Tag: Ethical principles

To Report or Not to Report? Mandatory Reporting and Duty to Warn for Case Management

Case managers and other professionals have a front row seat to the psychosocial realities faced by their patients and families. The workforce also faces increasing pressures to report undocumented patients and other situations to legal authorities. Yet, what are case managers mandated to report? This article lays out the facts.

The topic of mandatory reporting has been a major conundrum for the health care industry, and especially for those in case management. After all, our workforce has a front row seat to the life circumstances of patients and families, which can mean anything and everything across the psychosocial landscape. I’ve had a number of case managers express major confusion about the reporting requirements, especially whether they should report patients or their family members who are “undocumented illegal immigrants” to the authorities. Let’s clear up this conundrum!

Mandatory Reporting

Mandatory reporting refers to case managers and other practitioners informing formal state authorities about their suspicions for potential child or adult abuse, neglect, and exploitation. That word “potential” is an important one as it is up to those formal state authorities and agencies to define the actions and not the case manager. I’ve had countless colleagues in leadership roles for these agencies remind me of that fact! 

Mandatory reporting is codified as law across the states most, if not all, health care disciplines, as well as other licensed professions (view your state requirements here). The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) was enacted in in 1974 and led to the subsequent Federal Laws in for this arena. The federal government, states, commonwealths, territories and the District of Columbia also have laws in place to protect older adults from abuse, neglect, and exploitation; they also guide the practice of adult protective services agencies, law enforcement agencies, and others. These laws vary across jurisdictions with more information available from the U.S. Department of Justice website.

Keep in mind any suspicions by you or the treatment team should be based on objective and documented facts deemed from a preliminary assessment versus subjective judgments or biases. It is easy to make assumptions about other person’s actions, but that is not the role of any case manager or other licensed professional. Besides, we all know that mantra about assumptions, or at least should. 

In these situations, case managers should use critical thinking which involves 4 distinct steps: 

  • Enjoy objectivity by removing biases 
  • Assess the situation and obtain the facts
  • Reflect on the assessment facts and obtain quick consultation as needed, then 
  • Document the information and move into action, whether mandatory reporting or not. 

Keep in mind that there are potential consequences for failing to report potential acts of child, elder, or other abuse that could have been prevented. These actions vary based on the professional discipline sanctions by a state licensing board, to criminal culpability. Case managers are reminded that each case management credential prioritizes the importance of their workforce to heed any Federal, state, and local laws that guide their practice (Yup, those scope of practice laws for the state(s) of your primary licensure). In addition, CMSA’s Legal Standard of Practice (C) is equally clear on this professional requirement for case managers. 

Mandatory Duty to Warn

A professional’s mandated duty to warn or duty to protect is different from mandatory reporting. Duty to warn involves when there is foreseeable and immediate concern about a patient’s potential to harm themselves or specific others, such as in suicidal or homicidal intent or action. 

Duty to warn legislation was first imposed by the California courts in 1976 as part of the ruling in Tarasoff v. The Regents of the University of California. The ruling in this landmark case made it the legal duty of psychotherapists to warn third parties of patients’ threats to their safety. Yet, while the Tarasoff case triggered passage of duty to warn or duty to protect laws in most states, great variation exists among these laws, including which professionals they cover, and whether reporting is mandatory, permissive, or viewed in some other light. At the time of this writing 29 states have mandatory reporting laws, 14 states have permissive laws, and 4 states have no legislation. Georgia has unique nuances in their legal statutes that bear attention. Detailed information on these laws is available on one of my favorite websites for the National Conference of State Legislatures. You can access a state-to-state table with each law, its scope and status, as well as a color-coded interactive map. 

As far as case managers go, in the absence of a state law to guide their actions, most professionals will err on the side of caution. They will proceed with assessment of the person, obtain requisite information about the potential threat, and then contact local authorities as there are concerns about a patient’s potential for self- or public-harm. This may include law enforcement, state or country agencies for mobile psychiatric emergencies and mental health crisis, or other entities and resources in place to manage said events.

