[Animats]

"Scouts that are instructed to alert central command whenever people start asking questions, especially when that was during a patient consultation."

That's a HIPPA violation.[1]

The article author asks others to write to her about their experiences with Theranos "nanotainer" tests.

[1] https://www.hipaa.com/the-reality-of-hipaa-violations-and-en...

[drcode]

I agree it's shady, but it might not be a HIPAA violation- The lab company hierarchy has a valid "need to know" about lab tests being performed under their responsibility in order to do their jobs correctly.

[SilasX]

The head of communications has a need to know the name, occupation, and tests requested by everyone who comes in?

[icegreentea]

Man, obviously they didn't do that. The reporter talked to the remote manager of the site, and also openly told the manager that he was a reporter (or at least openly told the on-site employee who told the manager). Honestly, I fully expect press interactions to escalate pretty quickly, especially in a company in 'oh shit' PR mode.

[SilasX]

Sorry, let me clarify.

I'm not saying they were automatically relaying name/job/tests-requested of everyone coming in. I was just bringing that up as the level of "need to know" that the hierarchy would need to have in order to automatically have access to the key details in the story.

Second, I agree that the conversation with the manager is fair game (or at least, not a HIPAA violation) to relay to the head of communications.

Nevertheless, look what happened: the HoC (Buchanan) was pre-emptively given at least the information that Buhr went to the clinic (not simply that she spoke to a manager). That is itself borderline.

But Buchanan was probably also informed that she asked about the specific test in question. That sounds very much like a HIPAA violation, just as it would be if you released to the Quest Labs head of PR that so-and-so asked for an HIV test.