Important Considerations for the Institutional Review Board When Granting Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Authorization Waivers

Privacy is recognized as a basic human right in the United States and has been identified as a core principle of ethics in clinical research. However, changes in the regulations, changes in how research is conducted, and the availability of health data stored in electronic health record systems all...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inThe Ochsner journal Vol. 20; no. 1; pp. 95 - 97
Main Authors Williams, Kelsey, Colomb, Paul
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States Ochsner Clinic Foundation Academic Center - Publishing Services 01.01.2020
Academic Division of Ochsner Clinic Foundation
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
Abstract Privacy is recognized as a basic human right in the United States and has been identified as a core principle of ethics in clinical research. However, changes in the regulations, changes in how research is conducted, and the availability of health data stored in electronic health record systems all pose risks to individuals' privacy. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule addresses the use and disclosure of individuals' health information and sets standards for privacy rights so that individuals can understand and control how their health information is used. However, despite the significant increase in the complexity of the data privacy landscape, the HIPAA Privacy Rule has been largely unchanged since its enactment in 1996. Generally, healthcare entities may not use or disclose protected health information (PHI) for research without written authorization from each subject permitting that use or disclosure. However, the HIPAA Privacy Rule allows an institutional review board (IRB) to waive the need for such authorization if documentation is provided that the use or disclosure of PHI presents "no more than a minimal risk to the privacy" of the subjects. Because IRBs were one of the only bodies allowed to waive the need for authorizations in the research context, they essentially served as the gatekeepers of privacy for human subjects. However, this situation changed with the 2018 revisions to 45 CFR §46-known as the Common Rule-that added new categories of exempt research. Under the new regulations, research administrative staff may review a submitted research study and determine that it is exempt without the IRB ever being involved and with no independent review of privacy considerations. This change lessens privacy protections for research subjects. Therefore, IRBs must be mindful of the relevant HIPAA guidance and carefully consider all facts and circumstances available when granting approvals of HIPAA authorization waiver requirements, especially in the content of exempt research, so that the IRB is confident that reasonable safeguards to protect patient privacy have been maintained. Research institutions should amend their processes to ensure that the appropriate level of privacy review is given to all studies, even those that are exempt. Few concrete rules are applicable in the research context that ensure compliance with the HIPAA Privacy Rule. Ultimately, more definitive regulatory guidance integrating HIPAA and the revised Common Rule should be promulgated.
AbstractList Privacy is recognized as a basic human right in the United States and has been identified as a core principle of ethics in clinical research. However, changes in the regulations, changes in how research is conducted, and the availability of health data stored in electronic health record systems all pose risks to individuals' privacy. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule addresses the use and disclosure of individuals' health information and sets standards for privacy rights so that individuals can understand and control how their health information is used. However, despite the significant increase in the complexity of the data privacy landscape, the HIPAA Privacy Rule has been largely unchanged since its enactment in 1996. Generally, healthcare entities may not use or disclose protected health information (PHI) for research without written authorization from each subject permitting that use or disclosure. However, the HIPAA Privacy Rule allows an institutional review board (IRB) to waive the need for such authorization if documentation is provided that the use or disclosure of PHI presents "no more than a minimal risk to the privacy" of the subjects. Because IRBs were one of the only bodies allowed to waive the need for authorizations in the research context, they essentially served as the gatekeepers of privacy for human subjects. However, this situation changed with the 2018 revisions to 45 CFR §46-known as the Common Rule-that added new categories of exempt research. Under the new regulations, research administrative staff may review a submitted research study and determine that it is exempt without the IRB ever being involved and with no independent review of privacy considerations. This change lessens privacy protections for research subjects. Therefore, IRBs must be mindful of the relevant HIPAA guidance and carefully consider all facts and circumstances available when granting approvals of HIPAA authorization waiver requirements, especially in the content of exempt research, so that the IRB is confident that reasonable safeguards to protect patient privacy have been maintained. Research institutions should amend their processes to ensure that the appropriate level of privacy review is given to all studies, even those that are exempt. Few concrete rules are applicable in the research context that ensure compliance with the HIPAA Privacy Rule. Ultimately, more definitive regulatory guidance integrating HIPAA and the revised Common Rule should be promulgated.
