Connecticut Supreme Court: plaintiffs can sue for HIPAA violations

 It has been a commonly held belief that a patient cannot sue under HIPAA for a breach of confidential health information as HIPAA provides no private cause of action.  The patient’s only recourse has been to report the violation to the relevant federal agency responsible for enforcing the law, in this case the Department of Health and Human Services.

Recently, however, the Connecticut Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s decision that HIPAA precludes plaintiffs’ individual liability claims relating to violations of health information confidentiality.  In Byrne v. Avery Center for Obstetrics and Gynecology, in which the clinic released PHI in response to a subpoena, the higher court ruled that “If Connecticut’s common law recognizes claims arising from a health care provider’s alleged breach of its duty of confidentiality in the course of complying with a subpoena, HIPAA and its implementing regulations do not preempt such claims.”

The Connecticut court’s ruling follows similar rulings in Tennessee and Delaware in recent years.  The Connecticut ruling went on to say “We further conclude that, to the extent it has become the common practice for Connecticut health care providers to follow the procedures required under HIPAA in rendering services to their patients, HIPAA and its implementing regulations may be utilized to inform the standard of care applicable to such claims arising from allegations of negligence in the disclosure of patients’ medical records pursuant to a subpoena.”

Healthcare providers are, of course, paying close attention to these court rulings.  But these rulings are sending shock waves through other industries as well whose privacy and data security is similarly governed by federal laws that do not provide a private cause of action.  These laws include FERPA and COPPA -- which protect the privacy of students and children, GLBA – the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act – which governs financial institutions, and the wide-reaching FTC Act – the Federal Trade Commission Act.

See Clinical Psychiatry News article at “Court: Patients can sue over HIPAA breaches”

Advocate Health Care already facing first lawsuit for July 15 breach involving 4 million EHR patient records

Chicago area Advocate Health Care suffered the country’s biggest health care record breach to date on July 15 – when four unencrypted laptops containing over four million patient records were stolen.  Seven weeks later the legal repercussions to July’s event are already beginning to unfold with last week’s filing of a class-action complaint in Cook County Circuit Court.

Once again, we are reminded both of the repercussions of such a loss and, more importantly, how easy it is to prevent this.  I’m not suggesting that the theft could have been prevented, but if the laptops had been encrypted, then this would have been a non-event (at least as far as the breach notification issue).  No one outside of Advocate would even know about the theft, because Advocate wouldn’t have had to report the loss and it would not have made the news at all.  So the take-away:  encrypt all of your mobile devices, including laptops, thumb drives, smart phones, etc.

Via Modern Healthcare:

The recent massive data breach at Advocate Health Care has already had legal consequences.

Downers Grove, Ill.-based Advocate and a subsidiary, Advocate Medical Group, are facing a state class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of two named plaintiffs and 4 million individuals whose personally identifiable health records were taken along with four desktop computers in a burglary in July. The computers were password protected but not encrypted, according to Advocate.

The five-count, 12-page complaint in Cook County Circuit Court in Chicago alleges negligence, deceptive business practices, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress and consumer fraud, all violations of Illinois law.

According to the class-action complaint, Advocate “continued its use of nonsecure, unencrypted computers and software to maintain the private and confidential patient data” it had collect, in violation of two state privacy laws.

The suit alleges Advocate violated the Illinois Personal Information Protection Act when it “permitted an unauthorized acquisition of computerized data that compromised the security, confidentiality, or integrity of personal information,” and the Illinois Medical Patients Rights Act when it “facilitated and allowed for the unlawful disclosure of patients' private and confidential health information.”

The lawsuit requests a jury trial and judgment of an unspecified dollar amount for actual damages, costs and other relief the court deems appropriate.

The named plaintiffs were former Advocate patients, Pierre Petrich, and her minor daughter, Amara Petrich, of Northbrook, Ill. The suit was filed by Chicago personal injury attorney Robert Clifford.

The suit alleges the plaintiffs' records were part of the massive July 15 data breach at an administrative office of the 1,100-plus physician Advocate Medical Group in Park Ridge, Ill. At just over four million records, it is the largest breach by a healthcare provider since the federal government began requiring public reporting of larger healthcare records breaches in 2009.

Personally identifiable data on the compromised records varied, according to an Advocate spokeswoman, but included patients' names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, diagnoses and medical record numbers.

Advocate previously made the federal “wall of shame” list kept by HHS' Office for Civil Rights after the theft of an unencrypted laptop in 2009 carrying 812 patient records.

Thus far, 659 breaches involving records of 500 or more individuals have made the list, accounting for more than 22.8 million records being exposed. Of those involving electronic devices, 48% of the incident reports mentioned theft, 11% loss; and 8% hacking, all of which could have been mitigated by encryption.

The breach is being investigated by the OCR, the chief federal agency enforcing the health information privacy and security rules under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, and by the Illinois Attorney General's office, for possible HIPAA and Illinois privacy law violations, spokespersons for those agencies have said.

Advocate has faced criticism for not encrypting the data. Encryption is a technique in which software is used to scramble messages or data, rendering them unusable and unreadable to anyone who doesn't have the key, another piece of software code to unscramble the protected information.

An Advocate spokeswoman said an encryption program launched by the organization in 2009 had not reached the four computers in the Park Ridge office.

Advocate's Kelly Jo Golson, senior vice president of public affairs and marketing, in a statement, said “We deeply regret any inconvenience this incident has caused our patients who have entrusted us with their care. Our focus continues to be delivering the highest level of care and service. We are also committed to providing all individuals impacted by this incident with resources to answer their questions and tools to protect their personal information. Although we are unable to comment specifically on active litigation matters, we want to reassure our patients that we do not believe the data was targeted and we have no information that leads us to believe that the information has been misused.”

By Joseph Conn

Advocate Health Care sued following massive data breach,” Modern Healthcare (September 6, 2013)

Computer viruses in medical devices: who should bear the costs for combatting? FDA issues warning, takes action

Computer virus infections of medical devices continue to be a serious issue, keeping healthcare provider IT departments busy removing malware.  (See our October 2012 blog post "Computer viruses on hospital medical devices: a growing concern; possible solutions").  The FDA has issued a warning regarding this threat, and is now asking, although not yet requiring, both healthcare providers and medical device manufacturers to take additional steps to heighten cybersecurity.

