<b><i>Part One of a Three-Part Article</i></b>. Since its enactment, with perhaps only three significant exceptions, the provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, Pub. L. No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936 (1996) (HIPAA) have not been litigated. In the majority of cases where HIPAA has been the subject of litigation -- less than 50 -- litigants have raised HIPAA provisions as an issue, but only tangentially as part of a "throw away" argument, or in a meaningful manner but where the answer was immediately clear from the case's inception. Three federal cases, however, merit analysis, since they go to the heart of HIPAA, the government's broad attempt to safeguard medical records in the electronic age.
Elliott B. OppenheimPart One of a Three-Part Article
Since its enactment, with perhaps only three significant exceptions, the provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, Pub. L. No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936 (1996) (HIPAA) have not been litigated.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN LawJournalNewsletters
Already have an account? Sign In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2026 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
The combination of increasing operating costs and uncertain government reimbursement funding continues to place health care providers under financial pressure, and in many cases, financial distress. Given the importance of Medicare/Medicaid funding of claims under provider agreements with the federal government, how courts interpret and apply the interplay between the Bankruptcy Code and Medicare Program Act determines the disposition of hundreds of millions of dollars of claims for reimbursement that support the health care system.
As AI becomes embedded in everyday business and legal operations, organizations are confronting a new expectation: simply disclosing AI use is no longer enough. A critical shift is taking place in the legal industry: transparency is no longer just about disclosure; it’s about comprehension.
Clients have pushed back on what they are willing to pay for since long before anyone heard of a large language model. AI is the latest chapter in a long story about legal fees. But it introduces a wrinkle that prior tools did not.
If you want sustainable revenue growth, you cannot treat rainmaking as a personality trait. You must treat it as a professional discipline — one that is intentionally developed through structured partner development based on a proven framework.
Patents are not static assets. They are legal instruments shaped over time by prosecution, continuation practice, post‑grant proceedings, and cross‑border filings. Treating them as fixed objects in a fixed landscape misstates the risk.
