Your Patient Requested Access to their Medical Records, Now What?

September 18, 2020

When it comes to medical records requests, you just hand over patient files – right? Wrong! The HIPAA Privacy Rule unequivocally provides individuals with the right to see and receive copies of their medical records upon request – but has some requirements when it comes to the who, what, and how of handing those records off. Appropriate patient access can be a fine line, and if you stray too far to either side you may end up in the next historic Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announcement of multiple access-related fines. Here’s the 411 on patient record access:

Access is just for the patient, right?

We hope it’s obvious that patients should be able to access their own records (who doesn’t want a hard copy of their dry eye disease diagnosis), but it’s not just patients that have the right to request records. In fact, the OCR levied two fines just this week for not providing access to an authorized personal representative of a patient.

A ‘personal representative’ is someone with the authority under state law to make health care decisions for another individual. This may be the case if:

  • The patient is a minor and the individual requesting access is a parent or legal guardian.
  • The patient is deceased and the individual has legal authority to act on behalf of the decedent. 
  • The patient is an adult or emancipated minor but who has someone designated to make health care decisions for them (such as if they are incapacitated, end of life care, etc.).

How must access be requested?

Making things easy (cough cough), HIPAA law does not specify any required method of requesting access. Patients may ask verbally, in writing, or by secure email or patient portal – really, whatever method suits the patient. Your practice CAN specify the way you want patients to request access, they just have to be informed first about this requirement (possibly as part of your onboarding forms). We do recommend making access requests written, just to document the date of the request.

Do I need to verify the requester is authorized?

Once you have a patient or their personal representative requesting access, you can just hand over the records, right? Not so fast. The HIPAA Privacy Rule requires practices to take reasonable steps to verify the individual making a request for access is who they say they are. While there’s no specific form of verification required, such as a copy of their driver’s license, it’s extremely important for your practice to use professional judgment when determining that a request is ‘legit’. Verification must also be done without adding unnecessary delays in fulfilling the request.

What form must records be provided in?

We’re long past the days of keeping everything on paper, and most practice’s manage their health records electronically. However, the Privacy Rule requires a practice to provide access to protected health information (PHI) in the format that it was requested in – either a paper or electronic copy. If the records are not readily producible in the requested format, you’ll need to agree on an alternative format instead.

How quickly do records need to be provided?

The phrase “ASAP” is nice and all until it comes to meeting specific HIPAA deadlines. When a request is made, the practice must provide access as soon as possible and at minimum within 30 calendar days (the federal law) or less depending on your specific state laws. If unable to provide access within 30 days, the practice can inform the individual of the reasons for the delay and can have no more than one 30 day extension period. 

Timeliness is key when it comes to patient access. One practice in particular didn’t provide patient records until 9 months after the initial request was made. The patient filed a complaint to the OCR that resulted in an $85,000 fine along with a corrective action plan. If you thought 9 months was bad, just this week the OCR announced another fine for failing to provide medical records for almost 3 years.   

Can I charge patients for copies of their records?

Depending on the format requested or the time needed to collect records, there might be some costs involved. Thankfully HIPAA accounts for this, and lets your practice impose a reasonable, cost-based fee for requests. This fee can include: 

  • Labor for copying the requested PHI whether in a paper or electronic format.
  • Supplies for creating the paper copy or electronic media.
  • Postage when the patient requests the information to be sent through the mail.

There’s a lot more that goes into requesting records than simply handing them over. If you’re confused about all this – and we get it, we were too – having a HIPAA expert on deck to help sort out specific scenarios quickly can help your practice stay on top of requirements without unintentionally violating HIPAA. Don’t have an expert to help? Work with an outside HIPAA compliance provider (just picture us saying “pick me!”) who can help you manage the intricacies of access laws before winding up on the next OCR HIPAA settlement announcement.

RECENT POSTS

Related posts

Ambry Phishing Settlement
Abyde News, Fines, HIPAA

$700K HIPAA Settlement: What the Ambry Genetics Phishing Breach Teaches Every Practice

September 21, 2026 No comments yet

September 21, 2026   The HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has announced its biggest HIPAA settlement of the year, reaching nearly a million dollars.  Ambry, a genetic testing and clinical genomics provider based in Aliso Viejo, California is at the center of this enforcement. A settlement was reached over a 2020 phishing attack that exposed the Protected Health Information (PHI) of more than 225,000 individuals. This settlement is a clear reminder that even large organizations trip up on HIPAA requirements.    What happened In January 2020, an employee email account at Ambry was compromised through a phishing attack.  The breach potentially exposed a wide range of PHI, including names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security Numbers, financial details, and more. Ambry reported the breach to OCR in March 2020, which kicked off the investigation.    Where OCR found gaps OCR’s investigation identified several HIPAA Security Rule gaps, including: No accurate, thorough risk analysis of risks and vulnerabilities to ePHI No process for cutting off access to ePHI when an employee left or no longer needed access No unique user IDs for tracking who was accessing ePHI systems These are baseline HIPAA requirements that every Covered Entity and Business Associate is expected to have in place.   The settlement terms Ambry paid $700,000 and agreed to a two-year corrective action plan, under which it must: Complete a thorough risk analysis of ePHI confidentiality, integrity, and availability Build and execute a risk management plan addressing what that analysis turns up Review and update Security Rule policies and procedures as needed Implement unique user identification across all ePHI systems Train the whole workforce on those updated policies The takeaway for practices When 90% of healthcare hacks start with a successful phishing attempt, it’s key your team is aware of the role they play to keep data safe. Every practice should ask; Do we know exactly where our ePHI lives and how it moves through our systems? Do we have a current, documented risk analysis? Would we catch it fast if a former employee’s access wasn’t revoked? Looking for the first step of addressing these gaps? Meet with one of our compliance experts to see where you currently stand. 

