Final breach notification rules delayed

Posted on July 29, 2010 by Steve Fox and Vadim Schick

On August 19, 2009, pursuant to the HITECH Act, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published the interim final regulations regarding breach notification requirements for health care providers and other entities covered by HIPAA. The rule became effective on September 23, 2009. 

During the 60 day public comment period, HHS received 120 comments, after which HHS developed a final rule and submitted it to the Office of Management and Budget for regulatory review on May 14, 2010.  However, on July 27, 2010, HHS issued a statement that they are withdrawing the final rule from OMB:

HHS is withdrawing the breach notification final rule from OMB review to allow for further consideration, given the Department’s experience to date in administering the regulations. This is a complex issue and the Administration is committed to ensuring that individuals’ health information is secured to the extent possible to avoid unauthorized uses and disclosures, and that individuals are appropriately notified when incidents do occur. We intend to publish a final rule in the Federal Register in the coming months.

HHS's withdrawal remains a bit of mystery.  However, Post & Schell's Ed Shay has a couple of thoughts, which you can read after the jump.

Ed Shay believes one of the reasons could be the controversy regarding the "harm threshold" element of the rule, which we discussed earlier this year.  This "harm threshold" essentially requires the organization which discovers a breach to undergo a risk assessment test to determine whether a breach would cause "significant harm" to the affected person.  According to Ed:

Apart from the politics of the IFR, there is the underlying reality of asking the industry to reach reasonably consistent determinations on risk of harm. I am sure many on this list have now been through the exercise of evaluating risk of harm, an exercise which leave room for a wide range of judgment in my opinion. Some covered entities will over-report, others will under-report [especially when reporting a 500+ breach may invite a large penalty for the underlying unauthorized use or disclosure. I think that he guidance on what goes into the risk of harm analysis is quite limited, even when one pursues the reference to the OMB circular, or state law which varies greatly on what constitutes reputational harm. Based upon almost one year of reported HIPAA breaches that have very likely been compared by OCR to breaches reported under state laws in states with no risk of harm proviso, OCR may be finding that a lot that OCR expected to be reported is not being reported--with the inference being that risk of harm has proven too judgment dependent in its implementation.

If risk of harm is not the issue, then I would offer that finalizing subcontractor BAs would have to precede finalizing breach notification. If subcontractor BAs survives the proposed rule, then reporting upstream has to be addressed in final breach notification rules.

You can find HHS's brief press release on the subject by clicking here.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

HealthNet and Connecticut settle breach suit

Posted on July 8, 2010 by Steve Fox and Vadim Schick

In November of 2009, health insurance provider HealthNet reported a loss of a portable disk drive (which occurred six months prior to HealthNet's report). The disk drive contained compressed, though not encrypted, data, including social security and bank account information, on nearly half a million persons.  This loss outraged the Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, eventually leading Connecticut to file suit against the insurer for HIPAA violations and noncompliance with HealthNet's own security policies by failing to encrypt the sensitive data.

However, on July 6, 2010, Blumenthal (who is currently running to replace Chris Dodd (D-CT) in the U.S. Senate) announced that Connecticut has reached a settlement with HealthNet and its parent companies over this breach.  According to Blumenthal, this is the very first time a state Attorney General reached such a settlement for a HIPAA violation. The settlement included:

  • $250,000 fine to be paid to Connecticut;
  • $500,000 contingency fund, to be paid to the state in the event it is determined that someone accessed the protected data on the lost disks; and
  • a "corrective action plan" which is aimed to enhance security of protected data in possession of HealthNet and its parent companies.

It is important to keep in mind that the penalties could have been even higher. Yet regardless of the amount of the fine, this breach cost much more to HealthNet than $250,000.  The costs associated with investigations, breach notification, and possible legal fees almost certainly cost the organization more than the amount of the fine imposed by Connecticut.  Thus, HealthNet's example should serve as a great reminder about the importance of doing everything possible to avoid a breach, and knowing how to handle a breach effectively if one does occur.

