Audiology & Hearing Aid Associates LLC

May 29, 2015I was out of town on vacation when your initial correspondence regarding this complaint was received at my office.That packet included a “Standard Business Questionnaire” which referenced a website in the top paragraphThat website produces an error message 404, indicating that the site could not be foundI have completed the information and attached that form for you.With regard to [redacted] ’s complaint: HIPAA regulations forbid the sharing of PHI (protected health information) without the patient’s specific signed releaseI have included a summary from the HHS website for your reference: ( [redacted] )What Information is ProtectedProtected Health InformationThe Privacy Rule protects all "individually identifiable health information" held or transmitted by a covered entity or its business associate, in any form or media, whether electronic, paper, or oralThe Privacy Rule calls this information "protected health information (???).”12“Individually identifiable health information” is information, including demographic data, that relates to:• the individual’s past, present or future physical or mental health or condition, • the provision of health care to the individual, or• the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to the individual,and that identifies the individual or for which there is a reasonable basis to believe it can be used to identify the individual.” Individually identifiable health information includes many common identifiers (e.g., name, address, birth date, Social Security Number)-I cannot respond to [redacted] 's complaint without violating these provisions, unless he provides a signed release of information specifically allowing me to communicate that to you and your agency.Sincerely,Judith B

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:6/24/
To: *** *** ***
The RevDex.com
Metro
Washington DC & Eastern Pennsylvania
Fax: ###-###-####
RE: B***/AHAA Complaint
#***
Dear ***,
Here we go again!
Does AHAA even read the complaint or the questions they are responding
to? All I keep seeing is an epidemic of more and
more circular thinking from AHAA, its owner & staff. The problem with circular thinking is that
concentric circles never do reach their center-most target (i.e a reasonable, comprehensive answer to each
& every specifically asked question)!
On 5/1/I filed my complaint; AHAA’s first real response was on
6/12/15---and ONLY AFTER you and the Revdex.com needed to send them at least two
warning letters on and prior to 6/2/
regarding their complete lack of response to you!
On 6/17/I responded to B***’s 6/12/letter as being
completely unresponsive to the majority of the issues raised in my original
complaint. In my response I again listed
some of the more significant issues that B*** had again ignored and which for
some time have been begging a reasonable and prudent response
On 6/22/15, G***, one of B***’s staff audiologists,
attempted responding to me and the Revdex.com regarding my 6/letter---but, again,
where are the specific answers to ANY of the points re-enumerated in my
response
So, here we go again, issues completely ignored! My 6/response reiterated five (5) very
significant points in my complaint that AHAA from the very beginning seems to keep
purposely sidestepping. Even G***’s
attempted 6/response only included three (3) points in response to me---and
each still mostly ignoring the real issues.
Don’t think ever equals 5, at least not in my, and hopefully the Revdex.com’s,
old school math. …But maybe it does in
some type of new math only for audiologists!
Simply burying ones head in the
sand won’t change the issues or make them disappear!
Again, where were any of my issues ever addressed in
AHAA’s latest 6/response to my 6/letter?
Where were all the ignored & receipted e-mails and
messages sent to B*** ever addressed at all?
Where were all the insurance issues ever addressed, the
duplicate submissions, the months to disburse, the wrong amounts claimed, the
very significant claim amount that just fell between AHAA’s cracks and that
AHAA forgot about and never bothered to even submit to ***?
Where are the lies, or as B*** characterized them
“misrepresentations”, made to me AND even my wife ever addressed?
Where is the *** seemingly completely missed diagnoses ever
addressed?
Where are the *** issues effectively addressed? The fact that for a month+ (my prior two
scheduled appointments) the aids were working fine and my ears were clear and
clean (G*** even commented to that effect which should be part of my patient
record, if properly and accurately kept); all just prior to the left ***
shorting out? Where is the conversation
both my wife and I had with *** (***, CS manager), that the small amount of wax/debris shown in the
pictures B*** sent me (and the Revdex.com)
could most likely NOT have caused the left aid to short out---the
same opinion from at least four other Audiologists that I showed the very same
pictures to? Where is the fact that I,
not AHAA, had to contact *** (***) just to get the ***s returned to
them? (***, only AFTER I contacted
them, had to reach out to B***, just to get the aids returned---not my job but AHAA’s! Where is it addressed as to why G***
and AHAA even blatantly refused to give my wife and I ***’s phone number,
after AHAA refused to contact them themselves regarding my dead left aid? Finally, and most telling, where is it
addressed that AHAA refused me and my aids any further service on March 13th,
even BEFORE I even contacted
*** for their analysis? The reason
given for the dismissal: “you have been
in this office to many times!”