Background: Privacy is recognized as a basic human right in the United States and has been identified as a core principle of ethics in clinical research. However, changes in the regulations, changes in how research is conducted, and the availability of health data stored in electronic health record systems all pose risks to individuals’ privacy. Methods: The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule addresses the use and disclosure of individuals’ health information and sets standards for privacy rights so that individuals can understand and control how their health information is used. However, despite the significant increase in the complexity of the data privacy landscape, the HIPAA Privacy Rule has been largely unchanged since its enactment in 1996. Results: Generally, healthcare entities may not use or disclose protected health information (PHI) for research without written authorization from each subject permitting that use or disclosure. However, the HIPAA Privacy Rule allows an institutional review board (IRB) to waive the need for such authorization if documentation is provided that the use or disclosure of PHI presents “no more than a minimal risk to the privacy” of the subjects. Because IRBs were one of the only bodies allowed to waive the need for authorizations in the research context, they essentially served as the gatekeepers of privacy for human subjects. However, this situation changed with the 2018 revisions to 45 CFR §46—known as the Common Rule—that added new categories of exempt research. Under the new regulations, research administrative staff may review a submitted research study and determine that it is exempt without the IRB ever being involved and with no independent review of privacy considerations. This change lessens privacy protections for research subjects. Therefore, IRBs must be mindful of the relevant HIPAA guidance and carefully consider all facts and circumstances available when granting approvals of HIPAA authorization waiver requirements, especially in the content of exempt research, so that the IRB is confident that reasonable safeguards to protect patient privacy have been maintained. Research institutions should amend their processes to ensure that the appropriate level of privacy review is given to all studies, even those that are exempt. Conclusion: Few concrete rules are applicable in the research context that ensure compliance with the HIPAA Privacy Rule. Ultimately, more definitive regulatory guidance integrating HIPAA and the revised Common Rule should be promulgated.
Background: Privacy is recognized as a basic human right in the United States and has been identified as a core principle of ethics in clinical research. However, changes in the regulations, changes in how research is conducted, and the availability of health data stored in electronic health record systems all pose risks to individuals' privacy. Methods: The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule addresses the use and disclosure of individuals' health information and sets standards for privacy rights so that individuals can understand and control how their health information is used. However, despite the significant increase in the complexity of the data privacy landscape, the HIPAA Privacy Rule has been largely unchanged since its enactment in 1996. Results: Generally, healthcare entities may not use or disclose protected health information (PHI) for research without written authorization from each subject permitting that use or disclosure. However, the HIPAA Privacy Rule allows an institutional review board (IRB) to waive the need for such authorization if documentation is provided that the use or disclosure of PHI presents "no more than a minimal risk to the privacy" of the subjects. Because IRBs were one of the only bodies allowed to waive the need for authorizations in the research context, they essentially served as the gatekeepers of privacy for human subjects. However, this situation changed with the 2018 revisions to 45 CFR §46-known as the Common Rule-that added new categories of exempt research. Under the new regulations, research administrative staff may review a submitted research study and determine that it is exempt without the IRB ever being involved and with no independent review of privacy considerations. This change lessens privacy protections for research subjects. Therefore, IRBs must be mindful of the relevant HIPAA guidance and carefully consider all facts and circumstances available when granting approvals of HIPAA authorization waiver requirements, especially in the content of exempt research, so that the IRB is confident that reasonable safeguards to protect patient privacy have been maintained. Research institutions should amend their processes to ensure that the appropriate level of privacy review is given to all studies, even those that are exempt. Conclusion: Few concrete rules are applicable in the research context that ensure compliance with the HIPAA Privacy Rule. Ultimately, more definitive regulatory guidance integrating HIPAA and the revised Common Rule should be promulgated.Background: Privacy is recognized as a basic human right in the United States and has been identified as a core principle of ethics in clinical research. However, changes in the regulations, changes in how research is conducted, and the availability of health data stored in electronic health record systems all pose risks to individuals' privacy. Methods: The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule addresses the use and disclosure of individuals' health information and sets standards for privacy rights so that individuals can understand and control how their health information is used. However, despite the significant increase in the complexity of the data privacy landscape, the HIPAA Privacy Rule has been largely unchanged since its enactment in 1996. Results: Generally, healthcare entities may not use or disclose protected health information (PHI) for research without written authorization from each subject permitting that use or disclosure. However, the HIPAA Privacy Rule allows an institutional review board (IRB) to waive the need for such authorization if documentation is provided that the use or disclosure of PHI presents "no more than a minimal risk to the privacy" of the subjects. Because IRBs were one of the only bodies allowed to waive the need for authorizations in the research context, they essentially served as the gatekeepers of privacy for human subjects. However, this situation changed with the 2018 revisions to 45 CFR §46-known as the Common Rule-that added new categories of exempt research. Under the new regulations, research administrative staff may review a submitted research study and determine that it is exempt without the IRB ever being involved and with no independent review of privacy considerations. This change lessens privacy protections for research subjects. Therefore, IRBs must be mindful of the relevant HIPAA guidance and carefully consider all facts and circumstances available when granting approvals of HIPAA authorization waiver requirements, especially in the content of exempt research, so that the IRB is confident that reasonable safeguards to protect patient privacy have been maintained. Research institutions should amend their processes to ensure that the appropriate level of privacy review is given to all studies, even those that are exempt. Conclusion: Few concrete rules are applicable in the research context that ensure compliance with the HIPAA Privacy Rule. Ultimately, more definitive regulatory guidance integrating HIPAA and the revised Common Rule should be promulgated.
