The Ultimate List of Celebrity HIPAA Violations

The Ultimate List of Celebrity HIPAA Violations

Table of Contents

Order ID# 45178248544XXTG457	Plagiarism Level: 0-0.5%	Writer Classification: PhD competent
Style: APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago	Delivery: Minimum 3 Hours	Revision: Permitted
Sources: 4-6	Course Level: Masters/University College	Guarantee Status: 96-99%

Instructions

The Ultimate List of Celebrity HIPAA Violations

Josephine

CLASSMATE POST #4

On June 25, 2009, musician Michael Jackson passed away due a drug overdose at his home in Los Angeles. Jackson’s body was taken to the Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center.  While at the hospital and after his passing, for five days the staff of the hospital inappropriately accessed Jacksons medical records (Money, 2020). There were approximately 6 employees who were charged with the breach of HIPAA by accessing medical records. Within two weeks of his passing, his death certificate was viewed more than 300 times. This included medical students, contractors, and employees who were terminated from their positions. The Hospital faced a $95,000 fine for these privacy violations by the California Department of Public Health for this incident. In 2011, UCLA Health System had agreed to pay total fines of $865, 000 to settle these and other violations at three hospitals.

While under the care of his physician, Dr. Arnold Klein, reported that Jackson’s phi was seriously violated. He reported that Jackson’s attorneys, an employee, and his accountant released his entire medical chart without proper permission. Due to this violation, Dr. Klein states that it caused his practice to incur damages such as loss of patients and trust. With this breach, it has given the media free access to Jackson’s private medical information (Money, 2020).

Reference:

Money, M. 2020 February 4. The Ultimate List of Celebrity HIPAA Violations. Retrieved from: https://etactics.com/blog/celebrity-hipaa-violations

Heather

 

244

HMGT 400 UMUC Research and Data Analysis in Health Care

Instructions

HMGT 400 Research and Data Analysis in Health Care-Exercise

Dataset:HMGTHOSP.csv (Please download dataset from the class.)

Required program: for all weeks EXCEL  (RStudio or R Programming for BONUS point seekers only).

Author, Hossein Zare, PhD

Citation: Zare, H. (2017). HMGT 400 Research and Data Analysis in Health Care-Exercise. UMGC.EDU

**For each exercise, Master RStudio relevant materials are posted (See the mini-module RStudio: Working toward the BONUS points

Copy Exercise # 1 from below or download the file for all week exercise from here: All Exercises HMGT 400.docx

Exercise # 1:

The attached dataset provides some information about hospitals in 2011 and 2012. Download the data, analyze it, then complete the descriptive table below. Please use the following format to report your findings.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics between hospitals in 2011 & 2012

Hospital Characteristics

2011

2012

p-value

N

Mean

St. Dev

N

Mean

St. Dev

1. Hospital beds
2. Number of paid Employees
3. Number of non-paid Employees
4. Total hospital cost ($)
5. Total hospital revenue ($)
6. Available Medicare days
7. Available Medicaid days
8. Total Hospital Discharges
9. Medicare discharges
10. Medicaid discharges

Round mean and st.dev figures to nearest whole number. use 2 decimal places for p values.

Based on your findings, in which year did hospitals have better performance? Please write a short paragraph describing your findings. Make sure to attach the plotted information.

Use Excel for calculations (mandatory)

(BONUS points: Use Master RStudio script is available for this exercise, but you need to modify that for this analysis)

Download data from here: HMGT400HOSP

Download RStudio script from here:E1-Codes

Download RStudio script from here (If you were not able to load the DPLYR package use this scrip):E1-Codes-No-Dplyr

https://learn.umgc.edu/content/enforced/266713-027…

I did calculate the standard deviation and this is what I get for total hospital                 t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances                                             2011   2012                Mean   216873321.5   214748023                Variance   9.27633E+16   86520419759122800      304570722.2   294143536       Observations   1505   1525                Pooled Variance   8.96213E+16                   Hypothesized Mean Difference   0                   df   3028                   t Stat   0.195387292                   P(T<=t) one-tail   0.422551437                   t Critical one-tail   1.645357008                   P(T<=t) two-tail   0.845102874                   t Critical two-tail   1.960747737

2012 Std —

294143536

2011 std

304570722.2

The Ultimate List of Celebrity HIPAA Violations

RUBRIC
Excellent Quality 95-100%	Introduction 45-41 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.		Literature Support 91-84  points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.			Methodology 58-53 points Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met.
Average Score 50-85%	40-38 points More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided.		83-76  points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration.			52-49  points Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met.
Poor Quality 0-45%	37-1 points The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided.		75-1 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration.			48-1 points There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met
You Can Also Place the Order at www.perfectacademic.com/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow

 

PLACE THE ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET A PERFECT SCORE!!!