Abstract
Purpose Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act implementation in the USA caused waves in the medical world about documentation storage, flow and access. Protecting patients from information falling into the wrong hands is admirable, but the Act has influenced more than just documentation it has slowed the research process and complicated basic US medical care. This article aims to discuss Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act's effects on documentation and patient care and future US healthcare options. Designmethodologyapproach A chronological approach is used to lay out the Act's effects. Using process flow maps, the pre and postAct environment is analyzed to discover differences in the two processes. Then a critique of the new environment leads to future movement recommendations by the US government and the healthcare industry. Findings True to the US government's track record, by the time the Act was passed, it was already outdated in terms of IT management capabilities. In addition to trying to comply with these outdated practices, the Act's wording is so vague that hospital staff are not sure with what they are even complying. The Act could be improved with some simple changes to wording and updating. Research limitationsimplications This article attempts to take a massive problem with far reaching implications, drill down to the key issues and make managerial recommendations based on findings. This provides a more detailed problem view that can only be understood at a high level owing to its complexity. Importantly, the key issues developed in the article support US government reform for legislation, which is not an easy task. There were studies available on the Act's cost to patients, hospitals, clinics and general costs in the USA. However, all the research was site specific and easily contradicted by other sources. Additionally, source reliability was questionable at best, as publications came from specific hospitals and clinics. Practical implications Throughout the study two themes were clear the Act's outdated nature and vague wording. The more research that was done, the more confusing the information began to get, it seems even experts have a hard time understating and complying with the Act. One thing is clear. The Act is confusing and outdated. Because the problem is so large and fragmented, people are not sure where to start fixing the predicament. Arming US hospitals, clinics and doctors with basic knowledge can give them a common springboard to start changing the current environment. Originalityvalue It is clear that the problem is large and confusing. Consolidating research results seems a valuable tool to help understand what is wrong with US healthcare. This article makes a case that updating and improving the directive's ambiguous nature helps create a less frustrating US healthcare system.