Background: Privacy is recognized as a basic human right in the United States and has been identified as a core principle of ethics in clinical research. However, changes in the regulations, changes in how research is conducted, and the availability of health data stored in electronic health record systems all pose risks to individuals’ privacy.Methods: The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule addresses the use and disclosure of individuals’ health information and sets standards for privacy rights so that individuals can understand and control how their health information is used. However, despite the significant increase in the complexity of the data privacy landscape, the HIPAA Privacy Rule has been largely unchanged since its enactment in 1996.Results: Generally, healthcare entities may not use or disclose protected health information (PHI) for research without written authorization from each subject permitting that use or disclosure. However, the HIPAA Privacy Rule allows an institutional review board (IRB) to waive the need for such authorization if documentation is provided that the use or disclosure of PHI presents “no more than a minimal risk to the privacy” of the subjects. Because IRBs were one of the only bodies allowed to waive the need for authorizations in the research context, they essentially served as the gatekeepers of privacy for human subjects. However, this situation changed with the 2018 revisions to 45 CFR §46—known as the Common Rule—that added new categories of exempt research. Under the new regulations, research administrative staff may review a submitted research study and determine that it is exempt without the IRB ever being involved and with no independent review of privacy considerations. This change lessens privacy protections for research subjects. Therefore, IRBs must be mindful of the relevant HIPAA guidance and carefully consider all facts and circumstances available when granting approvals of HIPAA authorization waiver requirements, especially in the content of exempt research, so that the IRB is confident that reasonable safeguards to protect patient privacy have been maintained. Research institutions should amend their processes to ensure that the appropriate level of privacy review is given to all studies, even those that are exempt.Conclusion: Few concrete rules are applicable in the research context that ensure compliance with the HIPAA Privacy Rule. Ultimately, more definitive regulatory guidance integrating HIPAA and the revised Common Rule should be promulgated.
Author Williams, Kelsey
Colomb, Paul
AuthorAffiliation Department of Compliance and Privacy, Ochsner Clinic Foundation , New Orleans , LA
AuthorAffiliation_xml – name: Department of Compliance and Privacy, Ochsner Clinic Foundation , New Orleans , LA
Author_xml – sequence: 1
  givenname: Kelsey
  surname: Williams
  fullname: Williams, Kelsey
– sequence: 2
  givenname: Paul
  surname: Colomb
  fullname: Colomb, Paul
BackLink https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32284689$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed
BookMark eNptkk1vEzEQhi1URD_gxhlZ4sKhCf7cXV-QQlTaSJVACNSj5fXONo42drC9QeVv8Idx0hKVipNHr595PTOeU3TkgweEXlMy5VQ01fscVlOqpoQ0_Bk6oZKJiSSUHT2Kj9FpSitCBJGCvUDHnLFGVI06Qb8X602I2fiM58En10E02ZUI9yHivAS88Cm7PO5EM-CvsHXwE38MJnb4ZgkeX8aS7PwtvgIz5OWOH4tkAX_ZGbducPkOG9_hmbVh9AdpZjOejXkZovu1fxPfGLeFmF6i570ZErx6OM_Q908X3-ZXk-vPl4v57HpiBWV5Igzj0AgKoqW8k7SruJEgS1tCgmKKK9tXtO-IspIY0ilpW1ODqk3b1JZU_Ax9uPfdjO0aOgs-RzPoTXRrE-90ME7_e-PdUt-Gra4pY0zSYvDuwSCGHyOkrNcuWRgG4yGMSTPeqEpxSZuCvn2CrsIYy0ST5rRqWE1kXRfqzeOKDqX8_a8CnN8DNoaUIvQHhBK9Xwdd1kFTpXfrUHD2BLcu72dd-nHD_5P-ABqKvHM
CitedBy_id crossref_primary_10_1080_2573234X_2021_1992305
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_chbah_2025_100127
ContentType Journal Article
Copyright 2020 by the author(s); Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).
