Will Abortion Care Remain HIPAA-Protected? Courts Set to Rule Soon

Dr. Eve Espey, practicing in New Mexico, shares compelling accounts of patients traveling from Texas, where abortion restrictions are severe. One patient recently flew to Albuquerque after her doctor warned that her autoimmune disease made pregnancy perilous. During the visit, she also received an IUD for future contraception.

Upon returning to Texas, she experienced cramping that necessitated an IUD check. However, her local doctor refused to see her because she had recently undergone an abortion. “She flew back to New Mexico to get her IUD examined,” Espey recounted.

While the patient voluntarily disclosed her abortion, a federal ruling affecting reproductive health confidentiality is pending. Changes to laws—initiated by Republican attorneys general from 17 states—could mandate such disclosures, undermining patient privacy.

A 2024 federal rule under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) is at stake. This rule was implemented to protect individual health data regarding reproductive care amidst state-level abortion bans. Disputed cases in Texas, Missouri, and Tennessee will ultimately decide its fate.

Plaintiffs argue that the rule obstructs their rights to investigate potential fraud and abuse within healthcare systems. Chad Kubis, representative for Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, explained that maintaining the final rule is essential to state investigations into serious misconduct. This stance raises concerns about how patient records could be used against them and those assisting them.

The Trump administration, through actions from the Department of Health and Human Services, is involved in these complex legal challenges. Current lawsuits allege that the HIPAA rule burdens states in their investigative efforts, raising questions about the balance between patient privacy and state authority.

In New Mexico, the law shields healthcare providers and patients from invasive investigations. Yet, practitioners like Espey remain cautious about documentation, stressing a legislative proposal mandating patient consent for releasing reproductive health information could hinder emergency care.

Advocates from organizations like If/When/How emphasize the importance of maintaining HIPAA protections. Lauren Paulk highlighted the detrimental impact of removing these safeguards, noting that fear surrounding medical care has already contributed to patient deaths since the Dobbs decision, which shifted abortion regulation back to states.

The Illinois lawsuits are diverse: Missouri’s case challenges the federal government’s authority, while Tennessee’s mirrors similar sentiments. The ongoing litigation could redefine state powers over healthcare regulations and the implications for patient privacy.

As Democrats and Republicans navigate these legal disputes, the outcome will significantly impact patient healthcare access and the confidentiality that has long been considered a fundamental right. The stakes are high—especially with other states watching closely, attuned to how this ruling may set legal precedents for future reproductive health care situations.