 |
 |
|
Home |
Current Issue |
Past Issues |
In the Clinic |
ACP Journal Club |
CME |
Collections |
Audio/Video |
Mobile |
Subscribe |
Tools |
Help |
ACP Online
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 May 2006 | Volume 144 Issue 9 | Pages 685-688
Researchers have found that implementation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule is having a negative impact on clinical research. This impact traces, in part, to many research institutions complying with HIPAA by adding lengthy, complex language to their research consent documents. The addition of extensive language burdens institutional review boards and may undermine participants' understanding of the research in which they take part. Comparative analysis reveals, however, that the addition of lengthy text often is unnecessary. The U.S. federal requirements for informed consent for human subjects research and the HIPAA Privacy Rule's requirements for individual authorization overlap substantially. Hence, consent forms that satisfy the U.S. federal regulations for human subjects research need only minimal additional text to also satisfy the authorization requirements under the HIPAA Privacy Rule.
Author and Article Information
From the NIH Clinical Center, Bethesda, Maryland.
Acknowledgments: The authors thank John Barton, Lindsay Hampson, and Mary McCabe for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.
Potential Financial Conflicts of Interest: Employment: D. Shalowitz (National Institutes of Health), D. Wendler (National Institutes of Health).
Requests for Single Reprints: David Wendler, PhD, Department of Clinical Bioethics, NIH Clinical Center, Building 10, Room 1C118, Bethesda, MD 20892; e-mail, dwendler{at}nih.gov.
Current Author Addresses: Mr. Shalowitz and Dr. Wendler: Department of Clinical Bioethics, NIH Clinical Center, Building 10, Room 1C118, Bethesda, MD 20892. ACADEMIA AND CLINIC
Informed Consent for Research and Authorization under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule: An Integrated Approach
Related articles in Annals:
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  D J Willison, C Emerson, K V Szala-Meneok, E Gibson, L Schwartz, K M Weisbaum, F Fournier, K Brazil, and M D Coughlin Access to medical records for research purposes: varying perceptions across research ethics boards J. Med. Ethics, April 1, 2008; 34(4): 308 - 314. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. J. Willison, L. Schwartz, J. Abelson, C. Charles, M. Swinton, D. Northrup, and L. Thabane Alternatives to Project-specific Consent for Access to Personal Information for Health Research: What Is the Opinion of the Canadian Public? J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., November 1, 2007; 14(6): 706 - 712. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. B. Milbrandt, A. Ishizaka, and D. C. Angus Update in Critical Care 2006 Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., April 1, 2007; 175(7): 638 - 648. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. A. Gorelick Health insurance portability and accountability act privacy rule and research consent documents. Ann Intern Med, November 21, 2006; 145(10): 790 - 790. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Fisher Wilson Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule Causes Ongoing Concerns among Clinicians and Researchers Ann Intern Med, August 15, 2006; 145(4): 313 - 316. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
Read all Rapid Responses
Article