2020. This work is published under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
2020 by the author(s); Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) 2020
Copyright_xml – notice: 2020 by the author(s); Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).
– notice: 2020. This work is published under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
– notice: 2020 by the author(s); Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) 2020
DBID AAYXX
CITATION
NPM
3V.
7RV
7X7
7XB
8FI
8FJ
8FK
ABUWG
AFKRA
AZQEC
BENPR
CCPQU
DWQXO
FYUFA
GHDGH
K9.
KB0
M0S
NAPCQ
PHGZM
PHGZT
PIMPY
PKEHL
PPXIY
PQEST
PQQKQ
PQUKI
PRINS
7X8
5PM
DOI 10.31486/toj.19.0083
DatabaseName CrossRef
PubMed
ProQuest Central (Corporate)
Nursing & Allied Health Database
Health & Medical Collection (ProQuest)
ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)
Hospital Premium Collection
Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)
ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)
ProQuest Central
ProQuest Central UK/Ireland
ProQuest Central Essentials
ProQuest Central
ProQuest One Community College
ProQuest Central Korea
Proquest Health Research Premium Collection
Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)
ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)
Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)
ProQuest Health & Medical Collection
Nursing & Allied Health Premium
ProQuest Central Premium
ProQuest One Academic (New)
ProQuest Publicly Available Content Database
ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)
ProQuest One Health & Nursing
ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)
ProQuest One Academic
ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition
ProQuest Central China
MEDLINE - Academic
PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)
DatabaseTitle CrossRef
PubMed
Publicly Available Content Database
ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)
ProQuest Central Essentials
ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)
ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)
ProQuest One Community College
ProQuest One Health & Nursing
ProQuest Central China
ProQuest Central
Health Research Premium Collection
Health and Medicine Complete (Alumni Edition)
ProQuest Central Korea
ProQuest Central (New)
ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition
ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Source
ProQuest Hospital Collection
Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)
ProQuest Hospital Collection (Alumni)
Nursing & Allied Health Premium
ProQuest Health & Medical Complete
ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition
ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Source (Alumni)
ProQuest One Academic
ProQuest One Academic (New)
ProQuest Central (Alumni)
MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitleList PubMed

MEDLINE - Academic
Publicly Available Content Database
Database_xml – sequence: 1
  dbid: NPM
  name: PubMed
  url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed
  sourceTypes: Index Database
– sequence: 2
  dbid: BENPR
  name: ProQuest Central
  url: https://www.proquest.com/central
  sourceTypes: Aggregation Database
DeliveryMethod fulltext_linktorsrc
Discipline Medicine
DocumentTitleAlternate Williams, K
EISSN 1524-5012
EndPage 97
ExternalDocumentID PMC7122251
32284689
10_31486_toj_19_0083
Genre Journal Article
Review
GeographicLocations United States--US
GeographicLocations_xml – name: United States--US
GroupedDBID ---
2WC
7RV
7X7
8FI
8FJ
AAWTL
AAYXX
ABDBF
ABUWG
ACUHS
ADBBV
AFKRA
AHMBA
ALIPV
ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS
BAWUL
BENPR
BKEYQ
BPHCQ
BVXVI
CCPQU
CITATION
DIK
E3Z
EBD
EBS
EJD
EX3
FRP
FYUFA
GROUPED_DOAJ
HMCUK
HYE
NAPCQ
OK1
PHGZM
PHGZT
PIMPY
PQQKQ
PROAC
RPM
TR2
UKHRP
W2D
WOW
3V.
NPM
RHF
7XB
8FK
AZQEC
DWQXO
K9.
PKEHL
PPXIY
PQEST
PQUKI
PRINS
7X8
5PM
ID FETCH-LOGICAL-c412t-4a23e841e4b13d51d63a5e568945e92939cf61fd09c50a0d95cba7e97ab87c063
IEDL.DBID 7X7
ISSN 1524-5012
IngestDate Thu Aug 21 14:10:45 EDT 2025
Fri Jul 11 10:20:14 EDT 2025
Fri Jul 25 21:35:32 EDT 2025
Thu Jan 02 22:33:14 EST 2025
Thu Apr 24 23:01:15 EDT 2025
Tue Jul 01 02:29:24 EDT 2025
IsDoiOpenAccess true
IsOpenAccess true
IsPeerReviewed true
IsScholarly true
Issue 1
Keywords Ethics committees–research
privacy
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
research
Language English
License 2020 by the author(s); Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).