Via Modern Healthcare:

The Food and Drug Administration issued a notice on Thursday asking medical device manufacturers and healthcare facilities to introduce controls that would guard against cyberattacks on medical equipment and hospital networks.

Because many medical devices connect to the Internet, they are at risk of being infected with computer viruses that can affect the way they operate, putting patients' health in jeopardy. And devices and networks that are not properly secured leave them and the data they contain vulnerable to unauthorized access and use.

“Despite the fact that there has been no patient harm as the result of either inadvertent or intentional cybersecurity breaches, we understand FDA's desire to be cautious in this area,” Janet Trunzo, senior executive vice president of technology and regulatory affairs for the Advanced Medical Technology Association, said in a statement. “Our industry provides many life-saving or life-enhancing devices. So, it is important for both the manufacturers and the users of these devices to be aware of the potential for cybersecurity breaches.”

The FDA is recommending that manufacturers implement security controls such as user authentication, stronger passwords, physical locks and card readers. Other suggestions include security patches and restrictions on updates to authenticated code, as well as design approaches that maintain a device's critical functionality even in the event of an attack or breach.

Healthcare facilities, according to the FDA, should restrict unauthorized access to networks and devices, update antivirus software and firewalls, monitor network activity, and also develop strategies to maintain critical functionality when security is compromised.

The FDA is also requesting that manufacturers and healthcare personnel report cybersecurity events to MedWatch, their Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting program, so as to identify vulnerabilities in an effort to reduce future incidents.

By Rachel Landen

FDA warns about risk of cyberattacks on medical equipment, hospital networks,” Modern Healthcare  (June 14, 2013)

"Health IT Law" blogger Steven J. Fox featured in "Healthcare Informatics" article

Negotiating favorable contracts with IT vendors requires skill and determination on the part of healthcare providers, on a playing field that currently favors vendors.  Blawger Steven J. Fox and three healthcare IT leaders share their insights in this in-depth article.

See Healthcare Informatics article at "Time for New Rigor on Vendor Contracts".

EHR vendor loses ONC certification for two of its records systems

This week health care organizations were startled and not a little concerned to learn of the ONC's unprecedented action with regards to a California health software company.  The agency is decertifying electronic health records systems which initially met ONC requirements for certification. 

Via Modern Healthcare:

For the first time, the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology at HHS has revoked certifications for two electronic health-record systems, raising troubling questions about how physicians and hospitals should react if the government nixes a system they're already using.

Federal officials require that doctors and hospitals use certified EHR systems in order to receive federal money to defray the cost of converting to EHRs. But on Thursday, the ONC said it decided to revoke certifications for two products on the market after anonymous complaints were lodged about the systems.

 

EHRMagic, of Santa Fe Springs, Calif., had two of its records systems shot down by the government: EHRMagic-Ambulatory and EHRMagic-Inpatient. Two people familiar with the company interviewed for this story said they were not surprised by the development, since the firm didn't seem able to live up to its promises on the sales side of the operation several years ago.

Calls and e-mails to EHRMagic on Thursday were not returned. Records with the California secretary of state list the 4-year-old company's corporate status as “suspended.”

ONC spokesman Peter Ashkenaz said no healthcare provider has “attested” to using the system, which means that no one had tried to receive federal funding to pay for installation of an EHRMagic system. Since 2011, more than 234,000 organizations and individuals have received a total of $12.7 billion in EHR incentives to install one of the 1,700 systems eligible for payments.

But a blog post Thursday from Carol Bean, director of the certification office at the ONC, makes clear that the office will continue aggressive monitoring for other EHR systems that don't meet the federal requirements. That includes proactive investigations and surveillance by the office, as well as inquiries that stem from tips from the public about shoddy systems.

“We want to be clear,” the blog post says, “the office of certification's role doesn't stop after EHR certification. We are also going to monitor certified EHRs to determine whether they continue to meet our requirements. The doctors, hospitals and other providers that are adopting—and have already adopted—EHRs deserve this and should feel confident that the tools they are using are up to the job of helping their patients get the best care possible.”

Ashkenaz declined to say what a healthcare provider should do if the system it is using ends up retroactively decertified for payments, as EHRMagic's systems were.

Richard Gant, CEO of physician-supply seller Innovative Healthcare Systems in Royal Palm Beach, Fla., said the EHRMagic situation pointed to another major concern about decertification. EHRMagic sells what is known as a “cloud-based” system, meaning that patient information is stored off-site and not physically in a provider's office.

“The biggest issue is, all of your information is on their servers,” he said. “And if they disappear, that information could go away.”

Several years ago, Gant's firm attempted to sell EHRMagic's systems through a sales model that would have allowed it to be installed for free in exchange for eventual federal subsidies. But he said Innovative Healthcare Systems severed its relationship with the EHRMagic after several initial attempts to install it failed, and sales payments were not forthcoming.

“When they weren't paying for anything and they weren't supporting clients of ours, we said goodbye,” Gant said. “I'm surprised they were even around to even be decertified.”

By Joe Carlson

ONC revokes firm's EHR certifications,” Modern Healthcare (April 25, 2013)

IT staffing shortage a chronic issue for health industry

The healthcare industry continues to face a greater deficit than ever in terms of qualified professionals to fill its ever-expanding information technology staffing needs.

Via Modern Healthcare:

Many U.S. healthcare companies – about 67% -- report that they’re struggling to attract experienced information technology workers, according to a survey.

That’s compared with 10% that said they have problems attracting all workers, according to the "Towers Watson 2013 Healthcare IT Survey" (PDF).  Meanwhile, 38% of healthcare companies reported problems with retaining experienced IT workers, compared with 8% reporting problems retaining all types of workers.

 

The problems may stem from misconceptions about what attracts employees to a healthcare workplace. 

What’s clear is that employees are focused on the practical, while employers are focused on the developmental,” said Laurie Bienstock, North American rewards leader at Towers Watson, in a news release.  “The good news is that the vast majority of employers are taking steps to close the talent gap, and seek more balance in their employee value proposition and rewards program.”

Employers said that offering ”challenging work” was a top factor that attracted workers, while workers attached more value to the employer’s reputation.  Workers also see base salary as a bigger factor than how employers view pay.  The survey included answers from more than 100 healthcare providers given earlier this year.

“But focusing on money is only part of the solution,” said Heidi Toppel, a senior rewards consultant in Towers Watson’s hospital industry group, in the release.  “Presenting career and growth opportunities remains important as well, and savvy employers will create as comprehensive a program as possible.  Our data confirm that IT recruiting in the healthcare industry is a matter of striking the right balance between the practical needs of workers today and the longer-term goal of helping an industry transform itself for a different future.”

