[brightball]

My question around reviews in medical is always around how a physician is supposed to be able to respond because of HIPAA? It almost seems unfair to be able to review them since there is very little they can do to refute anything without violating it.

It seems like there should be some special set of rules around medical reviews, in my opinion at least.

[b_t_s]

If it's BS, call them on it with something along the lines of "We dispute the veracity of this claim. Further, the alleged conduct is a felony, so if the client genuinely believes their allegations, we encourage them to file a criminal complaint at their local police station." This conveys "client is a nut, we are professionals, and we can prove it" whereas arguing the details of a case with confidential info in a public forum is wildly unprofessional and sometimes illegal.

[ballenf]

You can explain just that in the response and not much more.

Even if the patient reveals PHI you should avoid confirming or acknowledging it as the "covered entity" under HIPAA. A confirmation of a diagnosis is different than a person discussing symptoms. I would argue that you probably should avoid even acknowledging that the person is a patient or has been seen in the office. The approach will reinforce to others how seriously you take privacy and you can taut your customer service policies, etc.

I wouldn't call this unfair since all providers are in the same situation.

(This isn't legal advice, obviously.)

[SilasX]

It's not unfair in the sense of "advantage over competitors", but it definitely seems unfair in the sense of "not being allowed to publicly refute public allegations against you".

[lazyasciiart]

Reviews are opinions. Some of them are lies. Some of them are fake. It is almost never a good idea for a business to try a detailed rebuttal to a negative review, no different for doctors.