2020 by the author(s); licensee Ochsner Journal, Ochsner Clinic Foundation, New Orleans, LA. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode) that permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
LinkModel DirectLink
MergedId FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c412t-4a23e841e4b13d51d63a5e568945e92939cf61fd09c50a0d95cba7e97ab87c063
Notes ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
ObjectType-Review-3
content type line 23
OpenAccessLink https://www.proquest.com/docview/3168270577?pq-origsite=%requestingapplication%
PMID 32284689
PQID 3168270577
PQPubID 1836349
PageCount 3
ParticipantIDs pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7122251
proquest_miscellaneous_2389693518
proquest_journals_3168270577
pubmed_primary_32284689
crossref_primary_10_31486_toj_19_0083
crossref_citationtrail_10_31486_toj_19_0083
ProviderPackageCode CITATION
AAYXX
PublicationCentury 2000
PublicationDate 20200101
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD 2020-01-01
PublicationDate_xml – month: 1
  year: 2020
  text: 20200101
  day: 1
PublicationDecade 2020
PublicationPlace United States
PublicationPlace_xml – name: United States
– name: New Orleans
PublicationTitle The Ochsner journal
PublicationTitleAlternate Ochsner J
PublicationYear 2020
Publisher Ochsner Clinic Foundation Academic Center - Publishing Services
Academic Division of Ochsner Clinic Foundation
Publisher_xml – name: Ochsner Clinic Foundation Academic Center - Publishing Services
– name: Academic Division of Ochsner Clinic Foundation
SSID ssj0040542
Score 2.1620646
SecondaryResourceType review_article
Snippet Privacy is recognized as a basic human right in the United States and has been identified as a core principle of ethics in clinical research. However, changes...
Background: Privacy is recognized as a basic human right in the United States and has been identified as a core principle of ethics in clinical research....
Background: Privacy is recognized as a basic human right in the United States and has been identified as a core principle of ethics in clinical research....
SourceID pubmedcentral
proquest
pubmed
crossref
SourceType Open Access Repository
Aggregation Database
Index Database
Enrichment Source
StartPage 95
SubjectTerms Accountability
Disclosure
Ethics
Health care policy
Health insurance
Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act 1996-US
Human subjects
Informed consent
Medical research
Principles
Privacy
Regulation
Reviews and Contemporary Updates
Title Important Considerations for the Institutional Review Board When Granting Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Authorization Waivers
URI https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32284689
https://www.proquest.com/docview/3168270577
https://www.proquest.com/docview/2389693518
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC7122251
Volume 20
hasFullText 1
inHoldings 1
isFullTextHit
isPrint