OK, enough of what was NOT said or addressed; now let’s look
at what WAS said by G*** & AHAA in her (vs 5) point responseRegarding G***’s Point #
“When *** *** brought in his hearing aids on March 13, the
left hearing aid was dead (as verified
by a listening check and electroacustic analysis) and the patient reported that
the sound quality of the right hearing aid was poor.”
Regarding this statement G*** is correct. Unfortunately, what she doesn’t mention is
that on first taking the aid out of my ear, neither she nor I saw any visible
wax or moisture, in fact she even had me insert them back in my ear after
opening & closing the battery door (on/off switch) and trying a new
battery---my ears still being OK after over a month of G*** commenting (at
the last two previous prior appointments) on how well my ears looked and how
well the aids were performing. When that
didn’t revive the aids, she only them performed the electroacustic analysis and
pronounced the left aid dead! G***
then left the room, most likely to speak with B***, and when she came back announced
my dismissal, that AHAA was no longer servicing me or my aids, since “I
was in their office to many times!” PERIOD!---ALSO PLEASE NOTE: AHAA’s decision
was made and cast in concrete BEFORE
any contact with the manufacturer, which I---not AHAA, even had to initiate!
Regarding “…the patient reported that the sound
quality of the right hearing aid was poor.”
Of course, it was poor on the right side---DUH!!! What else could possibly be expected with one
sided, unbalanced hearing in your head, with the left aid cutting in & out
and/or simply dead!
Regarding “…he had many issues with these hearing aids
in a very short period of time.”
Again, G*** right---but
only a PARTIAL truth! The fist issue,
again in the original complaint, but never addressed by AHAA, was that the aids
were either mis-sized/molded by G*** or mis-manufactured by ***. My inserting and removing them seemed more
like giving birth! Yet, for quite some time I was simply told that the aids fit fine and
that I just had to get used to them---at least until G*** herself
tried to insert them in my ears. Well,
guess what---not only was I right, but was even told (a slip?) that it had also
happened to another one of AHAA’s patients!
Funny, after AHAA properly re-measured/re-molded my aids and they were
sent back to be remanufactured, they came back smaller and fitting quite
right! This literally took weeks and of
no fault whatsoever of either me or my ears.
Was in my complaint and should also be in my patient records, if
properly kept by G*** and AHAA. Yet,
here again, has the Revdex.com ever seen this
addressed? Only NOW claimed as one of the”issues”
AHAA is trying to use to justify my involuntary dismissal from their practice! AHAA errors in making accurate ear molds or ***
errors in manufacturing HA shells should most definitely NOT have anything
whatsoever to do with my suitability for IIC’s!
Another issue G*** might be referring to in her “issues”
is the fact that the outside (of the ear) “T” microphone cap fell out. These are not in the inner ear, but point outward,
outside of the ear canal, and their falling out should have nothing to do with
wax or debris. On the contrary, debris
should build up only after their falling out, since nothing but a hole would be
exposed on the outside of the hearing aid.
At any rate, when this “T”cap fell out AHAA had even forgotten to even
give me the kit with which to replace them.
Again, nothing to do with suitability for IIC’s, and another item simply
forgotten about by AHAA!
Regarding G***’s Point #
“*** ***’s hearing aids needed to be sent to the manufacturer
repeatedly…”
Here again, since when does ONCE constitute “repeatedly”? Prior to my March 13th dismissal
from their practice, the hearing aids were only sent back to the manufacturer ONCE,
and that had absolutely nothing to do with me, rather due solely to an AHAA
and/or *** error. Another AHAA “misrepresentation”? …Or
just the same new audiology math as above where = 5?!
...Or does AHAA simply have my patient records co-mingled or
confused with someone else’s?
“…the patient was given the options…”
What options and when?