"Blumenthal wins $250,000 in Health Net settlement," TheDay.com (July 6, 2010).

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Updated: breaches and fines on the rise

Posted on June 16, 2010 by Steve Fox and Vadim Schick

The number of reported health information breaches is growing rapidly: 32 breaches were reported on the OCR web site from September 2009 to February 2010, but the number almost tripled, to 93 breaches, by June 11, 2010.  Such significant increases in reported breaches may be attributed to the notification and reporting requirements in the HITECH Act, which went into effect this year.  We cannot possibly report or list all of the relevant breaches, but we would like to highlight a few important ones:

  • On May 28, 2010, Cincinnati.com reported that “Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center is beefing up its computer security after a laptop computer containing more than 61,000 patient records was stolen.”  Information lost included not only PHI, but also Social Security numbers and even credit card data.  The records on the laptop were password protected, but they were not encrypted.  The hospital reported the breach, hired a consulting company to deal with same, and offered affected individuals ID theft protection at no charge.  The cost of this breach has already been extremely high, but it could be even higher if credit card companies go after Children's Hospital for losses associated with loss of improperly stored credit card information. 
  • Five hospitals in California were fined a combined total of $675,000 by the California Department of Public Health for patient privacy violations, failing to prevent unauthorized access to confidential patient medical information of 245 patients, which were improperly accessed by a total of 32 employees.  On June 10, 2010, Press-Enterprise reported that the Community Hospital of San Bernardino was fined by the state of California a total of $325,000 for breaches of more than 200 patient records by two employees in 2009.  Violations were significant, but, considering the fine, far from gruesome.

Please click here to read more.

In the first instance,

an unidentified radiology technician accessed 204 records for 177 patients between Jan. 10, 2009, and Feb. 22, 2009, without having a clinical reason to do so. The investigation report doesn't indicate whether the employee used the information she got or contacted the patients.

In a second investigation, inspectors found that a medical imaging department employee allowed a friend who was visiting her into a restricted access room where the employee worked. The visitor could overhear patients discuss their personal information with the employee, a report states.

This should serve as an important reminder about the far-reaching nature of medical information privacy laws -- both federal and local.  California has a particularly strict medical privacy law, enacted in 2008.  Breach does not mean just a lost laptop, hacking or intentional access of a celebrity's records, as we saw last year in California.  It could be a wide range of activities, and hospitals and other providers should pay close attention to the fast-changing regulatory environment, create or modify their policies and procedures accordingly and, perhaps even more crucially, train their staff to comply with such necessary policies and procedures.

"Missing records on stolen laptop from Cincinnati Children's Hospital," Cincinnati.com (May 28, 2010).

"SB hospital fined $325,000 for breach of patient records," Press-Enterprise (June 10, 2010).

"Large Patient Information Breaches List Nears Century Mark," Health Leaders Media (June 16, 2010).
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In the news: patient privacy edition

Posted on April 28, 2010 by Steve Fox and Vadim Schick
  • HHS's Office of Civil Rights (OCR) filed a notice in the Federal Register lifting a requirement preventing OCR from posting names of sole practitioners who suffer breaches of patient data without first obtaining consent from such practitioners.  Pursuant to the HITECH Act, any covered entity reporting a breach affecting over 500 individuals must report such breach to HHS, and HHS will post a notice of such breach on its web site.  At the same time, HHS did not post names of individual physician practices (e.g., sole practitioners) without such physicians' consent because they deemed the name of the physician to be protected under the Privacy Act of 1974. Instead, HHS listed such breaches under "private practice."  However, OCR announced on April 16, 2010, that "it will begin posting on its breach notification web site the names of entities they consider "individuals" regardless of whether or not those entities give consent." According to HealthLeaders Media, the rule will become effective after the comment period closes (about May 23, 2010).
  • Government Health IT reports that OCR will issue more privacy and security rules mandated by the HITECH Act in May 2010, including rules regarding business associate liability; new limitations on the sale of protected health information, marketing, and fundraising communications; and stronger individual rights to access electronic medical records and restrict the disclosure of certain information.  According to HHS, "OCR continues work on a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding these provisions. Although the effective date (February 17, 2010) for many of these HITECH Act provisions has passed, the NPRM and the final rule that follows will provide specific information regarding the expected date of compliance and enforcement of these new requirements."
  • On April 23, 2010 HIT Policy Committee's privacy and security workgroup revealed a draft  technical framework for patient consent requirements, titled Basic Patient Privacy Consent (BPPC).  According to Federal Computer Week, the draft framework includes "at least 12 types of patient consents, including implicit and explicit opt-out and opt-in, authorizations for specific research projects and authorizations for use of the document but not for republishing."
     