link http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwfV1Nb9QwEB1BKyEuiG8CZWUkOKGo6zi24xNqUUtBaoUQFXuLbMcRSJC03eyB38EfZsZxAguCa2wpUcaeeTN-ngfwHCNEYW0rctfyNi89F7nlVcDtrr1TzisdtQFPz9TJefluJVep4LZOtMrJJ0ZH3fSeauT7JLBUaEQX-tXFZU6qUXS6miQ0rsMutS4jSpdezQkXYpEonoMhqswleuKR-C4wA1D7Q49egnpVVmI7JP2FM_-kS_4Wf45vw60EHNnBaOk7cC10d-HGaToavwc_3n6LULob2CTCORbjGMJShjCPTbyAWPxj46EAO-xxiTB0yR17g2GLSNBsvJpE8zckuxFYpJtGFu13ZruGJYmJ6dGBHxiV2vB3jZc62Scb6R734fz46OPrkzwpLuS-5MWQl7YQoSp5KB0XjeSNElYGqSpTyoBAShjfKt42S-Pl0i4bI72zOhhtXaU9op0HsNP1XXgEzAsZWkEXZ70rl66onJMtptsNV060jcjg5fTTa5_akZMqxtca05JoohpNVHNTk4kyeDHPvhjbcPxj3t5kvzptxnX9a-lk8Gwexm1EZyO2C_1mXSNyMcoIyasMHo7mnl-EPg9RWmUy0FsLYZ5ALbq3R7ovn2Orbs0pn-aP__9ZT-BmQWl8rOzswc5wtQlPEesMbhEX9AJ2D4_O3n9YxIrBT2WoBRw
linkProvider ProQuest
linkToHtml http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwtV1Lb9QwEB6VrQRcEG9CCxiJnlDUdfxIckCoT3Zpd4VQK3pzbccRlUpSulmh_g7-B7-RsZMsLAhuvSZWEmXGM988PB_AK_QQidYli01Jy5hbymJNM4fbPbVGGivTwA04mcrRMX9_Ik5W4Ed_Fsa3VfY2MRjqorY-R77pCZaSFNFF-vbia-xZo3x1tafQaNXiwF19w5Bt9ma8i_LdSJL9vaOdUdyxCsSW06SJuU6Yyzh13FBWCFpIpoUTMsu5cAgWWG5LSctimFsx1MMiF9bo1OWpNllq0aPjc2_AKmcYygxgdXtv-uFjb_sR_QS6HnSKPBZo-9tWe4Yxh9xsarRLfjpmxpad4F_I9s8Gzd883v5duNNBVbLV6tY9WHHVfbg56YrxD-D7-EsA71VDetrPNv1HEAgTBJak70QI6UbSliHIdo1KSdAJVOQdOkrfdk3aw1B-_dwTfTgSGlxD3-4V0VVBOlKL_tKWbYhP7qGA2mOk5JMODSYP4fhapPEIBlVduSdALBOuZP6orjV8aJLMGFFigF9QaVhZsAhe9z9d2W4AuufhOFcYCAURKRSRornyIopgY7H6oh388Y916738VLf9Z-qXskbwcnEbN66vxujK1fOZQqyUy5wJmkXwuBX34kVoZREXZnkE6ZIiLBb4oeDLd6qzz2E4eEp9BE-f_v-zXsCt0dHkUB2OpwdrcDvxSYSQV1qHQXM5d88QaTXmeafeBE6ve0f9BJn1QEI
linkToPdf http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwtV3NbtQwEB6VIlVcEP8EChiJnlC06ziO4wNChbJ0Ka04ULG3YDu2QGqTwmaF-hy8DU_H2E4CC4Jbr4mVRJm_b8bj-QCeYITIlHIs1Y66NDeUpYqWFs1dGF1oU4jADXh4VOwf528WfLEBP4azML6tcvCJwVHXrfE18oknWMoEogsxcX1bxLu92fOzL6lnkPI7rQOdRlSRA3v-DdO35bP5Hsp6J8tmr96_3E97hoHU5DTr0lxlzJY5tbmmrOa0LpjilhelzLlF4MCkcQV19VQaPlXTWnKjlbBSKF0Kg9Edn3sJLgvGqbcxsRiTPcRBgbgHw2OecowCsemeYfZRTLoWPZSfk1my9XD4F8b9s1Xzt9g3uwZXe9BKdqOWXYcN29yArcN-W_4mfJ-fBhjfdGQgAI2FQIKQmCDEJENPQig8krghQV60qJ4Ew0FDXmPI9A3YJB6L8utXnvLDktDqGjp4z4lqatLTWwyXdk1HfJkPxRMPlJIPKrSa3ILjC5HFbdhs2sbeBWIYt475Q7tG51OdlVpzh6l-TQvNXM0SeDr89Mr0o9A9I8dJhSlREFGFIqqorLyIEtgZV5_FESD_WLc9yK_qHcGy-qW2CTweb6MJ-30Z1dh2tawQNclCog6VCdyJ4h5fhP4WEWIpExBrijAu8OPB1-80nz-FMeGC-lye3vv_Zz2CLbSj6u386OA-XMl8NSEUmLZhs_u6sg8QcnX6YdBtAh8v2ph-AsNuQxI
openUrl ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Important+Considerations+for+the+Institutional+Review+Board+When+Granting+Health+Insurance+Portability+and+Accountability+Act+Authorization+Waivers&rft.jtitle=The+Ochsner+journal&rft.au=Williams%2C+Kelsey&rft.au=Colomb%2C+Paul&rft.date=2020-01-01&rft.pub=Ochsner+Clinic+Foundation+Academic+Center+-+Publishing+Services&rft.issn=1524-5012&rft.volume=20&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=95&rft_id=info:doi/10.31486%2Ftoj.19.0083&rft.externalDBID=HAS_PDF_LINK
thumbnail_l http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1524-5012&client=summon
thumbnail_m http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1524-5012&client=summon
thumbnail_s http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1524-5012&client=summon