Oregon
Oregon Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights, HIPAA, and Consent
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited November 1, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of November 1, 2026. · 8 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Oregon uses a split consent framework for medical recordings. For in-person appointments and video telehealth visits, ORS 165.540(1)(c) requires that your provider be specifically informed before you record audio. Phone calls follow one-party consent under ORS 165.540(1)(a), so no notification is needed. HIPAA does not prohibit patients from recording their own visits but governs how providers handle that information.
Recording in medical settings in Oregon involves the intersection of state recording law, federal HIPAA regulations, and healthcare facility policies. Oregon's split consent framework under ORS 165.540 applies to doctor-patient interactions, and HIPAA adds federal protections for patient health information.
This guide covers how Oregon's recording laws apply in healthcare settings in 2026, including patient recording rights, provider obligations, telehealth recording, and medical facility surveillance.
Oregon's Split Consent Framework in Medical Settings
Phone Calls With Healthcare Providers
Under ORS 165.540(1)(a), Oregon follows one-party consent for phone calls. Patients can record phone calls with:

- Doctors, nurses, and specialists
- Pharmacists
- Insurance company representatives
- Hospital billing departments
- Mental health counselors (by phone)
- Any healthcare provider during a telephone consultation
You do not need to tell the provider you are recording the call. Your participation in the call satisfies the one-party consent requirement.
In-Person Medical Appointments
For face-to-face appointments, ORS 165.540(1)(c) requires that every participant be specifically informed before audio recording. This means:
- You must tell your doctor before recording an in-person appointment
- The notification must be specific and clear, not implied
- This applies to office visits, hospital consultations, therapy sessions, and any other face-to-face medical encounter
- If the provider objects, they may refuse to continue the appointment while being recorded
Telehealth Appointments
Telehealth has become a standard part of Oregon healthcare. Recording rules for telehealth depend on the platform:
- Phone-based telehealth: One-party consent under ORS 165.540(1)(a). You can record without telling the provider.
- Video conferencing telehealth (Zoom, Teams, platform-native recording): Treated as a conversation under ORS 165.540(1)(c), so all-party notification is required before recording. Secretly recording a video telehealth visit risks a Class A misdemeanor. ORS 165.540(3) exempts subscribers and their family members who record in their own homes, and an Oregon appeals court has applied it to in-person conversations (State v. Rainey, 2018), but the statute does not define "subscriber," so whether the exception covers a patient recording a video visit from home is unsettled, and telling the provider first is the safe course. The narrow ORS 165.540(6)(b) exception applies only when a participant records with intent to capture alleged unlawful activity and is working with law enforcement, an attorney, or an enforcement or regulatory entity, or reasonably believes the recording may be used as evidence in a judicial or administrative proceeding.
- In-person hybrid appointments where you are physically present with the provider: All-party notification required.
Patient Recording Rights

Why Patients Record Medical Visits
Patients record healthcare encounters for many legitimate reasons:
- Memory and comprehension: Studies published in medical journals show patients forget 40-80% of medical information immediately after appointments. Recordings help patients review instructions at home.
- Complex diagnoses: Understanding treatment options for serious conditions often requires reviewing information multiple times.
- Medication instructions: Accurate recording of dosage, timing, and interaction warnings.
- Second opinions: Sharing recorded information with another provider for a second opinion.
- Caregiver communication: Helping family members understand a loved one's medical situation.
- Documentation of concerns: Creating a record when a patient believes they are receiving inadequate care.
Can You Record Your Doctor in Oregon?
By phone: Yes, under one-party consent. No notification required.
By video telehealth: Yes, but you generally must inform the provider first. ORS 165.535(1) defines a "conversation" to include a communication through a video conferencing program, so ORS 165.540(1)(c) applies.
In person: Yes, but you must notify the provider before recording under ORS 165.540(1)(c). Before your appointment, you can say: "I would like to record this visit so I can review the information later."
What If Your Doctor Refuses to Be Recorded?