Just read my unanswered e-mails of 3/& 3/and other attachments
to my complaint! All I ever wanted from
B*** and AHAA at that time (and specifically requested a number of times) was to reasonably sit-down and open
mindedly discus their refusal of further service, with all the relevant facts
and my patient records readily available
As you can see from the attachments to my complaint in your
files those discussions were absolutely refused and completely ignored by
B*** & AHAA!
“The patient was given the opportunity…to make that decision. ** *** was not refused treatment, but
given another option…”
Again, meeting refused and ignored by B*** & AHAA, so
how could any options be presented or picked?!
Where is THAT contradiction even mentioned by AHAA? …And BTW, even without any discussions and my
being completely ignored as inconsequential to my treatment plan, I even did pick an option for AHAA (at least twice), just read my E-mails
to them of 3/17/& 3/18/15, and which AHAA even receipted!
3/17:
“My current decision, sans talking
with ***, is to keep my current hearing aids! They have been working fine
for the past six weeks or so, until the left one just died the day prior to my
last appointment---filters were clean and no wax was observed prior to
G***'s electronic testing and officially pronouncing the left one dead!”
3/18:
“I have to,
therefore, stick by my original decision to keep the current *** aids with
you.” and “Therefore, (ASAP) lets get my aids back to
me, fix your insurance submission, and continue our ongoing relationship in a
responsible, professional manner.”
Furthermore,
doesn’t it seem rather strange that if AHAA did NOT, in fact, refuse me and my
hearing aids any further service on 3/13/15, that I would have simply walked
away from a $3,insurance claim reimbursement that B*** promised to
reimburse to us (B***’s 3/conversation with my wife) and then reneged on
her very own word! The reimbursement
amount, that is, had AHAA remembered to have filed the insurance claim correctly,
or should I say, filed it at all!
Regarding G***’s Point #
“He felt that the behind-the-ear style of hearing aid was not
cosmetically appealing and stated on many occasions that he was to vain to wear
those devices.”
Vanity?: Not quite
what I would call it, more like preference!
A preference any competent, patient oriented Audiologists do and should
honor every day. After all, hearing aid
manufacturers spend millions of dollars developing and maintaining a myriad of
hearing aid styles in each of their hearing aid families, and they even provide
each style aid with a wide choice of color options---all dealing with customer
preference (or, as G*** now calls it, vanity)! Does this mean that if left to their own
resources that AHAA would ONLY sell one flesh colored hearing aid in only one
over-the-ear style? …Or why even bother
with fitting hearing aids at all?
Originally didn’t people with hearing loss simply put a device looking
more like a funnel in their ear?
Hopefully, AHAA & G*** is not now promulgating that! Why would anything else, except one single
style of hearing aid and in only one color, ever be needed and sold---if not
for patient PREFERANCES and looks? Guess AHAA would never make it as a
manufacturer of HA. Again, no concern whatsoever by AHAA with involving
their patients with any say or discussions regarding their patients’ life
changing decisions or regarding their individual stated preferences!
BTW: Regarding my
particular preference for IIC’s (or vanity, as G*** puts it), I don’t
know where “many occasions” comes from, but I do very readily admit, as previously
stated, that it was a preference that I made perfectly clear to AHAA the
instant I walked through their door. So
now they are trying to excuse their seeming incompetence in fitting and
servicing the hearing aids they fitted me with, by making my statement and my
preference one of their top three issues excusing their apparently arrogant
behavior?
Vanity, now that really is chasing windmills!
If it was indeed such a big issue, AHAA should have NEVER taken me as a patient in the first place, when
they were told on my very first visit (with my wife even present at the
appointment). Or, at minimum, dismissed me
right after the seemingly misdiagnosed (see original complaint) *** trial in
2014, before costing me the lost $3,Insurance reimbursement. An Insurance issue which AHAA was very well
familiar with from the very start of treatment on 11/6/14! No, instead, AHAA waited until March 13th,
2015, a lost $3,later, and without any requested proof, comprehensive
analysis, or discussion with me!
Finally, “I cannot appropriately or successfully
treat my patients, when their primary concern is vanity (preference) over
improved hearing and quality of life.”
