| Course | HCL-7040 Healthcare Law |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 3 |
| Paper type | Written assignment 3: management of healthcare data and patient records |
| Length | About 902 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Thomas Edison State University |
| Program | MBA in Healthcare Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HCL 7040 Module 3
A Famous Patient, a $200 Copy Fee and a Stolen Laptop: Three Record Problems Under HIPAA and the Cures Act
Student Name
MBA in Healthcare Management, Thomas Edison State University
HCL-7040: Healthcare Law
Mentor Name
Month Day, Year
A Famous Patient, a $200 Copy Fee and a Stolen Laptop: Three Record Problems Under HIPAA and the Cures Act
Scenario
In one week, Cedar Bridge, this course's composite hospital in Monmouth County, faces three problems with patient records. First, after a well-known local news anchor was treated in the emergency department, an audit shows that eleven employees with no role in her care opened her chart. Second, a former patient complains that the medical records office told her it would take 60 days and cost $200 to receive a copy of her records. Third, a manager's unencrypted laptop containing a spreadsheet with names, dates of birth and diagnoses of 3,400 patients is stolen from a car. The privacy officer wants to know what the hospital must now do and what protections would prevent a repeat.
Problem 1: Unauthorized Access to a Patient's Chart
The HIPAA Privacy Rule permits hospitals to use protected health information for treatment, payment and health care operations, but it requires them to limit uses to the minimum necessary for the purpose and to restrict employees' access to what their roles require (45 C.F.R. § 164.502). Employees who open a chart out of curiosity are not using information for any permitted purpose, so each access is an impermissible use. The hospital must apply its sanctions policy, which every covered entity is obliged to maintain and use, and the discipline should be consistent across all eleven employees regardless of role.
The hospital must also assess whether the accesses constitute a breach. Under the breach notification rule, any use the rule does not allow is treated as a breach unless the hospital documents a low likelihood that the information was compromised. When staff view a famous patient's record out of curiosity, that presumption is hard to overcome, especially if any information was shared, so the hospital should expect to notify the patient. Finally, the event shows the value of proactive audits: role-based access controls and alerts when records of employees or public figures are opened deter curiosity before it becomes a breach.
Problem 2: A Patient's Request for Her Records
Federal law gives patients an enforceable right to see and copy their own records. Under the Privacy Rule, a covered entity has a month to answer a request, which it may stretch once by another month if it explains the delay in writing, and its fee is limited to the actual cost of copying labor, materials and mailing (45 C.F.R. § 164.524). A routine 60-day wait and a flat $200 fee are inconsistent with those limits. Federal regulators have pursued this right aggressively, settling dozens of cases against providers who stalled or overbilled requesters.
A second federal law adds pressure. Federal information blocking rules, which grew out of the 2016 Cures Act, forbid practices that would get in the way of patients reaching their electronic records, and since 2021 most clinical notes and results must be made available promptly, often through the patient portal. The hospital should direct requesters to the portal where possible, fulfill paper or electronic copy requests well within 30 days, and replace its flat fee with a cost-based or flat rate that complies with federal guidance.
Problem 3: The Stolen Laptop
The Security Rule obliges hospitals to guard electronic patient data through policies, physical protections and technical controls, beginning with a documented risk analysis, and to encrypt data where that is a reasonable measure. An unencrypted laptop with a spreadsheet of patient data stored outside the hospital's systems violates the hospital's safeguards and probably its policies. Since nothing on the laptop was encrypted, the theft counts as a breach of unsecured information under the federal rule.
The breach notification rule sets the timeline. The hospital must notify each affected individual without unreasonable delay and no later than 60 days after discovering the breach; because more than 500 individuals are affected, it must also notify the Secretary of Health and Human Services within the same period and alert major media in the state (45 C.F.R. §§ 164.404-164.408). Theft of devices has long been a leading cause of health data breaches; Liu et al. (2015) found theft to be the most common cause among the breaches reported to the federal government between 2010 and 2013. Encryption would have made the theft a nonreportable event, which is why it is one of the most cost-effective safeguards a hospital can adopt.
Recommendations
The privacy officer should take five steps: enforce the sanctions policy consistently for the chart access and notify the patient; deploy automated alerts for access to high-profile and employee records; revise the records release procedure and fee schedule to meet the 30-day limit and cost-based fee rules and promote portal access; complete breach notifications for the laptop within 60 days and report to HHS and the media; and require full-disk encryption on all portable devices, with a ban on storing patient data outside approved systems. A refreshed risk analysis under the Security Rule should document these controls.
Conclusion
The three problems involve different parts of federal law: minimum necessary and sanctions rules for snooping, access timelines and fee limits for record requests, and security safeguards and breach notification deadlines for the stolen laptop. Each also points to a preventive measure, access alerts, compliant release procedures and encryption, that would have avoided the problem. Managing health records lawfully is ultimately about systems that make the right behavior the default.