Employers are having success with increasing base pay rates, offering retention bonuses while giving workers more educational and training opportunities.

By Ashok Selvam

Healthcare firms struggle with IT staffing:  survey,” Modern Healthcare (April 12, 2013) 

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

Settlement of first small scale HIPAA breach announced by HHS

In a sign that HHS is serious about small data breaches, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) and The Hospice of North Idaho reached a settlement agreement to resolve allegations of a 2010 breach involving 441 patient records. OCR Director Leon Rodriguez reminded the industry that every covered entity, regardless of size, must implement the privacy and security safeguards - including, e.g., encryption of protected health information on mobile devices - required under HIPAA, as amended pursuant to the HITECH Act.

This settlement comes at the same time as the OCR rolls out its new educational initiative aimed at securing protected data on mobile devices. You can learn more about this initiative here.

Via HHS Press Release:

The Hospice of North Idaho (HONI) has agreed to pay the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) $50,000 to settle potential violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Security Rule.  This is the first settlement involving a breach of unprotected electronic protected health information (ePHI) affecting fewer than 500 individuals.

The HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) began its investigation after HONI reported to HHS that an unencrypted laptop computer containing the electronic protected health information (ePHI) of 441 patients had been stolen in June 2010.  Laptops containing ePHI are regularly used by the organization as part of their field work.  Over the course of the investigation, OCR discovered that HONI had not conducted a risk analysis to safeguard ePHI.  Further, HONI did not have in place policies or procedures to address mobile device security as required by the HIPAA Security Rule.  Since the June 2010 theft, HONI has taken extensive additional steps to improve their HIPAA Privacy and Security compliance program.

“This action sends a strong message to the health care industry that, regardless of size, covered entities must take action and will be held accountable for safeguarding their patients’ health information.” said OCR Director Leon Rodriguez. “Encryption is an easy method for making lost information unusable, unreadable and undecipherable.”

The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Breach Notification Rule requires covered entities to report an impermissible use or disclosure of protected health information, or a “breach,” of 500 individuals or more to the Secretary of HHS and the media within 60 days after the discovery of the breach.  Smaller breaches affecting less than 500 individuals must be reported to the Secretary on an annual basis.

A new educational initiative, Mobile Devices: Know the RISKS. Take the STEPS. PROTECT and SECURE Health Information, has been launched by OCR and the HHS Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) that offers health care providers and organizations practical tips on ways to protect their patients’ health information when using mobile devices such as laptops, tablets, and smartphones.  For more information, visit www.HealthIT.gov/mobiledevices.

The Resolution Agreement can be found on the OCR website at http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/enforcement/examples/honi-agreement.pdf

HHS announces first HIPAA breach settlement involving less than 500 patients:
Hospice of North Idaho settles HIPAA security case for $50,000
,” HHS Press Release (January 2, 2013)

HHS Inspector General: Medicare EHR incentive program lacks adequate safeguards against error and fraud

The HHS Inspector General this week reported the results of its recent investigation to “verify the accuracy of professionals' and hospitals' self-reported meaningful-use information, as well as eligibility and payment amounts.”   The investigation reviewed payments issued from May through December 2011, a period during which approximately $1.7 billion was distributed to almost  28,000 recipients.  The Inspector General’s office concluded that Medicare needs to improve its review process.

Link to report here.

Via Modern Healthcare:

The CMS and the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology at HHS need to tighten up their oversight of the Medicare EHR incentive payment program, according to HHS' inspector general's office.
 
The watchdog office, headed by Inspector General Daniel Levinson, offered a couple of recommendations for the agencies in its report, "Early Assessment Finds That CMS Faces Obstacles in Overseeing the Medicare EHR Incentive Program" (PDF). The report is based on audits of EHR incentive payment attestations, reviews of internal CMS and ONC documents about the program and interviews with CMS personnel. The inspector general's office did not focus this time on the Medicaid portions of the program, although a previous report, issued in July 2011, did, focusing on 13 state-run Medicaid EHR incentive programs. The inspector general's office also is conducting "a series of audits of Medicare and Medicaid EHR incentive payments" to "verify the accuracy of professionals' and hospitals' self-reported meaningful-use information, as well as eligibility and payment amounts. No time frame for those audits was included in the report.

The inspector general's review covered the early stages of the Medicare EHR incentive program, from when payments started flowing in May 2011 through December 2011. During that period, the program paid out about $1.7 billion to nearly 27,000 physicians and other eligible professionals and 668 hospitals, the report said. 
 
The inspector general said that the CMS validates the presence of some required information and confirms some calculations provided by hospitals and providers. For example, "The validation checks that self-reported numerators and denominators calculate to required percentage thresholds and that all relevant yes/no measures were checked 'yes,' " according to the report. However, the report continued, the CMS "does not verify that numerators and denominators entered for percentage-based measures reflect the actual number of patients for a given measure or that professionals and hospitals possess certified EHR technology."
 
One "obstacle" the CMS faces in trying to get independent validation that what the providers are attesting to actually happened is that data from other sources—such as Medicare claims or private insurance data—is either incomplete for the task or unavailable.
 
The inspector general's office notes that although the CMS is not required to perform prepayment verification, "doing so would strengthen its oversight of the anticipated $6.6 billion in incentive payments" the program is expected to shell out over its lifetime, which runs through 2016.
 
Regarding post-payment oversight, the inspector general noted that, so far, the CMS "has not yet completed any post-payment audits." But the CMS has said it plans to use EHR-generated reports "to verify the accuracy of self-reported information where possible" and obtain supporting documents in instances where the reports don't cover the audit subject matter—and this is where the ONC comes in for criticism.
 
The ONC oversees the rule writing, and the testing and certification programs to determine whether EHR technology qualifies for use in the Medicare EHR incentive payment program.
 
The CMS "cannot use EHR reports to verify all self-reported meaningful-use information because ONC does not require certified EHR technology to be capable of producing reports for all meaningful-use measures," the inspector general's report said. The ONC requires an EHR to write reports on the 30 percentage-based measures but not the 19 yes/no measures users also are required to attest to in order to get paid.
 
"EHR reports also do not contain information necessary for CMS to verify all percentage-based measures," the inspector general's report said, specifically noting that denominators for many of those measures include data from both paper-based and EHR systems.
 