Funny, that at least four other independent, Professional
Audiologists I was forced to consult with, since being involuntarily dismissed
from AHAA, both trying to alternatively
continue my servicing and to prove to myself that all audiologist weren’t
simply snake oil salesmen! To each one I
told the *** story; the *** story; my alleged wax & debris story; the
insurance issues (timely & competent filings); showed each of them all the
same *** pictures that B*** sent me (and the Revdex.com); and finally my
dismissal from service story (to ensure they would never do me or to any of
their patients, past or future, what was done to me by AHAA). The Audiologists also checked my ears, with
some even doing additional hearing tests.
Yet each and every single Audiologist contacted was more than willing to
DISPENSE, and SERVICE (for as long as it
took), IIC’S to me. …And believe me
I asked each and every one, I just could not go through what AHAA did to me,
again!
One particular Audiologist, unsolicited, even took the time & trouble to look up the name,
address and phone number of the State Audiology Committee for me, even urging
me to file a complaint with them, claiming that Committee was very interested
in weeding out those practices giving the legitimate, professional, customer
oriented Audiologists a bad name!
Guess these latter Audiologists (at least against 1) must all be much more incompetent than AHAA
and they all just simply missed all those
alleged singularly, significant issues, facts and proofs that B*** & AHAA
apparently keep seeing yet, refusing, and refusing, and refusing to even discuss! Just re-read the complaint and the entire dated
and receipted, unanswered requests to B!
One just can’t make this stuff up!!!
Regards and Sincere Appreciation for Your Help,
*** *
*** * ***
###-###-####
PS: I am getting a little sick and tired of
having to keep repeating myself, as I’m sure you are getting sick and tired of
reading about AHAA’s same (unanswered) questions, over and over again. Isn’t there some way of keeping these people
focused and on point to EACH & EVERY
issue enumerated in the complaint, as opposed to them simply picking and
choosing attempting to answer only a minuscule sampling (that they must perceive
as being more advantageous to them) from the entire universe of the issues being
complained about---and then even doing it with what appears to be the same
tired circular arguments and partial truths!

June 22, 2015Dear [redacted],COMPLAINT REGARDING REFUSAL OF SERVICES/DISMISSAL FROM TREATMENT:1. When [redacted] brought in his hearing aids on March 13, 2015 the left hearing aid was dead (as verified by a listening check and electroacoustic analysis) and the patient reported that the right hearing aid sound quality was poor. It was at this time that I, once again, explained to the patient that he has had many issues with these hearing aids in a very short period of time. It would not be appropriate to recommend investing in devices that continuously break down and need to be serviced so often. Such a recommendation reduces the time that the devices can be worn and consequently reduces the treatment goal of consistent and appropriate aural rehabilitation. 2. [redacted]’s hearing aids needed to be sent to the manufacturer for repair repeatedly, so the patient was given the options of a full-refund of his payment (waiving the $150/ear non-refundable fitting fee) or switching to a different style of hearing aid, which would be less adversely effected by wax and moisture. The patient was given the opportunity to take several days to make that decision. [redacted] was not refused service, but given another option of treatment which he declined, 3. I would also like to note that the patient's reason for refusing to try another type of device was due to cosmetic concerns. He felt that the behind-the-ear style of hearing aid was not cosmetically appealing and stated on many occasions that he was too vain to wear those devices. cannot appropriately or successfully treat my patients when their primary concern is vanity over hearing and improved quality of life. Sincerely,Dr. Lisa G

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
 Complaint: [redacted]6/17/15
To:       [redacted]
            The RevDex.com
            Metro
Washington DC & Eastern Pennsylvania
Dear [redacted],
RE:  B[redacted]/AHAA Complaint
#[redacted]
  Regarding B[redacted]’s and AHAA’s response to you
& the Revdex.com, I do not accept any of
AHAA’s explanations presented.  Following
is my answer you requested on 6/16/15:  
 Nothing seems to even remotely,
much less satisfactorily; explain any of the most significant points concerning
B[redacted] & AHAA’s actions or effectively respond to the majority of issues in
my complaint!  Just as always in my dealing
with AHAA:  the meat of the complaint,
just like me, was completely ignored and inconsequential!   Did B[redacted] even read the complaint and all of
the references---the majority of which seem to reasonably refute her attempted responses!  All she seems to have done is give you letter
references, all of which can easily be considered one-sided and subject to
interpretation, if even at all true! 
Where is B[redacted]’s detailed, point by point, logical explanation for each of B[redacted] & AHAA’s
actions/inactions as specifically enumerated in my complaint?
