No more "HIPAA Responses" to Reporters’ Questions about Adverse Events

We've all seen the news stories...a patient dies, a family is sobbing on the TV, a stoic lawyer promises justice for his or her client, and then the reporter asks for a comment from the hospital or nursing home and we hear some version of the following: "Due to HIPAA, we cannot comment on Mr. Smith's case." And that's it. This emotionally power story receives a lawyer response, or what could better described as an excuse....the type of lame excuse one would receive from a 15-year old boy (I have one) regarding why the home work has not been completed or the mess he calls a room has not been cleaned. It's stupid.

Yesterday, we shared the story of David Bell, a 39-year-old Black man who died after allegedly being refused treatment for chest pain three different times by a St. Louis Emergency Room. The hospital's response? "Due to privacy laws, we cannot comment on Mr. Bell's case." That was it.

Question for our lawyer friends: Do you think the average person watching TV, or reading about this story in the paper or on social media, understands the meaning of HIPAA or privacy laws? No. It's terrible PR that injures hospital and nursing home clients...it makes doctors and nurses look foolish...and it creates distrust in the community. Saying "HIPAA prevents us from talking" smells like a cover up. Plain and simple.

Now, I can understand we don't want to put a doctor or the hospital CEO on camera and get them pelted by a bunch of questions they cannot answer, but can there be a middle ground approach that ethically and intelligently splits the difference between the "HIPAA excuse" and public castration? In the David Bell case I would recommend the Hospital CEO issue a written statement and release a video statement that reads/sounds like this:

"We are terribly sorry about the passing of David Bell. Our thoughts and prayers are with his wife, daughters, family, and friends. They are devastated, and so are we. Nobody wanted this father and community leader to die. We have initiated a comprehensive review to understand what happened with Mr. Bell, and as part of that review process we will be interviewing the Bell family to get their perspective. Until the review is complete, we ask the public to withhold judgement. Instead, keep the Bell family and our doctors and nurses in your thoughts and prayers. Thank you."

That statement is compassionate and says what we know: We are sorry this happened, we feel terrible, with the family's help we are going to understand what happened, and, please, no snarky comments about the hospital or Bell family on social media. Instead, pray for us. This statement keeps the hospital in a leadership position, calms fears and alleviates mistrust in the community, and lets the family know the door is open to cooperation and reconciliation.

In a perfect world, the hospital's disclosure program would be so robust that a family would never feel the need to run to TV cameras because their post-event needs are met quickly and compassionately by c-suite and staff, but it doesn't always work that way. When a Mike Wallace-wannabe shows up with camera in tow, don't give the reporter a "HIPAA response."

For help with litigation and risk consulting -- including the PR aspects of risk and litigation -- contact Sorry Works! at 618-559-8168 or doug@sorryworks.net.