Providers are not legally required to consent to being recorded. If a doctor objects to recording during an in-person visit:
- You have satisfied the notification requirement by informing them
- The provider may refuse to continue the appointment while recording is active
- The provider cannot confiscate your recording device
- Consider requesting written summaries as an alternative
- Switching to phone-based follow-up consultations allows recording under one-party consent
Healthcare Provider Recording Obligations

Provider Recording of Patient Encounters
Healthcare providers who record patient encounters must comply with both Oregon recording law and HIPAA:
Oregon law requirements:
- Phone calls with patients: One-party consent (provider can record without notification)
- In-person encounters: All-party notification required (provider must inform the patient)
- Video conferencing: All-party notification required, treated the same as an in-person encounter under ORS 165.540(1)(c)
HIPAA requirements:
- Recordings containing protected health information (PHI) are subject to HIPAA privacy rules
- Recordings must be stored securely in compliance with the HIPAA Security Rule
- Access to recordings must be limited to authorized personnel
- Patients have the right to access recordings that form part of their medical record under the HIPAA Privacy Rule
Medical Dictation and Notes
Healthcare providers routinely use audio recording for medical dictation and note-taking. When a provider dictates notes after a patient has left, no consent issue arises because there is no active conversation being recorded. AI-powered medical scribes that record during appointments must comply with the all-party notification rule for in-person and video encounters.
HIPAA and Recording

What HIPAA Does and Does Not Restrict
A common misconception is that HIPAA prohibits patients from recording their own medical encounters. This is incorrect.
HIPAA does not:
- Prohibit patients from recording their own appointments
- Apply to patients' personal recordings on their own devices
- Prevent patients from sharing their own recordings
- Give healthcare providers the right to confiscate patient recording devices
HIPAA does:
- Require providers to protect PHI, including recorded PHI
- Restrict providers from recording and sharing patient information without authorization
- Require secure storage of any recordings that become part of the medical record
- Give patients the right to access their own health information, including recordings
Provider-Made Recordings and HIPAA Compliance
When healthcare providers create recordings that contain PHI:
- The recording becomes part of the patient's designated record set
- The provider must protect it under the HIPAA Security Rule
- The patient has a right to access the recording under the Privacy Rule
- Sharing the recording with third parties requires patient authorization or a HIPAA-permitted exception
- Breaches involving recorded PHI must be reported under the HIPAA Breach Notification Rule
Medical Facility Surveillance
Hospital Security Cameras
Oregon hospitals and medical facilities can use surveillance cameras for safety and security. The lists below reflect common privacy practice rather than a statutory list. The Oregon criminal line for cameras is ORS 163.700 and 163.701: knowingly making a visual recording of a person's intimate area or nudity without consent where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The statute defines places where a person has a reasonable expectation of personal privacy to include bathrooms, dressing rooms and any enclosed area where a person undresses that is not open to public view.
Typical camera areas:
- Lobbies, waiting rooms, and reception areas
- Hallways and corridors
- Parking lots and garages
- Emergency department triage areas (common areas only)
- Building entrances and exits
Areas where cameras are generally avoided:
- Patient rooms (without explicit consent)
- Examination rooms
- Bathrooms and restrooms
- Changing areas
- Psychiatric unit private areas
Audio on Medical Facility Cameras
Audio recording on security cameras in medical facilities raises both ORS 165.540 and HIPAA concerns:
- The all-party notification requirement applies to audio in common areas
- Audio that captures patient conversations could include PHI
- Facilities should disable audio on security cameras or implement strict notification procedures
- HIPAA compliance requires that any audio containing PHI be protected
Patient Monitoring
Certain medical monitoring involves recording:
- ICU video monitoring of critically ill patients is generally conducted under the facility's treatment authority
- Psychiatric holds may involve monitoring for patient safety
- Sleep studies record video and biometric data as part of the diagnostic process
- Patient consent for monitoring is typically obtained through facility admission paperwork
Mental Health Recording Considerations
Therapy and Counseling Sessions
Mental health treatment involves heightened privacy expectations:
- Phone therapy sessions can be recorded under one-party consent
- In-person and video therapy sessions require all-party notification
- Therapists may have strong professional reasons to object to recording, including concerns about the therapeutic relationship
- Oregon mental health records receive additional protections under ORS 179.505 and 42 CFR Part 2 (for substance use disorder records)
Substance Use Disorder Treatment
Federal regulations under 42 CFR Part 2 provide additional privacy protections for substance use disorder treatment records. Recordings made during substance use treatment that identify patients are subject to these heightened restrictions regardless of Oregon state recording law.
Penalties for Medical Recording Violations
Oregon Criminal Penalties
Violating ORS 165.540 in a medical setting:
| Penalty | Maximum |
|---|---|
| Jail time | Up to 364 days |
| Fine | Up to $6,250 |
Civil Liability
Under ORS 133.739, a person whose communication was intercepted, disclosed or used in violation of ORS 133.724 or 133.737 (Oregon's interception-order statutes) may recover:
- Actual damages (minimum $100/day or $1,000)
- Punitive damages
- Attorney fees
That civil action does not apply to a private person's recording in violation of ORS 165.540. A patient or provider recorded that way would rely on a common-law invasion of privacy claim, which ORS 133.739(3) preserves.