Furthermore, to recap a little of
the complaint,
1)   Where anywhere in AHAA’s response does B[redacted]
even deal with all the unanswered
e-mails & messages to her requesting to simply sit down and reasonably
and prudently discuss with me this entire hearing aid issue with ALL the
relevant facts & my patient records readily at hand???  Why did B[redacted] & AHAA simply bury their
heads in the sand?  What was there to
hide?  That very simple & reasonable requested
discussion could have negated this entire complaint process---that is if it
wasn't for AHAA’S complete disregard of their patients, especially 70 year old
ones!
As very clearly stated in my
complaint, and again completely ignored & again with no response from
B[redacted]:  “ALL I EVER WANTED FROM B[redacted] (AND
SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED NUMEROUSE TIMES) WAS TO REASONABLY SIT-DOWN AND OPEN
MINDEDLY DISCUSS THEIR REFUSAL OF FURTHER SERVICE, WITH ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS
& MY HEARING RECORDS AT HAND!” 
Here again B[redacted] refused, and is continuing to refuse to even address,
and this is why exactly why we are here in the first place!
2)  RE: B[redacted]’S MARCH 25TH
LETTER & [redacted] PICTURES.  Again,
B[redacted] apparently did not read my complaint! 
Even the manufacturer ([redacted], CS Mgr,) told my wife and I that
the small amount of wax/debris shown in the pictures B[redacted] is sending you,
should NOT have caused the hearing aid to short out.  …Also ignored by B[redacted] in her response was
that over a month+ (prior two of my scheduled appointments) BEFORE the left aid
shorting out, G[redacted], (an AHAA audiologist) commented on how well & how
clear my ears were doing with the [redacted] IIC’s (should be in my patient record
if complete).  So now, all of sudden, a
shorted aid due to an ear problem?  …Or
so B[redacted] is trying to now imply?!  I  have also shown the same [redacted] pictures to at
least four other Audiologists who also in,  concurred that that small amount of debris
should not have shorted out the aid (again, as B[redacted] is now trying to imply),
and each Audiologist is more than willing to continue fitting me with IIC’s---AND
SERVICING THEM!
Also, as stated in the complaint,
where did B[redacted] address the fact that I HAD TO BE THE ONE TO HAVE [redacted] ([redacted])
REACH OUT TO B[redacted] IN THE FIRST PLACE TO JUST GET THE HEARING AIDS BACK TO
[redacted] FOR TESTING.  Isn’t that B[redacted]’s
& AHAA’s job?  …NOT MINE!  AHAA absolutely
refused to even give me [redacted]’S phone number!
…And BTW [redacted]’s analysis was done
AFTER B[redacted] & AHAA
unprofessionally and arrogantly dismissed me from her practice and from any
further servicing of me and my hearing aids, also  in breach of our executed agreement!  SHOULDN'T ANY TYPE OF COMPETENT PRACTICE AT
LEAST WAITED FOR THE MANUFACTURER’S INPUT? 
 Yet, like everything else with
this practice, simply jumping to conclusions and making life altering decisions
without all the relevant facts---seems like, their way or the highway!
3)  INSURANCE COMPLAINT &
REIMBURSEMENT.  Again, I have to ask,
has B[redacted] even read the complaint she is responding too?  Where has B[redacted] ever explained the Insurance
Reimbursement that is specifically in question; and that she explicitly promised
my wife that she would return it to us when received for further hearing aid
service with alternative providers?  She
referenced a number of letters, but not a satisfactory or complete explanation
in any of them regarding AHAA’s complete Insurance debacle: from us making
plans by taking B[redacted] at her word, plans which were then subsequently negated
due to B[redacted]’s unkept promises;  to
AHAA’s completely inept Insurance filings!  
…Where do I see any mention or explanation in B[redacted]’s response as to
AHAA’s complete and utter screw-up of my Insurance Claim submission---so
much so that [redacted] told me they were even recommending a compliance audit!  Shouldn’t
any legitimate practice know how to file a simple Insurance Claim?  Yet what did AHAA do:  duplicate submissions of same claim, wrong
amounts, 5 months to reimburse, and finally B[redacted] & AHAA never even
bothered to submit a very significant part of the Insurance Claim to [redacted]!  Yet, I have in writing from B[redacted] in her 3/19/15 letter to me, a statement
saying:  “We (AHAA) also
submitted an updated claim for $6,000 (reflecting your change to the more
expensive custom IIC’s) on 12/5/14. 