 
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

HHS begins enforcement of breach notification requirements

Posted on February 25, 2010 by Steve Fox and Vadim Schick

As of February 22, 2010, HHS is expected to begin enforcing the new breach notification requirements created by the privacy and security provisions within the HITECH Act.  Although such requirements went into effect last fall, HHS gave covered entities and business associates a few months to adapt to the new rules.  That enforcement delay is now over, and, perhaps in a related move, on February 23, 2010, HHS's Office of Civil Rights, pursuant to the HITECH Act, posted a list of organizations which reported breaches of unsecured protected health information affecting 500 or more individuals on OCR's web site.  This should serve as a good reminder to providers and HIT vendors alike to be keenly aware of the new regulations on breach notification.

The HITECH Act required a covered entity that “accesses, maintains, retains, modifies, records, stores, destroys, or otherwise holds, uses, or discloses unsecured protected health information” to notify each individual “whose unsecured protected health information has been, or is reasonably believed by the covered entity to have been, accessed, acquired, or disclosed” due to the breach.  Business associates who discover a breach must notify the covered entity. 

By regulation published in the Federal Register on August 24, 2009, HHS added a rather controversial  "harm threshold" to this requirement:  covered entities and business associates are required to notify the affected individual, the HHS, and, in some cases, the media, if such breach poses a significant risk of harm to the individual.  This "harm threshold" essentially requires the organization which discovers a breach to undergo a risk assessment test to determine whether a breach would cause "significant harm" to the affected person.

The HITECH Act defines “breach” as “the unauthorized acquisition, access, use, or disclosure of protected health information which compromises the security or privacy of such information, except where an unauthorized person to whom such information is disclosed would not reasonably have been able to retain such information.” The Act includes two important (albeit vague) exceptions to this definition for cases in which: (1) “the unauthorized acquisition, access, or use of PHI is unintentional and made by an employee or individual acting under authority of a covered entity or business associate if such acquisition, access, or use was made in good faith and within the course and scope of the employment or other professional relationship with the covered entity or business associate, and such information is not further acquired, accessed, used, or disclosed”; or (2) “where an inadvertent disclosure occurs by an individual who is authorized to access PHI at a facility operated by a covered entity or business associate to another similarly situated individual at the same facility, as long as the PHI is not further acquired, accessed, used, or disclosed without authorization.

The HITECH Act imposes a similar notification requirement on a business associate “that accesses, maintains, retains, modifies, records, stores, destroys, or otherwise holds, uses, or discloses unsecured” PHI. In the event of a breach, the business associate shall provide notice to the covered entity, including “the identification of each individual whose unsecured protected health information has been, or is reasonably believed by the business associate to have been, accessed, acquired, or disclosed during such breach.”

The term “unsecured protected health information” refers to PHI that is not secured through the use of a “technology or methodology” specified by the Secretary in a “Guidance” issued as part of the breach notification regulation in the Federal Register on August 24, 2009 (see link above).  The Guidance, which is to be updated annually, specifies two basic ways of rendering PHI “secure:” encryption and destruction. Electronic PHI must be properly encrypted “by ‘the use of an algorithmic process to transform data into a form in which there is a low probability of assigning meaning without use of a confidential process or key’ and such confidential process or key that might enable decryption has not been breached.” The Guidance provided an exhaustive list of technologies which would encrypt PHI, referencing “approved” processes and methods from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Electronic PHI may be properly destroyed in the hard copy media (e.g., paper, tapes) on which the PHI is stored is shredded or destroyed “suchin such a way “that the PHI cannot be read or otherwise cannot be reconstructed;” electronic media containing PHI “must be cleared, purged, or destroyed consistent with NIST [Guidelines] such that the PHI cannot be retrieved.”

