HIPAA Transaction Rules Compliance Enforcement Delayed Until April 2013

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will postpone the start of HIPAA Transaction Rules compliance enforcement for 90 days, according to a recent announcement.

See CMS press release here. Via CMS website:

Today, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ Office of E-Health Standards and Services (OESS) announced that to reduce the potential of significant disruption to the health care industry, it will not initiate enforcement action until March 31, 2013, with respect to HIPAA covered entities (including health plans, health care providers, and clearinghouses, as applicable) that are not in compliance with the operating rules adopted for the following transactions as required by the Affordable Care Act: eligibility for a health plan and health care claim status. Notwithstanding OESS’ discretionary application of its enforcement authority, the compliance date for using the operating rules remains January 1, 2013.

Industry feedback suggests that HIPAA covered entities have not reached a threshold whereby a majority of covered entities would be able to be in compliance with the operating rules by January 1, 2013. This enforcement discretion period does not prevent applicable HIPAA covered entities that are prepared to conduct transactions using the adopted operating rules from doing so, and all applicable covered entities are encouraged to determine their readiness to use the operating rules as of January 1, 2013 and expeditiously become compliant. Although enforcement action will not be taken, OESS will accept complaints associated with compliance with the operating rules beginning January 1, 2013. If requested by OESS, covered entities that are the subject of complaints (known as "filed-against entities") must produce evidence of either compliance or a good faith effort to become compliant with the operating rules during the 90-day period. HHS will continue to work to align the requirements under Section 1104 of the Affordable Care Act to optimize industry’s ability to achieve timely compliance.

OESS is the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) component that enforces compliance with HIPAA transaction and code set standards, including operating rules, identifiers and other standards required under HIPAA by the Affordable Care Act.

For copies of the operating rules for the eligibility for a health plan and health care claim status transactions, visit the Council for Affordable Quality Healthcare (CAQH) CORE website at http://www.caqh.org. Links to information on the operating rules for eligibility for a health plan and health care claim status are available at http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/HIPAA-Administrative-Simplification/Affordable-Care-Act/OperatingRulesforEligibilityandClaimsStatus.html

HealthNet breach affects 1.9 million individuals

HealthNet, a California-based insurer, suffered another major data breach last month. Modern Healthcare reports that HealthNet lost data of almost two million employees, members and healthcare providers, including their medical information, Social Security numbers and other sensitive information. The loss was reportedly caused by a missing server drive from HealthNet's Rancho Cordova, CA data center.  According to the insurance company's press release, HealthNet's IT vendor, IBM, notified HealthNet that it could not locate the drives.

As we noted previously, HealthNet suffered another major data breach in 2009, when the company lost a portable hard drive containing sensitive and protected information on 1.5 million people.  As a result of that breach, HealthNet was sued by then-Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, in a first such action under HIPAA, as modified by the HITECH Act.  HealthNet and Connecticut settled this suit in 2010 for $250,000 fine, a $500,000 contingency fund and a corrective action plan aimed at enhancing the security of the data in HealthNet's possession.

In light of HHS stepping up enforcement of HIPAA and HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules, HealthNet will become a likely target of both federal and state investigations; and if such investigations reveal negligence or failure to implement or comply with their own corrective action plan referenced above, the fines could be much more severe than the $250,000 number from the Connecticut settlement in 2010.

This should also serve as a reminder about the importance of requiring IT vendors to indemnify healthcare providers against such losses. If HealthNet's investigation concludes that IBM and/or its personnel were responsible for this loss, the parties will likely look to their existing contracts and BAA to determine whether IBM will reimburse HealthNet for its costs in relation to this breach.

 Via Modern Healthcare:

Woodland Hills, Calif.-based health insurer Health Net announced Monday that it had lost servers containing personal health information and demographic data for nearly 2 million current and past patients.

The breach, which affects approximately 1.9 million people nationwide, occurred in February. Health Net said it cannot account for server drives missing from a data center in Rancho Cordova, Calif. Those drives contain patients' names, Social Security numbers and sensitive health information. It's not the first time Health Net enrollees have experienced a breach. In 2009, 1.5 million people were affected when a portable hard drive containing patient data went missing.

According to the California Department of Managed Health Care, the breach will affect as many as 845,000 of the state's residents. In a news release, Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen urged the insurer to provide adequate identity protections for the 25,000 state residents whose data has been compromised.

"Health insurance companies have access to very sensitive and personal information," Jepsen said in the release. “They have a duty to protect that information from unlawful disclosure.”

[In a press release,] Health Net said it would offer two years of credit monitoring and identity protection to affected customers. The insurer also has set up a hotline.

 

Final breach notification rules delayed

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.

HHS issues NPRM on HIPAA Privacy, Security and Enforcement Rules

On July 7, 2010, HHS issued a notice of proposed rule making (NPRM) regarding the changes to the HIPAA Privacy, Security and Enforcement Rules, as provided in the HITECH Act, in order "to strengthen the privacy and security protections for health information and to improve the workability and effectiveness of the HIPAA Rules."  Via HHS Press Release:

The proposed modifications to the HIPAA Rules include provisions extending the applicability of certain of the Privacy and Security Rules’ requirements to the business associates of covered entities, establishing new limitations on the use and disclosure of protected health information for marketing and fundraising purposes, prohibiting the sale of protected health information, and expanding individuals’ rights to access their information and to obtain restrictions on certain disclosures of protected health information to health plans. In addition, the proposed rule adopts provisions designed to strengthen and expand HIPAA’s enforcement provisions.