The inspector general's office recommended that the CMS beef up its prepayment assessment program, including by focusing on "high-risk" professionals and hospitals, asking them to "submit supporting documentation for prepayment review."
 
It also recommended that ONC "improve the certification process" to ensure that certification bodies "comprehensively test EHR reports for accuracy as part of the certification process" as well as not rely on "vendor-supplied data" during the testing phase.
 
The CMS, in an Oct. 9 letter from acting Administrator Marilyn Tavenner, said prepayment audits were not necessary at this time, but concurred with another inspector general's office recommendation to issue a guidance on proper provider documentation required for the program.
 
In a similar letter to the inspector general's office dated Sept. 25, ONC chief Dr. Farzad Mostashari concurred with the inspector general's office's recommendation of testing a "yes/no" reporting functionality. He said he would ask his two advisory committees, the Health IT Policy and Standards committees, to make recommendations "on the appropriate scope and feasibility of a certification criterion focused on 'yes/no' reports."
 
Mostashari also said the ONC has “already taken steps” to address a separate inspector general's recommendation that it improve its EHR testing and certification program. Specifically, the OIG recommended that the national coordinator supplant vendor-supplied data used in the initial rounds of its certification tests with a standard data set to be used by all vendors.
 
Last fall, GE warned customers of two of its EHR systems for ambulatory-care providers that errors had been found in reports to support meaningful-use attestations. That incident was specifically mentioned in the OIG report, which added that the ONC's certification process "did not identify these potential inaccuracies because the vendor-supplied test data did not account for the manner in which some professionals use the products." Similar problems may exist with reports from other EHR products, the OIG report said, but it cited no other examples of report-writing failures.
 
In his letter, Mostashari said the updated 2014 edition testing and certification rules—which were released in February in conjunction with the CMS' Stage 2 meaningful-use rules—contain "more rigorous testing requirements" that became effective Oct. 4, 2012. He said the ONC "will continue to migrate away from the exclusive use of vendor-supplied data."
 
In a telephone interview, Mostashari said the GE report-writing problem was "old news." Asked whether he was aware of any other incidents of EHR systems failing to produce accurate test reports, Mostashari said, "It's really a CMS question."

By Joseph Conn

HHS inspector general: Medicare EHR program needs better oversight,Modern Healthcare  (November 29, 2012)

3.8 million record breach in South Carolina: lessons learned

Hackers recently infiltrated South Carolina's state tax records, absconding with the largest haul to date of Social Security numbers, credit and debit card numbers from a state agency.  State officials describe how the theft was worked, and list enhanced security measures that could have prevented the attack.
 
See New York Times article at "South Carolina Offers Details of Data Theft and Warns It Could Happen Elsewhere".
 

EHR access lost during Hurricane Sandy

Hurricane Sandy this week tested East Coast health care systems’ electronic infrastructure.  Emergency preparedness plans were implemented fairly successfully for most health care facilities, allowing them to continue to operate adequately.  Others, however, were negatively impacted, including some which lost access to their EHRs. 

It is absolutely critical that health care providers, even in areas which are not prone to massive weather-related disruptions, consider and implement back up plans for their IT systems. The crisis at NYU Langone center in Manhattan demonstrated just how dependent we are on electronic systems and power supply. It is imperative that the IT staff at each healthcare provider organization knows that its important software systems including EHRs are backed up, and that the organization's data - including patient data - is readily available, and is never lost due to a storm or an earthquake.

Via Modern Healthcare:

Power outages across New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania forced some hospitals to evacuate and others to rely on backup generators in the wake of superstorm Sandy.
 
The powerful and massive storm, which reached the coast in southern New Jersey around 8 p.m. on Monday, is responsible for at least 35 deaths, the Associated Press reported.
 
One Manhattan hospital was forced to evacuate 300 patients hours after Sandy's landfall when backup power failed. Evacuation of the New York University Langone Medical Center was complete by late Tuesday morning, a statement from the hospital said.

Meanwhile, plans to evacuate about 200 patients from Coney Island Hospital were underway early Tuesday afternoon, said Evelyn Hernandez, a spokeswoman for New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., which owns the hospital. Backup power was restored on Tuesday to Coney Island Hospital after it lost power during the storm. Most patients who depend on ventilators or other devices were evacuated ahead of the storm, but seven critically ill patients remained at Coney Island Hospital and relied on battery-supported ventilators during the power outage. Those patients were transferred elsewhere Tuesday morning. 
 
In New Jersey, Palisades Medical Center, North Bergen, began evacuating 83 patients Tuesday morning, said Donna Leusner, a spokeswoman for the New Jersey Department of Health. Flood damage knocked out power to Palisades Medical Center, said a spokeswoman with Hackensack (N.J.) University Medical Center, where Palisades patients were transferred by National Guard troops after 9 a.m. on Tuesday. Hackensack University Medical Center was expected to accept 51 patients from Palisades Medical Center, Nancy Radwin, an HUMC spokeswoman said.
 
Approximately 30 New Jersey acute-care hospitals were operating on backup generators after the storm, said Kerry McKean Kelly, a spokeswoman for the New Jersey Hospital Association.
 
Eight Pennsylvania hospitals experienced power outages and were operating on backup generators on Tuesday, the state Health Department said.
 
North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System reported that Glen Cove (N.Y.) Hospital, Huntington (N.Y.) Hospital, Plainview (N.Y.) Hospital, Syosset (N.Y.) Hospital and its Stern Family Center for Rehabilitation, Manhasset, were operating on backup power, as was one campus of the two-campus Staten Island University Hospital in New York City.
 
Also, Staten Island University Hospital could no longer access electronic health records after flooding on Monday disrupted power to the building where data is stored. Doctors continued to use paper records on Tuesday.
 
Other hospitals lost access to EHRs during the storm. Doctors at West Penn Allegheny Health System in Pittsburgh reverted to paper and written orders as the storm came ashore and damaged a data center in Mountain Lakes, N.J. Dan Laurent, a spokesman for the system, said Allegheny General and Western Pennsylvania hospitals, both in Pittsburgh, and the emergency room at Forbes Regional Hospital, Monroeville, could not access electronic medical records between 8:30 p.m. on Monday and 4 a.m. on Tuesday.

