, and United Regional Health Care System, last November <a href="/legal-documents/2023-11-02-case-complaint-aha-tha-thr-united-health-care-system-v-rainer?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=emai&utm_campaign=aha-special-bulletin" target="_blank" title="/legal-documents/2023-11-02-case-complaint-aha-tha-thr-united-health-care-system-v-rainer" id="menur3hg" rel="noreferrer noopener" aria-label="Link sued HHS">sued HHS</a> to bar enforcement of a new rule adopted in guidance by the Office for Civil Rights titled “Use of Online Tracking Technologies by HIPAA Covered Entities and Business Associates,” which prevented hospitals and health systems from using standard third-party web technologies that capture IP addresses on key portions of their public-facing webpages. A federal district court in the Northern District of Texas <a href="/news/news/2024-06-20-judge-rules-favor-aha-vacating-hhs-online-tracking-bulletin-unlawful-and-beyond-agency-authority?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=emai&utm_campaign=aha-special-bulletin" target="_blank" title="/news/news/2024-06-20-judge-rules-favor-aha-vacating-hhs-online-tracking-bulletin-unlawful-and-beyond-agency-authority" id="menur3hi" rel="noreferrer noopener" aria-label="Link June 20">June 20</a> held that the OCR bulletin’s new rule “was promulgated in clear excess of HHS’s authority under HIPAA.” HHS Aug. 29 officially <a href="https://sponsors.aha.org/rs/710-ZLL-651/images/Final%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20AHA%20v.%20Becerra%20Filed.pdf?version=0" target="_blank" title="https://sponsors.aha.org/rs/710-zll-651/images/final%20motion%20to%20dismiss%20aha%20v.%20becerra%20filed.pdf?version=0" id="menur3hk" rel="noreferrer noopener" aria-label="Link withdrew">withdrew</a> its notice of appeal, finalizing the AHA's victory in this case.</p><p>In a statement shared with the media, AHA General Counsel Chad Golder said, “The șÚÁÏŐęÄÜÁż Association is pleased that the Office for Civil Rights has decided not to appeal the district court’s decision vacating the new rule adopted in its Online Tracking Technologies Bulletin. As the AHA repeatedly explained to OCR —both before and after OCR forced the AHA to file its lawsuit — this rule was a gross overreach by the federal government, imposed without any input from healthcare providers or the general public. Now that the Bulletin’s illegal rule has been vacated once and for all, hospitals can safely share reliable, accurate health care information with the communities they serve without the fear of federal civil and criminal penalties.”</p><p>Seventeen state hospital associations and 30 hospitals and health systems filed friend-of-the-court briefs supporting AHA and its co-plaintiffs in the lawsuit.</p> Thu, 29 Aug 2024 14:18:54 -0500 Legal/Regulatory ERM Domain /news/news/2024-06-20-judge-rules-favor-aha-vacating-hhs-online-tracking-bulletin-unlawful-and-beyond-agency-authority <p>A United States District Court Judge in Texas today <a href="/system/files/media/file/2024/06/opinion-order-in-aha-et-al-v-xavier-becerra-et-al-6-20-2024.pdf">ruled</a> in favor of the AHA, Texas Hospital Association, and hospital plaintiffs, agreeing that Department of Health and Human Services “bulletins” that restrict health care providers from using standard third-party web technologies that capture IP addresses on portions of their public-facing webpages were unlawful final rules and vacating the March 2024 Revised Bulletin.</p><p>“It’s easy for eyes to glaze over at a thirty-page opinion discussing the administrative esoterica accordant with HIPAA compliance,” United States District Court Judge Mark Pittman wrote today. “But this case isn’t really about HIPAA, the Proscribed Combination, or the proper nomenclature for PHI in the Digital Age. Rather, this is a case about power.
  While the Proscribed Combination may be trivial to HHS, it isn’t for covered entities diligently attempting to comply with HIPAA’s requirements.