Well just like everything else with this practice, that latter claim to this
day just incompetently fell between the cracks and was never even submitted at
all to [redacted]!!!  …Again B[redacted]’s job,
NOT MINE!
BTW:  The amount of the updated claim B[redacted] was
referring to above should have been for a total of $6,240 NOT for
$6,000!!!  Seems like B[redacted] and her AHAA
practice just can’t get anything right!!! 
…Then you wonder about the reason for my complaint.  Tell me, does B[redacted] & AHAA give you
& the Revdex.com that warm, fuzzy feeling?
Again, did B[redacted] and AHAA even
bother reading my complaint before responding? 
All the above, and more, have already been enumerated individually in my
original complaint and B[redacted] is simply forcing me to re-hash each issue and she
is continuing to waste everyone’s time! 
Where is her point by point response and her explanation to each individual
issue raised?
4)  RE:  B[redacted]’S APRIL 20TH LETTER, RE:
INSURANCE CLAIM.  Here again,  B[redacted] states in her 4/20/15 letter, that she
referenced to you in her response:  “[redacted] ([redacted] Supervisor) had contacted your ([redacted]) Accounts
Receivable Dept. about this matter.  The
A/R Dept. has informed her that it can take up to 1 month before the
reimbursement (to me) is entered into their ([redacted]) system.”
Well, I’m still waiting, and waiting, and waiting---a month is well
over---no check received either from [redacted], or from B[redacted]---as B[redacted] even promised
my wife on 3/31/15! 
Another B[redacted] “misrepresentation”
to me (and now the Revdex.com); or a [redacted] Supervisor(A[redacted]) “misrepresentation” to B[redacted]?  Judging by the rest of my complaint, you know
my answer!
I tried following
up with [redacted]’s supervisor, [redacted], but finally got a Natasha
instead---[redacted] seemed to be a very client oriented, knowledgeable
person.  Unfortunately, [redacted] seemed to
contradict what A[redacted] had said, at least “said” according to B[redacted]---so, who
was “misrepresenting?” …B[redacted](again?), A[redacted] (a [redacted] Supervisor) or Natasha
(a [redacted] CS Rep)?
 Even if the check was re-issued, I was told,
the [redacted] computer system is programmed to simply send  it right back to B[redacted], as their  network provider---and
you see where that got us in the first place! 
Besides AHAA seemingly not
knowing (or caring) about how to file a correct, timely, and complete insurance
claim, doesn't B[redacted] even know the rules pertaining to network providers?
5)  LYRICS FITTING.  Though I told them, to this day I still don’t
think B[redacted] or AHAA still has made any comments on what a number of
Professionals---except for B[redacted] or AHAA--- told me could be the single, most important
reason for the failed [redacted] fitting. 
…And all AHAA could respond when told was:  “Stop talking about them, you can’t have them!!!”
Hope this helps!
Regards,
[redacted]
[redacted]

May 29, 2015I was out of town on vacation when your initial correspondence regarding this complaint was received at my office.That packet included a “Standard Business Questionnaire” which referenced a website in the top paragraph. That website produces an error message 404, indicating that the site...

could not be found. I have completed the information and attached that form for you.With regard to [redacted]’s complaint: HIPAA regulations forbid the sharing of PHI (protected health information) without the patient’s specific signed release. I have included a summary from the HHS website for your reference: ([redacted])What Information is ProtectedProtected Health Information. The Privacy Rule protects all "individually identifiable health information" held or transmitted by a covered entity or its business associate, in any form or media, whether electronic, paper, or oral. The Privacy Rule calls this information "protected health information (???).”12“Individually identifiable health information” is information, including demographic data, that relates to:• the individual’s past, present or future physical or mental health or condition, • the provision of health care to the individual, or• the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to the individual,and that identifies the individual or for which there is a reasonable basis to believe it can be used to identify the individual.” Individually identifiable health information includes many common identifiers (e.g., name, address, birth date, Social Security Number). -I cannot respond to [redacted]'s complaint without violating these provisions, unless he provides a signed release of information specifically allowing me to communicate that to you and your agency.Sincerely,Judith B