Privacy Violations
Visual recordings that meet the elements of ORS 163.700 or 163.701:
| Offense | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|
| ORS 163.700 (Second Degree) | 364 days jail, $6,250 fine |
| ORS 163.701 (First Degree, Class C felony) | 5 years prison, $125,000 fine |
HIPAA Penalties
Healthcare providers who violate HIPAA through improper recording face:
- Civil penalties that scale by culpability tier (current inflation-adjusted HHS figures: from $145 minimum for lack-of-knowledge violations, with per-violation maximums of $73,011 for the lower three tiers and up to $2,190,294 for uncorrected willful neglect), subject to a $2,190,294 annual cap per identical requirement
- Criminal penalties under 42 U.S.C. 1320d-6 of up to $50,000 and 1 year in prison for knowingly obtaining or disclosing health information in violation of HIPAA, up to $100,000 and 5 years if done under false pretenses, and up to $250,000 and 10 years if done to sell or use the information for commercial advantage, personal gain, or malicious harm
- State attorney general enforcement actions
Oregon Recording Laws by Topic
Phone Call Recording | Audio Recording | Video Recording | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant | Dashcam Laws | Schools | Medical Recording | Voyeurism & Hidden Cameras
More Oregon Recording Topics
More Oregon Laws
- Oregon AI Meeting Recording Laws
- Oregon Dashcam Laws
- Oregon Data Privacy Laws
- Oregon Deepfake Laws
- Oregon Employee Monitoring Laws
- Oregon GPS Tracking Laws
- Oregon Police Bodycam Laws
- Oregon Smart Glasses Recording Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I record my doctor's appointment in Oregon?
For phone appointments, yes, under one-party consent. For in-person and video telehealth appointments, you generally must notify your doctor before recording under ORS 165.540(1)(c). HIPAA does not prohibit patients from recording their own medical encounters.
Does HIPAA prevent me from recording my doctor?
No. HIPAA restricts healthcare providers from improperly disclosing patient health information. It does not apply to patients recording their own appointments. You can record your own medical visits, but Oregon law generally requires notification for in-person and video-call recordings.
Can I record a telehealth appointment in Oregon?
Phone-based telehealth follows one-party consent, so you do not need to notify the provider for a phone call. Video conferencing telehealth (Zoom, Teams, etc.) is treated as a conversation under ORS 165.540(1)(c), so you must notify the provider before recording. An exception for recording in your own home (ORS 165.540(3)) exists, but the statute does not define who counts as a subscriber, so whether it covers a video visit from home is unsettled, and telling the provider first is the safe course. The narrow ORS 165.540(6)(b) exception does not cover an ordinary telehealth visit; it applies only to a participant recording with intent to capture alleged unlawful activity who is working with law enforcement, an attorney, or an enforcement or regulatory entity, or who reasonably believes the recording may be used as evidence in a judicial or administrative proceeding.
Can hospitals have security cameras in patient rooms in Oregon?
Generally no. Security cameras in patient rooms without explicit patient consent raise serious privacy concerns under HIPAA and, where a camera could capture a patient's nudity or intimate area without consent, under Oregon's invasion-of-privacy statutes (ORS 163.700 and 163.701). Cameras are permitted in common areas like lobbies, hallways, and parking lots. Specific monitoring (ICU, psychiatric holds) requires appropriate consent.
Can my therapist refuse to let me record our session in Oregon?
Your therapist cannot stop you from exercising your legal right to record after providing notification. However, they can refuse to continue the session if you insist on recording. For phone-based therapy, one-party consent applies and no notification is needed.
Updates
We noted that exceptions qualify the notification rule for video telehealth recordings, and reworded the home-exception notes to say that who counts as a "subscriber" is unsettled.
We corrected the HIPAA criminal penalties to their three statutory tiers, noted the ORS 165.540(3) home-recording exception and its untested reach to video telehealth visits, and clarified that ORS 133.739 damages do not apply to a private recording violation.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the page to reflect that recording a video telehealth visit in Oregon requires informing the provider, clarified the ORS 165.540(6)(b) evidence exception and the scope of the ORS 133.739 civil remedy, and restated hospital camera rules around the elements of ORS 163.700 and 163.701.