By Melanie Evans

Superstorm Sandy knocks out power at East Coast hospitals, prompting evacuations,” Modern Healthcare (October 30, 2012)

Public-private group, eHealth Exchange, to oversee development of health info network

The HHS Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology is passing management of the Nationwide Health Information Network to a coalition of public and private health care organizations.

Via Modern Healthcare:

Following last month's announcement that "now is not the time" for formal regulation of a proposed network of health information exchanges, HHS' Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology said it is transitioning control of that network—known as the Nationwide Health Information Network—to a public-private partnership known as the eHealth Exchange.

According to an e-mailed news release, eHealth Exchange "represents ONC's commitment to support health information exchange innovation in the private sector." The partnership's operations will be supported by Healtheway (PDF), a Richmond, Va.-based not-for-profit organization also founded as a public-private partnership.
 
These operations include conformance and interoperability testing, on-boarding of new participants in eHealth Exchange, and maintenance of operating policies and procedures, the service registry and digital certificates, according to the release. 
 
In addition, the Chicago-based Certification Commission for Health Information Technology will participate in the effort's compliance testing and will certify that interfaces between exchanges are "consistent across multiple states and systems," according to a CCHIT news release.
 
More details will be announced at the New York eHealth Collaborative's Digital Health Conference, scheduled for Oct. 15-16 in New York, the release stated.

By Andis Robeznieks

ONC moves control of health info network to public-private group,” Modern Healthcare (October 11, 2012)

Sharing EHR notes between providers and patients improves care, patient loyalty among other benefits

According to Annals of Internal Medicine, a new study found no disadvantages to health care providers sharing EHR notes with patients.

Via Kaiser Health News:

Doctors are required by federal law to provide patients with a copy of their medical notes upon request, but few patients ask and doctors generally don’t make the process easy.

When patients were offered online access, however, 90 percent read their doctors’ notes with some impressive results.

 

A study published in the most recent issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine found that 60 to 78 percent of patients who read their visit notes reported that they were more likely to take their medications as prescribed.  And their doctors reported that sharing their notes actually strengthened relationships with patients.

The study included 105 primary care physicians and 13,564 of their patients at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Massachusetts, Geisinger Health System in Pennsylvania and Harborview Medical Center in Washington, who participated  in a project called OpenNotes, in which patients were given electronic access to their files.

Study authors Tom Delbanco and Jan Walker of Beth Israel said they were surprised and delighted to find that patients who viewed their medical notes were more likely to take their medicines correctly. “Medication adherence is one of the greatest problems in health care,” said Delbanco, “yet flipping this switch seems to activate patients.”

As one patient explained, “having it written down, it’s almost like there’s another person telling you to take your meds.”

Patients also reported “an increased sense of control, greater understanding of their medical issues, improved recall of their plans for care, and better preparation for future visits,” the study authors write.

Despite concerns among participating physicians that sharing their notes would increase their workload, few of them reported longer visits or spent more time answering patients’ questions outside of visits.

One concern is that doctors may change the way they write their notes if their patients can read them. Since the same notes are shared with other doctors, this could have a clinical impact. As an example of a minor change, some doctors reported using “body mass index” in place of “obesity” to avoid offending their patients.

Blunt language, however, seems to have motivated some patients. “In his notes, the doctor called me ‘mildly obese,” one patient commented. “This prompted my immediate enrollment in Weight Watchers and daily exercise. I didn’t think I had gained that much weight. I’m determined to reverse that comment by my next check-up.”

At the end of the experiment, nearly 99 percent of the participating patients wanted continued access to their visit notes. And all three participating hospital sites have decided to broaden patient access to their doctors’ notes.

“Our greatest hope is that this will become a standard of care,” said Walker. “We’re at a good time in history because more and more doctors and hospitals are getting electronic health records and putting up secure patient portals,” allowing many patients easy access to their records.

They add, however, that privacy implications could be enormous: 20 to 45 percent of patients reported that they shared their notes with others, including family and friends. A patient could also choose to post their notes on Facebook or Twitter. “The patient-doctor relationship is confidential,” explained Delbanco, “but whether it’s private is now up to the patient.”

By Jenny Gold

For Patients, What A Difference A Note Makes,” Kaiser Health News (October 2, 2012)

Laptop theft costs Massachusetts provider $1.5 million in HHS settlement

Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary and Massachusetts Eye and Ear Associates (MEEI) will be paying HHS $1.5 million in installments over three years for a 2010 incident.  It is worth noting that OCR also reached a $1.5 million settlement with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee (BCBST) earlier this year for a breach involving over a million patient records on stolen hard drives.  The MEEI data breach, on the other hand,  involved only 3,621 patient records.

Regardless of OCR's exact motives for such a high fine for such a significantly smaller scale breach, it is clear that OCR takes compliance with the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules very seriously, especially in cases where patient data is stored on portable devices. It is also important to keep in mind that, as we pointed out after the BCBST breach, the $1.5 million settlement amount may well be exceeded by the costs and expenses associated with notification and credit monitoring expenses, as well as investigating and correcting this breach by MEEI.

Via Modern Healthcare:

HHS' Office for Civil Rights announced that Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary and its affiliated physician group, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Associates, agreed to pay $1.5 million to settle a HIPAA security-rule violation case.

The $1.5 million settlement with Boston-based Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary and Massachusetts Eye and Ear Associates, collectively known as MEEI, is part of a resolution agreement (PDF) with the Office for Civil Rights. MEEI's alleged violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act's security rule stem from the reported 2010 theft of a laptop computer storing 3,621 patient records, according to HHS.

 

The Office for Civil Rights alleges that the infirmary and the group not only failed to secure data on the laptop but also failed to comply with several other HIPAA security-rule requirements, including performing “a thorough analysis of the risk to the confidentiality” of individually identifiable patient information stored on the portable device and not “adopting and implementing policies and procedures to restrict access to ePHI to authorized users of portable devices.” The term ePHI refers to electronic protected health information. 

“In an age when health information is stored and transported on portable devices such as laptops, tablets and mobile phones, special attention must be paid to safeguarding the information held on these devices,” Office for Civil Rights Director Leon Rodriguez said in a news release. “This enforcement action emphasizes that compliance with the HIPAA privacy and security rules must be prioritized by management and implemented throughout an organization, from top to bottom.”

The settlement amount is to be paid in three equal installments of $500,000—the first on Oct. 15 of this year and the next two on the same date in 2013 and 2014.

