Is Grammarly HIPAA Compliant for Clinical Documentation?

Short answer

Grammarly is not HIPAA compliant. Grammarly does not offer a Business Associate Agreement on any plan — not Free, Premium, Business, or Enterprise. Grammarly processes the text users submit through its servers. Clinical notes, patient correspondence, prior authorization letters, discharge summaries, or any other medical documentation containing PHI must not be submitted to Grammarly in any form. The browser extension creates an additional risk because it can interact with text across browser-based applications, including EHR systems.

BAA availability

Grammarly does not offer a HIPAA BAA. This applies to all Grammarly products and plans:

• Grammarly Free — no BAA
• Grammarly Premium — no BAA
• Grammarly Business — no BAA
• Grammarly Enterprise — no BAA

Grammarly Enterprise includes improved data handling: zero data retention for submitted text, enterprise-grade access controls, and stricter security practices. These are meaningful security improvements. They are not a substitute for a HIPAA Business Associate Agreement. An enterprise security posture and a HIPAA BAA are different things — the BAA establishes the legal accountability relationship that HIPAA requires.

How Grammarly processes text

Understanding the technical mechanism clarifies the compliance risk.

When a user submits text to Grammarly — by typing in the Grammarly web editor, pasting into the browser extension, or using the desktop application — that text is transmitted to Grammarly’s servers. Grammarly’s language models analyze the text and return suggestions. The text is processed on Grammarly’s infrastructure, not on the user’s device.

This means that any PHI in the submitted text becomes a disclosure to Grammarly. Without a BAA, that disclosure is unprotected under HIPAA. The data leaves the clinic’s covered systems and enters a third-party system with no formal HIPAA accountability.

Where Grammarly shows up in clinical workflows

Grammarly is a background tool that staff install and use across their workflow without thinking of it as a distinct data processing decision. This is exactly what creates the compliance risk at healthcare organizations.

Clinical note drafting. A physician or nurse practitioner drafts a visit note in their EHR or in a word processor, runs Grammarly to clean up the language before signing. If Grammarly is processing the text — either through a browser extension or by the user copying and pasting into a Grammarly tool — PHI is being sent to Grammarly’s servers.

Prior authorization letters. Prior authorization correspondence typically includes patient name, diagnosis codes, treatment history, and medical necessity justification. Running a prior auth letter through Grammarly sends all of this PHI to Grammarly’s infrastructure.

Patient correspondence. Letters to patients about their care, test results, or follow-up instructions contain PHI. Editing these in Grammarly creates the same exposure.

Referral documentation. Referral letters between providers include patient name, referring condition, clinical history, and requested services. All of this is PHI.

Care plans and discharge summaries. Complex clinical documents with extensive patient health information are the highest-PHI-density documents at a clinic. Running them through any non-BAA-covered writing tool is a significant compliance risk.

The browser extension: an active concern

The Grammarly browser extension is more operationally complex than the web editor because it operates persistently in the browser and can interact with text fields across many applications.

For clinical staff who use browser-based EHR systems, the extension may attempt to provide suggestions within EHR text fields. Depending on the extension version, browser permissions, and EHR configuration, text entered in clinical documentation fields may be processed by Grammarly without the user actively choosing to submit it.

Healthcare IT and compliance teams should consider:

• Whether to allow the Grammarly browser extension on devices used for clinical work
• Whether the EHR vendor has guidance on Grammarly extension interaction with their system
• Whether to block browser extensions of this type through endpoint management policies on clinical workstations

This is not a hypothetical risk — it is an active configuration question for clinics where staff routinely use Grammarly in their browser.

Where Grammarly is appropriate in a healthcare setting

Grammarly is a useful writing tool for content that does not involve PHI. Healthcare organizations can use it appropriately for:

Marketing and website content. Clinic website pages, service descriptions, blog posts, and social media content have no patient health information. Grammarly is appropriate for editing this content.

Administrative communications with no patient data. Internal memos, HR communications, vendor correspondence, and operational documents that contain no patient information can go through Grammarly.

Staff policies and training materials without case references. Policy documents that describe procedures in general terms — not using real patient cases as examples — are appropriate.

Public-facing educational content. Health education articles, FAQ pages, and general wellness content written for the clinic’s website or social media are appropriate.

The boundary is: does this document identify a patient or contain information about their health? If yes, it must not go through Grammarly.

Alternatives for PHI-adjacent writing tasks

For clinical staff who need writing assistance on clinical documentation, the options are more limited:

Grammar tools within covered systems. Some EHR and healthcare documentation platforms include built-in writing assistance features that operate within the covered environment. Ask your EHR vendor whether writing assistance features are available and how they handle text data.

Locally processing tools. Grammar and style tools that process text on the local device — not by sending data to a remote server — avoid the third-party processor issue. The availability and quality of purely local writing tools is more limited than cloud-based options.

Human review. For high-stakes clinical documentation, a structured review process with a colleague or a designated documentation specialist may be more appropriate than automated writing tools.

What PHIGuard provides