Updated the HIPAA civil penalty figure to the current (2026) inflation-adjusted maximum of $73,011 per violation with a $2,190,294 annual cap, replacing the stale flat $50,000 figure.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected four restatements of a fabricated blanket one-party-consent exemption for video telehealth visits; Oregon treats a video call as a conversation requiring all-party notification, and the actual ORS 165.540(6)(b) exception is a narrow evidence-gathering carve-out.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 165: Offenses Involving Fraud or Deception
§ 165.540Obtaining contents of communicationsIn forcecited in 49 of our articles
(1) Except as otherwise provided in ORS 133.724 or 133.726 or subsections (2) to (8) of this section, a person may not: (a) Obtain or attempt to obtain the whole or any part of a telecommunication or a radio communication to which the person is not a participant, by means of any device, contrivance, machine or apparatus, whether electrical, mechanical, manual or otherwise, unless consent is given by at least one participant. (b) Tamper with the wires, connections, boxes, fuses, circuits, lines or any other equipment or facilities of a telecommunication or radio communication company over which messages are transmitted, with the intent to obtain unlawfully the contents of a telecommunication or radio communication to which the person is not a participant. (c) Obtain or attempt to obtain the whole or any part of a conversation by means of any device, contrivance, machine or apparatus, whether electrical, mechanical, manual or otherwise, if not all participants in the conversation are specifically informed that their conversation is being obtained.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at oregonlegislature.gov
Cited in 76 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Fleetwood (2000) applied ORS 165.540 to body wire evidence, holding that words spoken into a telephone are a telecommunication under subsection (1)(a) and that the (5)(a)(B) exception fails unless the officer or the officer's agent shares reciprocally in the conversation, so the recordings were inadmissible.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Klein (Oregon Supreme Court 2012, 352 Or. 302)“…eing 3 recorded. Conversations recorded in violation of ORS 165.540 are not admissible in 4 court excep…”
- North Pacific Lumber Co. v. Oliver (Oregon Supreme Court 1979, 286 Or. 639)✓A lumber wholesaler secretly monitored traders' calls; on de novo review the court said the practice may have violated ORS 165.540 but refused to rest unclean hands on it, since the ex-employee's calls were never monitored. The employer's noncompete suit failed on other grounds.
- State v. Fleetwood (Oregon Supreme Court 2000, 331 Or. 511)✓A detective wired an informant and recorded the suspect's side of a phone call and his talks with his mother and a juvenile seller; the court held those interceptions violated ORS 165.540(1)(a) and (1)(c) because the informant was not a participant, and upheld suppression.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Can an Employer Record Conversations Without Consent? (2026), Can You Record ICE Agents? Know Your Rights by State (2026), Is Plaud HIPAA Compliant? Kind Of. Here's What to Know (2026)
Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 163: Offenses Against Persons
§ 163.700Invasion of personal privacy in the second degreeIn forcecited in 13 of our articles
(1) Except as provided in ORS 163.702, a person commits the crime of invasion of personal privacy in the second degree if: (a)(A) For the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of the person, the person is in a location to observe another person in a state of nudity without the consent of the other person; and (B) The other person is in a place and circumstances where the person has a reasonable expectation of personal privacy; or (b)(A) The person knowingly makes or records a photograph, motion picture, videotape or other visual recording of another person’s intimate area without the consent of the other person; and (B) The person being recorded has a reasonable expectation of privacy concerning the intimate area. (2) As used in this section and ORS 163.701: (a) “Intimate area” means nudity, or undergarments that are being worn by a person and are covered by clothing.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at oregonlegislature.gov
Cited in 16 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. McQueen (2020) held that a person who intentionally exposes an intimate area to another has no reasonable expectation of privacy as to that person under ORS 163.700(1)(b)(B), reversing a conviction for secretly recording consensual sex. State v. Mayes (2008) read the nudity definition as reaching only post-pubescent people.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Parra-Sanchez (Court of Appeals of Oregon 2023, 324 Or. App. 712)“…wrong, and likely a criminal invasion of her privacy under ORS 163.700. To the extent that our case law regard…”
- State v. Rodriguez-Ganegar (Court of Appeals of Oregon 2003, 186 Or. App. 530)“…hat people were making love in it, the person would violate ORS 163.700(1)(b) by looking into the room in the m…”
- State v. Mayes (Court of Appeals of Oregon 2008, 220 Or. App. 385)✓A man hid cameras in workplace and office restrooms and secretly recorded women and two girls, ages nine and seven. The court held the nudity definition in ORS 163.700 reaches only post-pubescent people, measured from the onset of puberty, and reversed the seven-year-old's count.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Oregon Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Notice in Person, One-Party for Calls, Oregon Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Surveillance, Privacy, and Consent, Oregon School Recording Laws: Student, Parent, and Teacher Rights