The 17-page resolution agreement also requires the organization “to adhere to a corrective action plan” and permits an independent monitor to make semi-annual assessments of MEEI's compliance with the plan for three years.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 required the reporting to HHS of breaches affecting 500 or more individuals and the creation of a public accessible website listing the breaches. There are now 490 such self-reported breach incidents on the list, which is maintained by the Office for Civil Rights. Combined, those breaches exposed the records of more than 21 million individuals, according to the office.

The infirmary is on the list twice. A November 2009 incident involving 1,076 records stemmed from a police investigation into improper use of credit card information that led to the firing of two infirmary employees.

By Joseph Conn

Mass. provider to pay $1.5 million in HIPAA settlement,” Modern Healthcare (September 17, 2012)

Tagging technique keeps more sensitive portions of an EHR more private

State and federal privacy laws rigorously restrict sharing of mental health and other highly sensitive patient records.  A technique called “data tagging” may be key in facilitating health care providers’ compliance with these requirements.

Via Modern Healthcare:

Using off-the-shelf content standards and messaging protocols, the Veterans Affairs Department and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration of HHS have successfully demonstrated how to electronically tag mental health and other highly sensitive clinical records to help providers comply with stringent state and federal privacy laws limiting the sharing of those records without patient consent.

Development of the electronic patient-consent management system came in response to the VA's and SAMHSA's own needs to protect the privacy of patients under two federal medical record privacy laws that are more robust than the privacy rule under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

The demo was part of a Data Segmentation for Privacy Initiative by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology at HHS. It also answers a 2010 call by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology to use metadata tagging to enhance privacy while making medical data more readily available for research. A metadata tag provides information about the underlying data.

Tagging a patient's record at the “granular” or data-element level enables patients to give consent to the exchange of some parts of their medical record—such as a diagnosis code for diabetes and a drug prescription for its treatment—but not other parts, such as the diagnosis of a sexually transmitted disease or a mental health counseling session.

“The bottom line is we're trying to provide patients some ability to control what information is shared and make it easy on them,” said Mike Davis, VA project lead and Veterans Health Administration security architect.

Federal law applying specifically to the VA requires that, under typical circumstances, the VA must obtain a veteran's consent before his or her medical records can be shared outside the organization. The VA also abides by another federal law that bars federally funded alcohol and drug treatment providers from sharing information about such treatment without patient consent. The latter law creates a consent requirement that sticks to and flows with the data, so that each subsequent provider to receive it also must obtain patient consent to disclose it elsewhere.

Privacy laws in several states also contain these sticky provisions, said Joy Pritts, chief privacy officer at ONC, who attended the demo in Baltimore this month during a conference sponsored by Health Level 7. The healthcare standards development organization has produced a classification and coding system to identify and constrain particularly sensitive information; the system was used by the VA and SAMHSA in the demo, as were the ONC's Direct messaging protocols.

In the demonstration, a care summary was exchanged between providers for a patient enrolled in an alcohol and drug abuse treatment program. The VA/SAMHSA system tagged discrete elements of the record “do not re-disclose.”

One missing piece in the automated privacy protection scheme, however, is how to deal with dictated notes containing sensitive patient data. A text document could be constrained by tagging the entire document, Davis said, but that would need to be done by hand, whereas tagging of discrete data can be done by the system, which can sit as a layer between one provider's EHR and another's.

Patients can specify their wishes with computerized consent directives created online at home or on a provider's computer system, he said.

Davis said there is no timeline for rolling out these functions across the VA, but the VA has several pilot sites running where the system is in daily use recording a veteran's simple “yes/no” electronic consent directives for exchange of their records with outside providers.

Pritts said ONC has two additional pilots planned, one with the VA and one with private-sector providers.

“I think this can work for what's called structure data—medications in the medication list, allergies in the allergies list, diagnostic codes in the problem list, lab test results, vital signs—that type of information,” said Daniel Gottlieb, a partner in the Chicago office of McDermott Will & Emery who heads the firm's health information technology and data protection practice.

With the EHR systems used by providers today, “typically the technology doesn't have the capability” to segregate those drugs on a medication list for a common ailment from those drugs to treat another, more sensitive one, such as a psychiatric condition, Gottlieb said.

“That leaves you with two options in the real world,” he said. “One is not to make that medication list available” outside the organization. “Or, you can take the position that providing high-quality care” is the greater good, “and just decide that you're going to accept that legal risk.”

Gottlieb said many providers lean toward the latter, for instance if a patient is taking medication for a psychiatric disorder but also for a chronic condition such as diabetes. “There could be the potential for the adverse reaction between the psychiatric drug and some other drug,” prescribed either in the same hospital or by another provider. “I think most people think avoiding that reaction takes precedent over the privacy concern.”

By Joseph Conn

Working with the rules: Data tagging allows selective sharing with EHRs,” Modern Healthcare  (September 22, 2012)

ONC: no caps on per-provider EHR incentive payments

National Coordinator for Health IT Farzad Mostashari has announced there is no cap on how much individual providers may receive in meaningful use incentive payouts, as long as they meet the requirements for the EHR incentive payments program.  According to the ONC, almost seven billion of the approximately twenty billion dollars in incentives allocated under the HITECH Act has already been distributed.

Via Healthcare IT News:

WASHINGTON – There are no set appropriations for how much the federal government can spend on rewarding providers who adopt and use electronic health records under the Medicare and Medicaid meaningful use EHR incentive program, according to National Coordinator for Health IT Farzad Mostashari, MD.

"Whoever qualifies, gets paid; there's no hard cap," said Mostashari, who gave a keynote at the Annual Policy Summit for the Health Information Management and Systems Society (HIMSS) on Wednesday.

Mostashari said the federal government estimates it will pay out around $20 billion in incentives before the program shifts to a penalty in 2015, but there is no fixed budget set in the HITECH Act that mandated the program. The government recently announced it has paid out nearly $7 billion since the program began in 2011.

[See also: "Government EHR incentives near $7B."]
 

The federal health IT czar said he couldn't imagine health IT advancement – which enjoys widespread bipartisan support – losing the backing of Congress after the election, no matter the party in control.

It would be hard to picture Congress cutting or capping the program after doctors and hospitals have made major investments in health IT "on the good word of Congress," he said.

An attendee of the HIMSS Policy Summit – a sort of pep rally for HIMSS members to promote HIT on the Hill – recommended that Congress all be encouraged to use Blue Button to access their personal health data. This would "crystallize quite clearly" where things stand with regard to health IT today. We need more time and support, the attendee said, and Mostashari and other attendees agreed.

