HIPAA Authorization Requires More Than a Cookie Banner

For many healthcare organizations, website consent can appear to be a settled issue. A cookie banner is displayed, a privacy policy is linked, and users are offered basic choices about tracking. On paper, this approach may seem sufficient.

As of the end of 2025, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has recorded at least 642 large healthcare data breaches affecting 57 million individuals on its breach portal.

Under HIPAA, however, that assumption does not always hold.

As healthcare providers, insurers, and digital health companies expand their online presence, regulators and privacy experts have raised concerns about how patient-related data is collected and shared through websites. In particular, the use of analytics and tracking technologies has drawn increased scrutiny, exposing a gap between standard cookie consent practices and HIPAA’s authorization requirements.

HIPAA authorization is a specific legal concept. It applies when protected health information is disclosed to third parties for purposes beyond treatment, payment, or healthcare operations. Unlike general website consent, authorization must be explicit, informed, and documented.

Cookie consent tools, by contrast, were developed to address consumer privacy laws governing online tracking and advertising. They are designed to manage cookies and similar technologies, not to capture HIPAA-specific authorization related to healthcare data.

This distinction becomes more significant as healthcare websites increasingly rely on third-party services for analytics, marketing, and user experience optimization.

When website tracking can involve protected health information

HIPAA is often associated with electronic medical records and patient portals, but privacy specialists note that website interactions can also involve protected health information, depending on context.

An IP address combined with visits to condition-specific pages, appointment scheduling tools, or symptom-related content may reveal information about an individual’s health interests. When that data is transmitted to third-party platforms, even unintentionally, HIPAA authorization considerations can arise.

Regulators have emphasized that the focus is on the data itself, not the medium through which it is collected. Whether information is collected through a form, a tracking pixel, or an analytics script, the same principles apply.

Why simple cookie banners often fall short

Most standard cookie consent banners are not designed to address these scenarios. They typically provide broad disclosures and generic acceptance options, without distinguishing between marketing consent and authorization to share health-related data.

Privacy professionals point out that cookie consent tools generally lack:

• HIPAA-specific authorization language
• The ability to separate healthcare authorization from other consent types
• Audit-ready records of authorization decisions
• Controls to prevent tracking until authorization is granted

As a result, organizations may believe they have addressed consent requirements while still leaving gaps in how health-related data is handled online.

Privacy specialists observe that healthcare organizations are increasingly recognizing that HIPAA authorization cannot be treated as a policy-only issue. It often requires technical controls that go beyond traditional cookie banners, particularly when web tracking is involved.

How Clym supports HIPAA authorization workflows

Clym’s HIPAA authorization solution is designed to help healthcare organizations collect, manage, and document HIPAA authorizations alongside other website consent requirements.

Clym allows organizations to present HIPAA authorization requests through configurable consent flows, separate from standard cookie and marketing consent. These authorization flows can be tailored based on how the website collects or shares health-related data, including interactions involving analytics, embedded content, or third-party services.

Using Clym, organizations can:

• Collect HIPAA authorization through structured, configurable consent interfaces
• Record authorization decisions in a centralized system
• Manage authorization settings alongside privacy preferences and legal documentation
• Maintain a clear record of user choices for internal review and documentation purposes

HIPAA authorization collected through Clym is managed within the same consent management framework used for other privacy requirements, allowing healthcare organizations to handle website consent and authorization through a single, integrated setup rather than disconnected tools.

Rethinking consent for healthcare websites

The growing complexity of healthcare websites has prompted a broader conversation about consent design. As sites incorporate more tools and integrations, manual controls become difficult to maintain.

Privacy specialists argue that healthcare organizations should evaluate whether their consent management approach can:

• Capture HIPAA authorization distinctly from general consent
• Prevent tracking until authorization is granted
• Record authorization decisions in an audit-ready manner
• Apply user choices consistently as websites evolve

Websites operating in healthcare and related sectors increasingly need consent management tools that account for HIPAA authorization requirements. As tracking and analytics expand in regulated environments, organizations increasingly need consent workflows that reflect healthcare-specific expectations, not just general privacy rules.