§ 163.701Invasion of personal privacy in the first degreeIn forcecited in 12 of our articles
(1) Except as provided in ORS 163.702, a person commits the crime of invasion of personal privacy in the first degree if: (a)(A) The person knowingly makes or records a photograph, motion picture, videotape or other visual recording of another person in a state of nudity without the consent of the other person; and (B) At the time the visual recording is made or recorded the person being recorded is in a place and circumstances where the person has a reasonable expectation of personal privacy; or (b) The person violates ORS 163.700 and, at the time of the offense, has a prior conviction for: (A) Invasion of personal privacy in any degree, public indecency, private indecency or a sex crime as defined in ORS 163A.005; or (B) The statutory counterpart of an offense described in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph in another jurisdiction. (2)(a) Invasion of personal privacy in the first degree is a Class C felony. (b) The Oregon Criminal Justice Commission shall classify invasion of personal privacy in the first degree as crime category 6 of the sentencing guidelines grid of the commission.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at oregonlegislature.gov
Cited in 6 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Parra-Sanchez (Court of Appeals of Oregon 2023, 324 Or. App. 712)“…y, a Class A misdemeanor (ORS 163.700) or Class C fel- ony (ORS 163.701), but intended overt voyeurs to be guil…”
- State v. McQueen (Court of Appeals of Oregon 2020, 307 Or. App. 540)“…acknowl- edges that his conduct was “likely criminal” under ORS 163.701, the statute setting forth the crime of…”
- State v. Murphy (Court of Appeals of Oregon 2022, 319 Or. App. 330)“…was convicted of first-degree invasion of personal privacy, ORS 163.701, based on an incident involving his 15-…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Oregon Security Camera Laws: Installation, Audio, and Privacy Rules, Oregon Video Recording Laws: Surveillance, Privacy, and Consent Rules, Oregon Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Offenses, Penalties, and Protections
Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 179: Administration of State Institutions
§ 179.505Disclosure of written accounts by health care services providerIn force
(1) As used in this section: (a) “Disclosure” means the release of, transfer of, provision of access to or divulgence in any other manner of information outside the health care services provider holding the information. (b) “Health care services provider” means: (A) Medical personnel or other staff employed by or under contract with a public provider to provide health care or maintain written accounts of health care provided to individuals; or (B) Units, programs or services designated, operated or maintained by a public provider to provide health care or maintain written accounts of health care provided to individuals.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at oregonlegislature.gov
Cited in 8 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. Hayworth (Court of Appeals of Oregon 1978, 35 Or. App. 161)“…records, the mother’s counsel objected on the grounds that ORS 179.505(1) and (5) 1 stand for the proposition…”
- Dept. of Human Services v. M. A. H. (Court of Appeals of Oregon 2024)“…dards of use and exceptions to the disclosure prohibition); ORS 179.505(2) (pro- tecting “written accounts of t…”
- State v. Miller (Oregon Supreme Court 1985, 300 Or. 203)“…ates a clear and immediate danger to others or to society.” ORS 179.505(10). (Emphasis supplied.) There is no…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Code of Federal Regulations Title 45
§ 160.404Amount of a civil money penalty.In forcecited in 14 of our articles
(a) The amount of a civil money penalty will be determined in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, and §§ 160.406, 160.408, and 160.412. These amounts were adjusted in accordance with the Federal Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, (Pub. L. 101-140), as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, (section 701 of Pub. L. 114-74), and appear at 45 CFR part 102. These amounts will be updated annually and published at 45 CFR part 102.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ecfr.gov
Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Kirstyn Bashaw v. Majestic Care of Whitehall (Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 2025, 130 F.4th 542)“…de range of civil penalties. See 45 C.F.R. § 160.404. And Nieset testified that Bashaw’s reco…”
- Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota v. Daugaard (District Court, D. South Dakota 2021)“…ble diligence, would not have known” about the disclosure. 45 C.F.R. § 160.404(b)(2)(i). While the Unif…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Montana Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights, HIPAA, and Consent Rules (2026), Arkansas Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights, HIPAA, and One-Party Consent (2026), Reporting HIPAA Breaches: Requirements, Timelines, and Process (2026)
Sources and References
- ORS 165.540 - Obtaining Contents of Communications(oregonlegislature.gov).gov
- HIPAA Privacy Rule(hhs.gov).gov
- HIPAA Security Rule(hhs.gov).gov
- HIPAA Breach Notification Rule(hhs.gov).gov
- ORS 163.700 - Invasion of Personal Privacy(oregonlegislature.gov).gov
- ORS 133.739 - Civil Remedies for Willful Interception(oregonlegislature.gov).gov
- 42 CFR Part 2 - Substance Use Disorder Records(ecfr.gov).gov
- 45 CFR 160.404: Amount of a civil money penalty (current inflation-adjusted HIPAA CMP tiers)(ecfr.gov).gov