Mostashari praised the meaningful use incentive program, noting that "we've made great steps." He predicted that Stage 2, set to begin in 2014, will bring about even more "incredible progress."

The use of electronic health records is "ultimately about population health," Mostashari said. "You have to care more about the people who didn't walk into your door, than those who did." The meaningful use program is intended to go from measuring quality at the start, to accounting for population health. "That's why doctors are doing what they're doing, [and] that's why we're doing what we're doing," he said of federal regulators.

At a visit to the Cleveland Clinic recently, Mostashari said he observed health data exchanged between the clinic and other local facilities, using compatible coding that transferred the data easily. "They do it all day, every day," he said. "So don't tell us that exchange isn't happening."

[See also: "Stage 2 MU released at last."]

Two years ago, the industry wasn't there, he said of health information exchange. The patient information wasn't packaged and ready to code medications and lab reports in the same record. But things have changed, Mostashari added. He praised the industry and the  marketplace for pushing it forward.

The industry came together with a consensus and pilots and working groups, which resulted in the meaningful use Stage 2 rule, Mostashari said. "We're light years ahead of where we could possibly have been in Stage 1," he added, noting that he believes meaningful use Stage 2 will necessitate a push from the industry for health information exchange standards.

It will be important in the near future to tap into "the biggest underused resource – the patient," Mostashari said. Providers will have to "be sticky," and attract patients to their services because patients will no longer be limited to the provider that holds their health information.

Said Mostashari, speaking to doctors as a doctor: "We have to make them want to come to us."

By Diana Manos, Senior Editor

Mostashari: No cap on EHR incentive payouts,” Healthcare IT News (September 13, 2012)

Cybersecurity risk management by boards and senior executives: 12 recommendations

According to Forbes, a recent Carnegie Mellon study has found that corporate boards “are not actively addressing cyber risk management.”  The researchers collected data from corporations worldwide and across all industrial sectors, and found that while boards actively attend to risk management as part of their oversight, “there is still a gap in understanding the linkage between cybersecurity risks and enterprise risk management”. 

The study's report, well worth reviewing for its instructive if sometimes disturbing findings, concludes that by implementing the following twelve recommendations, boards and senior management can "significantly improve their organizations’ security posture and reduce risk":

 

  1. Establish a board Risk Committee separate from the Audit Committee and assign it responsibility for enterprise risks, including IT risks. Recruit directors with security and IT governance and cyber risk expertise.
  2. Ensure that privacy and security roles within the organization are separated and that responsibilities are appropriately assigned. The CIO, CISO/CSO, and CPO should report independently to senior management.
  3. Evaluate the existing organizational structure and establish a cross-organizational team that is required to meet at least monthly to coordinate and communicate on privacy and security issues.  This team should include senior management from human resources, public relations, legal, and procurement, as well as the CFO, the CIO, CISO/CSO, CRO, the CPO, and business line executives.
  4. Review existing top-level policies to create a culture of security and respect for privacy.  Organizations can enhance their reputation by valuing cyber security and the protection of privacy and viewing it as a corporate social responsibility.
  5. Review assessments of the organization’s security program and ensure that it comports with best practices and standards and includes incident response, breach notification, disaster recovery, and crisis communications plans.
  6. Ensure that privacy and security requirements for vendors (including cloud and software-as-a-service providers) are based upon key aspects of the organization’s security program, including annual audits and control requirements. Carefully review notification procedures in the event of a breach or security incident.
  7. Conduct an annual audit of the organization’s enterprise security program, to be reviewed by the Audit Committee.
  8. Conduct an annual review of the enterprise security program and effectiveness of controls, to be reviewed by the board Risk Committee, and ensure that identified gaps or weaknesses are addressed.
  9. Require regular reports from senior management on privacy and security risks.
  10. Require annual board review of budgets for privacy and security risk management.
  11. Conduct annual privacy compliance audits and review incident response, breach notification, disaster recovery, and crisis communication plans.
  12. Assess cyber risks and potential loss valuations and review adequacy of cyber insurance coverage.

Boards Are Still Clueless About Cybersecurity,” Forbes (May 16, 2012).

"Governance of Enterprise Security: CyLab 2012 Report -- How Boards and Senior Executives Are Managing Cyber Risks" by Jody Westby, Carnegie Mellon CyLab (May 16, 2012) 

ONC announces five organizations to serve as EHR certifiers

In preparation for the launching of ONC's permanent EHR system testing and certification program, part of the EHR incentive payment initiative, ONC has authorized five groups as permanent EHR certifiers.

Via Modern Healthcare:

Even though the new regime for testing and certifying electronic health-record systems under the federal EHR incentive program won't take effect until October—and testing against newly released criteria might not begin until year's end—federal authorities have given five organizations the OK to certify software for that program.

HHS' Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology has authorized the Certification Commission for Health Information Technology, the Drummond Group, ICSA Labs, InfoGard Laboratories and Orion Register to serve as certification bodies under the EHR incentive payment program, according to ONC spokesman Peter Ashkenaz. The program was established by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

 

C. Sue Reber, spokeswoman for one of the five, the Chicago-based CCHIT, said the news came in a conference call with the ONC on Tuesday.

In July, all five organizations were accredited by the American National Standards Institute as certification bodies and by the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program as accredited testing laboratories for EHR systems.

Back in January 2011, the ONC published a final rule creating permanent and separate EHR testing and certification programs for the incentive payment programs run by Medicare and state Medicaid agencies. The permanent programs replace a temporary testing and certification regime set up to get the EHR incentive program off the ground. Under the temporary program, EHR testing and certification functions were combined and performed by the same organizations.

Under the new regime, it is still possible for the same organization to perform both testing and certification, but the procedures to receive authorization to do both are now separate, and the organizations must maintain a "firewall" between those functions, according to the ONC, which has an explanation of the program on its website.

CCHIT will continue to offer testing and certification services under the temporary program until the Oct. 4 effective date of the permanent program, and after that will continue to test and certify systems under the initial, Stage 1 certification criteria.

New testing and certification criteria for what's being called the 2014 edition were released in a new final rule by ONC last week. CCHIT said it would incorporate those new criteria into its programs "as soon as ONC releases approved testing procedures," which are expected to be available at the end of the year.