Azul Vision Right of Access
Abyde News, Fines, HIPAA

Right of Access Enforcement Hits Eye Care: Inside the Azul Vision Settlement

September 1, 2026 No comments yet

September 1, 2026   The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announced its 55th settlement under the HIPAA Right of Access Initiative, and this one is a good reminder that “we’ll get to it” is an easy shortcut to a massive financial penalty.   What happened Azul Vision, Inc., a California optometry enterprise healthcare provider, took nearly two years to provide a patient her healthcare records failed to give a patient timely access to her health records. She requested her records in January 2023. She didn’t actually receive them until January 2025, or two years later, and only after OCR opened an investigation following her complaint in April 2023.   The importance of Right of Access The HIPAA Privacy Rule’s Right of Access is straightforward: patients are entitled to their healthcare records within 30 days of a request, with one possible 30-day extension if needed.    The cost Azul Vision agreed to a two-year, OCR-monitored corrective action plan and paid $50,000. The corrective action plan requires the practice to: Review and revise its written policies and procedures for Privacy Rule compliance.  Regularly report to HHS a log of every PHI access request it receives, including when it came in and when it was resolved, Train all workforce members on right of access requirements and the practice’s own procedures.   Practical takeaways Have a documented, assigned process for access requests: not an informal “someone will handle it” arrangement. Track every request against the 30-day (or extended 60-day) clock: If nothing is timestamping requests, nothing is catching the ones that slip. Train staff specifically on right of access: this is a distinct Privacy Rule obligation from general HIPAA awareness, and it’s clearly one OCR is actively enforcing.   The bottom line A single records request that went unanswered turned into a $50,000 penalty, two years of federal monitoring, and a detrimental hit to the organization’s reputation. That’s a steep price for what really comes down to a missing process. If your team can’t answer “what happens the moment a patient asks for their records?” right now, that’s the gap to close before your practice ends up as OCR’s next enforcement case. Want a streamlined way to close your compliance gaps? Meet with an Abyde expert today!

OSF Healthcare HIPAA Settlement
Abyde News, Fines, HIPAA

What OSF Healthcare’s Ransomware Fine Teaches Every Practice About SRAs

August 5, 2026 No comments yet

August 5, 2026 The latest HIPAA fine is another clear reminder that ransomware attacks are, unfortunately, here to stay in the healthcare industry. A settlement involving the OSF Healthcare System was recently announced by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR). As an enterprise healthcare provider in the midwest, the organization serves 174 locations, including 16 hospitals – a prime target for a ransomware attack.    So, what happened?  In April 2021, OSF discovered that they joined the unlucky club of ransomware victims when a malicious actor deployed Nephilim, a ransomware strain made to target larger organizations. Once the ransomware infected OSF systems, the hacker demanded payment or patient Protected Health Information (PHI) would be leaked online. In this attack, sensitive information like financial account information, driver’s license numbers, medical record numbers, and more, were all exposed. Over 53,000 patient records were exposed in this attack.  When ransomware attacks in healthcare have soared 278% in recent years, it’s more of a when then an if your organization doesn’t have the right safeguards in place.  While the breach was discovered in April, OSF healthcare reported the breach to the OCR in October. The OCR took it from there, digging into what precautions (or lack thereof) let this happen.  What did the OCR discover? If you’ve read any of our other fine breakdowns, you already know where this is going: another missing Security Risk Analysis (SRA).  The SRA is a required document every HIPAA-regulated entity (ie: every practice and their Business Associates that handle patient information) needs to complete. The SRA is a thorough review of the physical, technical, and administrative safeguards in place to prevent PHI ending up in the wrong hands. While the OCR didn’t specify exactly how the ransomware got into OSF’s system, a technical safeguard vulnerability was very likely the entry point. A proactive SRA could have flagged that gap before it turned into a major breach. In addition to missing this required documentation, OSF also took too long to report the breach to the OCR and notify affected patients. This is a direct violation of the Breach Notification Rule, which requires organizations to notify patients within 60 days of a discovered breach. Moreover, since the breach impacted more than 500 patients, OSF was also required to report this breach to the OCR within 2 months as well. Time is of the essence in every component of a breach, from securing systems to ensuring affected parties are aware to protect themselves and an over five month delay was unacceptable in the eyes of the OCR.    What was the result?  OSF’s settlement tops the list as the largest fine of the year, coming in at $552,250, plus government monitoring for the next two years.  It’s very important to note that this breach occurred in 2021, meaning that over five years were spent from the initial breach, to investigations, to the public press releases. Also, the average cost of a healthcare breach is over 7 million dollars –  from implementing secure systems, notifying patients, legal fees, and more. The Takeaway While the settlement payment and Corrective Action Plan (CAP) are just the cherries on top, this experience was a tremendous cost of time, money, and resources, highlighting the importance of making sure everything is secure before a situation occurs.  So, when was the last time you looked at your SRA? It’s time to seriously analyze your current compliance posture. Ransomware groups don’t check whether you’re a small dental office or a 16-hospital health system before they attack, they check whether the door was left open. Time and again, OCR’s findings come back to the same root cause: organizations can’t secure what they haven’t even identified as a problem. Looking to review your current compliance standings? Meet with our team of experts for a complimentary educational consultation.