The court said many things, but people are taking them out of context.
Those who are not licensed, are not covered, thus they are allowed to make police reports and give information whereas someone who is licensed might not be able to do so because of patient/doctor confidentiality. I say might, because a therapist is required by law in many cases, such as expressions or suicide by the patient, to in fact call the police and report this. However the case is explaining that those who are not licensed are not covered by this, thus the fact North Star called the police was legal and therefore the lawsuit claim invalid.
Second, the case is suggesting that although Matthew had an actual licensed therapist, and thus receiving treatment, North Star was indeed offering treatment. What the case did not cover is whether the other staff, who are not licensed, are allowed to offer treatment or counseling under the law. It also did not cover whether those other staff who are not licensed health professionals were providing treatment or counseling. We however know that they do provide it and this is not legal. But it does not appear to have been discussed or ruled upon specifically in the court case.
HIPAA rules cover entire entities and not individuals thus by having one person covered by the rules, the entity (North Star) had to be covered. Whether the other staff who are not licensed or trained are covered is obvious by virtue of North Star being covered for their one licensed therapist. And if North Star, or even Aspen as a whole give their staff training in HIPAA, that's cool. However I highly doubt they actually follow those guidelines.
.
It's even worse than that.
Here’s the deal, Aspen was sued over the disclosure of Mathew’s confessions from a couple of roads of address:
1) The Pences argued Harless / mathew had a confidential patient/ therapist relationship because harless was offering therapeutic care to Mathew
Aspen argued she was not a therapist, and was not offering therapeutic treatment
The judge ruled that whatever she was offering, because she was not employed by a licensed therapist, she didn't breach of the confidential patient / therapist relationship.
2) The Pences argued that because Aspen Group was a healthcare provider and harless was offering therapeutic treatment, Mathew’s confession was privileged health information.
Aspen argued that it was NOT a healthcare provider, and Mathew was NOT being provided with treatment, by either Harless or the program in general, in any legal sense of the term.
The judge ruled that it could not reach summary conclusion as to whether Aspen was a healthcare provider, as to whether Harless was offering therapeutic treatment, but, either way, because Aspen personnel took HIPPA classes, that suggests Aspen may be covered under HIPPA. He ruled that this issue would have to be settled through further legal measures.
Apsen’s defense for EVERYTHING it was accused of was that it was not offering Mathew treatment, and never promised to.