Securing PHI in accordance with this Guidance will be the safest way to protect a healthcare organization from a serious breach of patient data privacy. Organizations that suffer a breach involving disclosed, stolen or lost data that was not “secured” may be subject to a wide range of newly established breach notification requirements.  It is important to note, however, that for both covered entities and business associates, the breach shall be deemed to have been discovered on the first day on which it is “known to such entity or associate.” The term “known” means that the circumstances of the breach are known by any “employee, officer, or other agent of such entity or associate,” other than the person who committed the breach. Furthermore, all notifications (by both covered entities and business associates) must be made “without unreasonable delay,” which, in Congressional time, means no later than 60 calendar days after discovery of the breach. The entity making the notification has the burden of demonstrating that all required notifications were made, as well as explaining the necessity of any delay.

There is a lot more information that covered entities and business associates must know about the new rules, including, for example, requirements regarding the content of breach notices.  For more information on these matters, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

HHS News: Interim Final Regulations on Breach Notification; Regional Office Privacy Advisors

Posted on August 20, 2009 by Steve Fox and Vadim Schick

On August 19, 2009, pursuant to the HITECH Act, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published the interim final regulations regarding breach notification requirements for health care providers and other entities covered by HIPAA. 

According to the HHS press release:

The regulations, developed by the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR), require health care providers and other HIPAA covered entities to promptly notify affected individuals of a breach, as well as the HHS Secretary and the media in cases where a breach affects more than 500 individuals. Breaches affecting fewer than 500 individuals will be reported to the HHS Secretary on an annual basis. The regulations also require business associates of covered entities to notify the covered entity of breaches at or by the business associate.

You can find the text of the regulation here.

Stay tuned for more analysis of this important set of regulations on this blog. The interim final regulations are effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register and include a 60-day public comment period. 

Also, pursuant to Section 13403(a) of the HITECH Act, the HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius designated an individual in each regional office of HHS (Regional Office Privacy Advisors) in order "to offer guidance and education to covered entities, business associates, and individuals on their rights and responsibilities related to the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules."  The names, addresses, and contact information for each of the Regional Managers are listed here, together with a list of the States for which each Regional Manager has responsibility.

"HHS Issues Rule Requiring Individuals Be Notified of Breaches of Their Health Information," HHS Press Release (August 19, 2009).

" Designation of Regional Office Privacy Advisors," HHS Press Release (July 27, 2009).
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FTC Issues Final Breach Notification Rule for Electronic Health Information

Posted on August 17, 2009 by Steve Fox and Vadim Schick

Pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued the final rule regarding notification requirements for breaches of electronic health information by vendors of personal health records and certain affiliated entities:

The rule applies to both vendors of personal health records – which provide online repositories that people can use to keep track of their health information – and entities that offer third-party applications for personal health records. These applications could include, for example, devices such as blood pressure cuffs or pedometers whose readings consumers can upload into their personal health records. Consumers may benefit by using these innovations, but only if they are confident that their health information is secure and confidential.

<...>

The Final Rule requires vendors of personal health records and related entities to notify consumers following a breach involving unsecured information. In addition, if a service provider to one of these entities has a breach, it must notify the entity, which in turn must notify consumers. The Final Rule also specifies the timing, method, and content of notification, and in the case of certain breaches involving 500 or more people, requires notice to the media. Entities covered by the rule must notify the FTC, and they may use a standard form, which can be found along with additional information about the rule at www.ftc.gov/healthbreach.

You can find the full text of the rule here.

"FTC Issues Final Breach Notification Rule for Electronic Health Information," FTC Press Release (August 17, 2009).

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,