References
45 C.F.R. § 164.524 (2025). Access of individuals to protected health information. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/subchapter-C/part-164/subpart-E/section-164.524
45 C.F.R. § 164.404 (2025). Notification to individuals. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/subchapter-C/part-164/subpart-D/section-164.404
45 C.F.R. § 164.502 (2025). Uses and disclosures of protected health information: General rules. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/subchapter-C/part-164/subpart-E/section-164.502
Liu, V., Musen, M. A., & Chou, T. (2015). Data breaches of protected health information in the United States. JAMA, 313(14), 1471-1473. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.2252
HCL 7040 Module 3 instructions, in plain terms
HCL-7040 Module 3 covers the management of healthcare data and patient records and maps to the objective on the need to maintain the privacy and confidentiality of patient information. Expect a written assignment built around scenarios involving access, disclosure, security or breaches, with questions about the organization's obligations. Cite the specific regulation for each obligation, include timelines where the law sets them and recommend safeguards that would prevent a repeat, since mentors look for both legal accuracy and management judgment. Expect at least one question that involves a deadline, so note every time limit the regulations set. Organize your answer by problem, not by regulation, so each fix is easy to find.
Inside the HCL 7040 Module 3 example
The paper sets out a scenario with three distinct problems and analyzes each under the rule that governs it: the Privacy Rule's minimum necessary and sanctions requirements, the right of access with its timelines and fee limits plus the Cures Act, and the Security Rule with breach notification deadlines. Regulations are cited by section. Research on breach causes supports the argument for encryption, and five recommendations translate the analysis into actions with legal deadlines. Prevention is built into the recommendations, so the paper goes beyond describing violations. The scenario's three problems are realistic and common, which makes the analysis transferable to other organizations. Each section closes with what the organization should do next, so the paper reads as advice as well as analysis, and the conclusion links prevention to every finding.
Reading the HCL 7040 Module 3 grading rubric
The mentor's 100-point scale rewards correct identification of the governing rules, accurate timelines and thresholds, and application to the facts of each scenario. Recommendations that prevent recurrence show managerial insight. Regulatory citations in APA legal format, organization by problem, and precise, professional writing complete the grade. Accurate deadlines and thresholds carry real weight in this module because they determine what an organization must do next. Papers that separate the Privacy Rule, the Security Rule and breach notification, and apply each correctly, show the precision this module tests. Practical safeguards add managerial depth. Exact section numbers strengthen every answer.
HCL 7040 Module 3 help: mistakes that cost marks
Privacy papers often treat every problem as a generic HIPAA violation. Say whether a problem falls under privacy, security or breach notice, then give that rule's exact requirements and deadlines. Students also forget that patients have enforceable rights of access with time and fee limits. Recommend safeguards, not only penalties. Our writers can prepare an HCL 7040 records and privacy assignment for your module's scenarios. Quote the regulation's section number for each obligation and avoid paraphrasing timelines from memory. Remember that patients' access rights carry their own deadlines and fee limits, and that information blocking rules now add to them for electronic records.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Thomas Edison State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More HCL 7040 and MBA in Healthcare Management sample papers
- HCL 7040 Module 1: Legal System Written Assignment
- HCL 7040 Module 2: Reporting Requirements Written Assignment
- HCL 7040 Module 4: Criminal Acts Discussion
- HCL 7040 Module 5: Patient Capacity Written Assignment
- HCL 7040 Module 6: Healthcare Ethics Written Assignment
- HCL 7040 Module 7: HIV and the Law Discussion
- HCL 7040 Module 8: Final Legal Analysis Paper
- HCO 7020 Module 1: Strategic Management Written Assignment
- HCD 7030 Module 1: Delivery Evolution Short Paper
- HCF 7010 Module 3: Budgeting and Technology Written Assignment
HCL 7040 Module 3 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HCL 7040 Module 3 sample paper?
The third Healthcare Law written assignment is shown above in full: chart snooping, a delayed and overpriced records request, and a stolen laptop analyzed under HIPAA and the Cures Act, with recommendations.
How quickly must a provider respond to a patient's request for records?
Thirty days, extendable once by another thirty if the provider explains the delay in writing.
When must a breach affecting more than 500 people be reported?
Patients and the federal health department must hear within 60 days of discovery at the latest, and the state's major media must be told as well.
Is looking at a patient's chart out of curiosity a HIPAA violation?
Yes; it serves no permitted purpose, breaks the minimum necessary standard and counts as a breach unless the hospital documents a low risk of compromise.
Why does encryption matter under HIPAA?
Data protected by strong encryption usually falls outside the breach notice duty if lost, so encryption spares patients harm and the hospital a costly notification.