Reporting Undocumented Individuals

It is a HIPAA violation for case managers to report persons who are undocumented to legal authorities for it breaches patient privacy and confidentiality.  Hospitals and healthcare organizations have no duty to report individuals that they suspect or find out are undocumented immigrants. Legal and ethical guidance across case management’s established resources of guidance (e.g., state practice acts, codes of ethics and professional conduct, standards of practice) and the disciplines which comprise our workforce are unified in this stance (e.g., counseling, medicine, nursing, occupational therapy, physical therapy, social work, and others). 

Hospital employees should only ask questions about a patient’s immigration status to define if the that person or their family is eligible for services or needed resources, and not to report them. Reporting patients and family members puts them at immediate risk of stigma, and potential discrimination by workforce members who may not be immigrant-friendly. Patients and family members may easily delay or refuse treatment because of their fears around being reported by a clinic, hospital, or other care provider and ultimately, deported. 

Disclosure of information is limited to:

  • When there is a court order or court-ordered warrant, subpoena, or summons issued by a judicial officer or grand jury officer
  • There is an administrative or other legal request, or
  • The covered entity in good faith believes the PHI to be evidence of a crime that occurred on the covered entity’s premises

More information on all the moving parts of HIPAA, including Mandatory Duty to Warn and Report is in The Ethical Case Manager: Tools and Tactics, specifically in Chapter 7: Ethics is What you do While Everyone Watches!

Advocacy Amid Anguish for the Frontline Workforce

The Surgeon General’s advisory is landmark action whose priority is only emphasized by the latest horrific mass shootings, now at 213 and counting. We are way beyond burnout with advocacy amid the anguish mandated, and through an interprofessional effort.

My initial intent was to dedicate this week’s blog post to the Surgeon General’s Advisory. The document highlights the industry mandate for stakeholders to be accountable for action that mitigates workforce burnout: 

  • healthcare organizations 
  • insurers 
  • health technology companies 
  • policymakers
  • academic institutions 
  • researchers
  • communities

However, we are way beyond burnout! The battle cry by industry advocates is fierce. Workforce retention, turnover, and patient quality are beyond their tipping points; “more must be done or there will be nobody left to render care”. The Surgeon General’s advisory is landmark action whose priority is only emphasized by the latest horrific mass shootings, now at 213 and counting for 2022 alone.

Intensifying Collective Occupational Trauma

Society witnessed the worst of humanity: the death of 19 innocent children and two teachers in Uvalde, TX, followed so closely to the intentional murder of 13 persons in Buffalo, NY. Both events serve as added evidence of the severe collective occupational trauma inflicted on every practitioner and provider of care. My colleagues and I face these issues as human beings, as well as professionals, which is a felt in the most intimate and unique ways. 

Front-line practitioners and first-responders face unparalleled pressures in caring for victims or being forced to announce their deaths. Conveying that intimate information to loved ones carries an overbearing responsibility. Underneath a provider’s, often stoic, presentation lives interminable grief, pain, and loss, as they struggle to accept their inability to save the victim. The honor of caring for these fatalities bring an intense level of responsibility. Behavioral health professionals face a similar burden in rendering emergency and continuing mental health intervention to providers, witnesses, family, and community members. Recurrent workforce retruamatization has an especially fierce impact. The anguish contributes to rapidly escalating incidence of PTSD, suicidal ideation, and action across the workforce. Rates were high enough pre-pandemic, and continue to rise. The fusion of mental and physical health engulfs the body yielding escalation and exacerbation of chronic illness, auto-immune disorders, and other ailments; the workforce is being decimated.

Debriefing and Activating Advocacy

I’ve spent the better part of these past few weeks debriefing with past and present students, clinical social workers whom I supervise and mentor, experienced colleagues. Everyone is hurting in a unique way. Some need solace, while others require cues to stop doomscrolling. All demand action; workforce resource support and gun safety reform legislation are at the top of the list. 

Our emotions empower advocacy to heed the ethical tenets of autonomy, beneficence, fidelity, justice, and nonmalfeasance. Prioritizing these tenets ensures quality intervention for every patient and population, but also all health and behavioral health professions. Activating these principles looks different for each discipline. Yet, while each one shares distinct priorities, there is shared recognition of how interprofessional collaboration and advocacy will yield change including:

The industry must do better; our entire interprofessional workforce deserves far more. We must advocate amid the anguish, yet be ensured appropriate mental health support. How will you advocate for change? Feel free to add your comments about this blog post below, as well as other valuable resources.