  The Court <strong>GRANTS </strong>the Hospitals’ request for declaratory judgment and <strong>DECLARES </strong>that the Proscribed Combination, as set forth in the HHS Bulletin of March 18, 2024, is <strong>UNLAWFUL</strong>, as it was promulgated in clear excess of HHS’s authority under HIPAA.”</p><p>The AHA, joined by the Texas Hospital Association, Texas Health Resources, and United Regional Health Care System, last November <a href="/legal-documents/2023-11-02-case-complaint-aha-tha-thr-united-health-care-system-v-rainer">sued</a> the federal government to bar enforcement of an unlawful rule, masquerading as guidance, that has upended hospitals’ and health systems’ ability to share health care information with the communities they serve and analyze their own website traffic to enhance access to care and public health. In response to the lawsuit, HHS OCR in March issued updated guidance for HIPAA-covered entities and business associates on using online tracking technologies. The AHA contended the revised bulletin was still unlawful, and Judge Pittman agreed in today’s ruling.</p><p>AHA General Counsel Chad Golder stated, “For more than a year, the AHA has been telling the Office for Civil Rights that its ‘Online Tracking Bulletin’ was both unlawful and harmful to patients and communities. We regret that we were forced to sue OCR, but we are pleased that the Court today agreed with the AHA and held that OCR does not have ‘interpretive carte blanche to justify whatever it wants irrespective of violence to HIPAA’s text.’ As a result of today’s decision, hospitals and health systems will again be able to rely on these important technologies to provide their communities with reliable, accurate health care information.”</p><p>Seventeen state hospital associations and 30 hospitals and health systems filed friend-of-the-court briefs supporting AHA and its co-plaintiffs in this lawsuit.</p> Thu, 20 Jun 2024 17:36:18 -0500 Legal/Regulatory ERM Domain /education-events/how-does-apply-us-fha-ada-and-senior-living-providers <p><strong>On-Demand</strong></p><p>In this session, we will explore the ramifications and impact that the Fair Housing Act/Fair Housing Amendments Act (referred to collectively as FHA), and American with Disabilities Act (ADA) have on various senior living providers: those who serve older adults through lines of services such as Nursing Homes/Long Term Care, Sub-Acute Rehab/Skilled Nursing Facilities, Assisted Living, Memory Care and Personal Care Homes, Independent and congregate living for seniors, and Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRCs)/Life Plan Communities. The significant risks associated with FHA and ADA can often catch organizations off guard, as they may not consider themselves “housing providers” since they are often delivering much more than just housing; however, for purposes of the FHA and certain parts of the ADA, that’s exactly what they are. Providers are often unaware of the impact of these laws, and the lack of understanding can causing both monetary and reputational damage. The FHA and ADA touch upon numerous areas including advertising and marketing, admissions, movement through the continuum of care, use of scooters and other assistive devices, assistance animals, private duty aides, construction, design and renovation, and interpreter services. Learn about what is required by the laws, the various Protected Classes they cover, what providers can require of residents, and how to mitigate risk by undertaking steps that can help you avoid getting into hot water with prospective applicants, your residents and their families, fair housing and other advocacy groups, and the government.</p><ol><li>Understand what type of housing and entities FHA and ADA cover, and what is then required by covered entities under both FHA and ADA; </li><li>Recognize those who are considered as part of a Protected Class and what both Reasonable Accommodations and Modifications are, with examples; </li><li>Comprehend the Essential Requirements of Tenancy and the limits on Reasonable Accommodations and Modifications; </li><li>Learn simple ways to mitigate risk by implementing appropriate policies and rules around common Reasonable Accommodations.</li></ol><table><tbody><tr><td class="first_child">Product Code</td><td>32202OD24</td></tr><tr><td class="first_child">ASHRM CE Credits</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td class="first_child">CNE Credits</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td class="first_child">Domain</td><td>Legal & Regulatory</td></tr><tr><td class="first_child">Level - Foundational (F), Practitioner (P), Advanced (A)</td><td>P</td></tr><tr><td class="first_child">Publication Date</td><td>4/25/24</td></tr><tr><td class="first_child">Next Review</td><td>7/01/25</td></tr><tr><td class="first_child">Credit Expires</td><td>7/01/26</td></tr></tbody></table> Thu, 29 Feb 2024 15:58:21 -0600 Legal/Regulatory ERM Domain /legal-documents/2024-01-05-aha-files-brief-lawsuit-challenging-hhs-rule-information-sharing <p class="text-align-center">Case 4:23-cv-01110-P Document 25 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 44 PageID 112</p><p class="text-align-center"><strong>IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT</strong><br><strong>FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS</strong><br><strong>FORT WORTH DIVISION</strong><br> </p><p>AMERICAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION,<br>et al.,<br>                                             Plaintiffs,<br>v.<br>BECERRA, et al.,<br>                                             Defendants.<br>                                                                                         No. 4:23-cv-1110-P<br> </p><p class="text-align-center"><strong>PLAINTIFFS’ BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT</strong></p><table><tbody><tr><td>Jonathan D. Guynn (TX 24120232)<br>JONES DAY<br>2727 N. Harwood St., Ste. 500<br>Dallas, Texas 75201<br>(214) 220-3939<br>(214) 969-5100 (fax)<br>jguynn@jonesday.com  <br><br><br><br><br><br><br>   </td><td>Hashim M. Mooppan* (DC 981758)<br>Rebekah B. Kcehowski* (PA 90219)<br>Jack L. Millman* (NY 5517180)<br>Audrey Beck* (DC 1739917)<br>JONES DAY<br>51 Louisiana Ave., N.W.<br>Washington, D.C. 20001<br>(202) 879-3939<br>(202) 626-1700 (fax)<br>hmmooppan@jonesday.com<br>rbkcehowski@jonesday.com<br>jmillman@jonesday.com<br>abeck@jonesday.com<br>* Pro hac vice</td></tr></tbody></table><p>Counsel for Plaintiffs</p><p>View the entire brief below.</p> Fri, 05 Jan 2024 13:08:38 -0600 Legal/Regulatory ERM Domain