You can view the NPRM by clicking here.

"Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Implement HITECH Act Modifications," HHS Press Release (July 7, 2010).

FTC Delays Enforcement of the Red Flags Rule

Upon request from members of Congress, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has once again pushed back the enforcement of the Red Flags Rule, this time until December 31, 2010.  This is the fifth such delay by the FTC.  Via FTC press release:

The Rule became effective on January 1, 2008, with full compliance for all covered entities originally required by November 1, 2008. The Commission has issued several Enforcement Policies delaying enforcement of the Rule. Most recently, the Commission announced in October 2009 that at the request of certain Members of Congress, it was delaying enforcement of the Rule until June 1, 2010, to allow Congress time to finalize legislation that would limit the scope of business covered by the Rule. Since then, the Commission has received another request from Members of Congress for another delay in enforcement of the Rule beyond June 1, 2010.

The Commission urges Congress to act quickly to pass legislation that will resolve any questions as to which entities are covered by the Rule and obviate the need for further enforcement delays. If Congress passes legislation limiting the scope of the Red Flags Rule with an effective date earlier than December 31, 2010, the Commission will begin enforcement as of that effective date.

We have recently reported on the AMA and other medical associations suing the FTC over applicability of the Rule to healthcare providers.  There was no mention of the AMA's claims or law suit in the press release.

You can read the full press release here.

"FTC Extends Enforcement Deadline for Identity Theft Red Flags Rule," FTC Press Release (May 28, 2010).

OCR may delay enforcement of business associate provisions in the HITECH Act

Pursuant to the HITECH Act, on February 17, 2010, business associates of covered entities became subject to the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules, including provisions regarding implementation of various safeguards to secure protected health information.  As Steve Fox pointed out in a recent report on the subject by the Pittsburgh Business Journal, it is highly unlikely that most companies are ready to comply with these dramatic changes.

However, according to Hunton & Williams's privacy blog, Adam Greene of the HHS Office of Civil Rights (OCR) stated at an ABA conference on February 18, 2010, that OCR will delay enforcement of this provision of the HITECH Act until the relevant regulations are finalized.  OCR itself did not publish a press release on the subject, and we were unable to reach Mr. Greene for comment.

Regardless of OCR's intent to enforce compliance, the business associate provisions in the HITECH Act went into effect last week.  We would strongly encourage all covered entities and business associates to take all necessary actions to comply with the new law.

"Privacy policies over electronic health records expand reach," Pittsburgh Business Journal (February 19, 2010).

"HHS Delays Enforcement of HITECH Act Business Associate Provisions," Privacy & Information Security Law Blog (February 19, 2010).

 

 

HHS releases interim final regulations on HIPAA enforcement changes

Pursuant to the HITECH Act, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released interim final regulations updating enforcement rules for violations of HIPAA.  As reported in Healthcare IT News:

Prior to the HITECH Act, the penalty could be no more than $100 for each violation or $25,000 for all identical violations of the same provision.

A healthcare provider, health plan or clearinghouse could also bar the secretary's imposition of a civil money penalty by demonstrating that it did not know that it violated the HIPAA rules.

Section 13410(d) of the HITECH Act strengthened the enforcement by establishing tiered ranges of increasing minimum penalty amounts, with a maximum penalty of $1.5 million for all violations of an identical provision. A covered entity can no longer bar the imposition of a civil money penalty for an unknown violation unless it corrects the violation within 30 days of discovery.

The interim final rule with request for comments, published last week, conforms the HIPAA enforcement regulations to the revisions made by the HITECH Act. This rule will become effective on Nov. 30. HHS will consider all comments received by Dec. 29.

You can find the full text of the rule is here.

"HIPAA violators could face fines up to $1.5M," Healthcare IT News (November 2, 2009).

Breaking News: FTC Delays Enforcement of the Red Flags Rule Again, Until November 1, 2009

From the FTC:

To assist small businesses and other entities, the Federal Trade Commission staff will redouble its efforts to educate them about compliance with the "Red Flags" Rule and ease compliance by providing additional resources and guidance to clarify whether businesses are covered by the Rule and what they must do to comply. To give creditors and financial institutions more time to review this guidance and develop and implement written Identity Theft Prevention Programs, the FTC will further delay enforcement of the Rule until November 1, 2009.

<...>

Although many covered entities have already developed and implemented appropriate, risk-based programs, some – particularly small businesses and entities with a low risk of identity theft – remain uncertain about their obligations. The additional compliance guidance that the Commission will make available shortly is designed to help them. Among other things, Commission staff will create a special link for small and low-risk entities on the Red Flags Rule Web site with materials that provide guidance and direction regarding the Rule. The Commission has already posted FAQs that address how the FTC intends to enforce the Rule and other topics – www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/microsites/redflagsrule/faqs.shtm. The enforcement FAQ states that Commission staff would be unlikely to recommend bringing a law enforcement action if entities know their customers or clients individually, or if they perform services in or around their customers’ homes, or if they operate in sectors where identity theft is rare and they have not themselves been the target of identity theft.

You can read the full press release here.