"Five groups named permanent EHR certifiers", Modern Healthcare (August 29, 2012)

HHS publishes EHR privacy and security guide

The ONC’s Office of the Chief Privacy Officer (OCPO) has published a "Guide to Privacy and Security of Health Information” intended to help healthcare practitioners and their staffs better understand the roles of privacy and security in the meaningful use of electronic health records.

Via Healthcare IT News:

Earlier this spring Healthcare IT News reported the results of a study from HIMSS Analytics and Kroll that showed security breaches are still widespread in healthcare – despite increased attention paid to patient privacy.

The ‘HIMSS Analytics Report: Security of Patient Data,’ suggested that, despite increasingly stringent regulatory activity with regard to reporting and auditing procedures, most providers were prioritizing compliance with the rules over actually bolstering their own organizations' security protocols.

So the new ONC guide, which seeks to offer a comprehensive, easy-to-understand resource to help providers incorporate robust privacy and security routines into their clinical workflow, comes at a crucial time.

Developed by OCPO in partnership with the American Health Information Management Association (AHIMA) Foundation, the 47-page guide offers detailed guidance on topics such as security risk analyses and management tips, and working with EHR and health IT vendors.

The guide also offers a 10-step plan for reinforcing privacy and security protections before attesting for meaningful use:

1. Confirm your organization is a covered entity. Most healthcare providers are covered entities, and thus, have HIPAA responsibilities for individually identifiable health information. The Department of Health and Human Services offers tools that can help you confirm your organization's status.

2. Provide leadership. Emphasizing the importance of protecting patient information to all your employees is central to ensuring a culture where security is treated with the importance it deserves.

3. Document your process, findings and actions. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) advises all providers attesting for meaningful use to retain all relevant records that support attestation. Record all your practice decisions, findings and actions related to safeguarding patient information.

4. Conduct security risk analysis. A security risk analysis – or a reassessment, if you've already done one – compares your current security measures to what is legally and pragmatically required to safeguard personal health information, and identifies high priority threats and vulnerabilities.

5. Develop an action plan. Using your risk analysis results, discuss and develop an action plan to mitigate the identified risks. The plan must have five components, the guide notes: administrative, physical, and technical safeguards; policies and procedures; and organizational standards.

6. Manage and mitigate risks. Begin implementing your action plan. Develop written and up-to-date policies and procedures about how your practice protects personal health information. Do not lose sight of basic security measures, some of which can be low-cost and highly effective.

7. Prevent with education and training. To safeguard patient information, your workforce must know how to implement your policies, procedures, and security audits, according to ONC. HIPAA covered providers must train their workforces (employees, volunteers, trainees, and contractors) on your policies and procedures. Staffs must receive formal training on breach notification.

8. Communicate with patients. Your patients may be concerned about confidentiality and security of their health information in an EHR, the guide points out. Emphasize the benefits of EHRs to them as patients, perhaps using consumer education handouts that others have developed, and reassure them that you have a system to proactively protect their health information.

9. Update business associate agreements. Ensure your business associate agreements require compliance with HIPAA and HITECH breach notification requirements. This will require your business associates to safeguard protected health information they get from your practice, train their workforce, and adhere to breach notification requirements.

10. Attest for the security risk analysis meaningful use objective. Only apply for an EHR incentive program once you'd fulfilled the security risk analysis requirement and have documented your efforts, the ONC guide emphasizes, pointing out that when you attest to meaningful use, it is a legal statement that you have met specific standards, including that you protect electronic health information. Participants in the EHR Incentive Program can be audited.

Beyond HIPAA and HITECH, ‘ensuring privacy and security of health information, including information in electronic health records, is a key component to building the trust required to realize the potential benefits of electronic health information exchange,’ the ONC guide notes. ‘If individuals and other participants in a network lack trust in electronic exchange of information due to perceived or actual risks to electronic health information or the accuracy and completeness of such information, it may affect their willingness to disclose necessary health information and could have life-threatening consequences.

 

 

 

Access the ONC Guide to Privacy and Security of Health Information here.

ONC privacy and security guide offers 10 steps for MU,” Healthcare IT News (May 9, 2012)

 

HHS settlement amounts dwarfed by total costs of data breaches

A surge in data privacy breaches and the accompanying string of recent HHS enforcement actions should serve as an important reminder to healthcare providers regarding the importance of data privacy protection and the skyrocketing costs of failures to comply. 2011 saw a 97% increase in the number of data breaches, as reported by the Salt Lake Tribune in the context of the massive breach of health information privacy in Utah earlier this month.

At the same time, HHS has stepped up its enforcement actions. Last week, we touched on the $100,000 OCR settlement with a cardiology practice in Arizona. Last month, HHS reached a $1.5 million settlement with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee (BCBST) for a breach of about 1 million unencrypted patient records which resided on over 50 stolen hard-drives. However, the $1.5 million settlement amount was dwarfed by the $17 million BCBST had to spend on notification and credit monitoring expenses, as well as investigating and correcting the breach.

The BCBST settlement is a good reminder that breaches and noncompliance can be extraordinarily expensive, even without the federal and/or state regulatory fines. A December 2011 Ponemon Institute study found that data security breaches cost the healthcare industry $6.5 billion in the year leading up to that study. Just last month, a medical records company filed for bankruptcy after its offices were burglarized and medical records of over 14,000 people were stolen. The costs and expenses associated with that breach were so high that the firm had no choice but to go out of business.

These cases also demonstrated that OCR will investigate a breach regardless of the organization's size or reach. In fact, smaller practices should pay particular attention to these developments because a recent study showed that smaller healthcare providers are more likely to suffer a breach because their Internet and sharing practices are not likely as secure as those implemented at large healthcare provider organizations.

Basic compliance with HIPAA and the related regulations is, of course, required, but it is not a panacea. A study by the American National Standards Institute found that insufficient funding and lack of managerial support were among the key causes of security breaches of protected health information.

A HIMSS/Kroll study showed that while most of the surveyed healthcare providers are compliant with the applicable laws, regulations, and industry standards, significant security challenges remain. Employees' compliance with the organization's policies was the primary concern, reported by nearly half of all respondents to that survey. Constant evolution of tech devices and the way doctors and patients interact using such devices is another huge challenge, since regulations cannot keep up with the exponential rate of change in this market.

Finally, the HIMSS/Kroll study showed that healthcare providers are also concerned about third parties (e.g., contractors, business associates, et al) who have access to such providers' patient information. As we have written previously, it is absolutely crucial to have the right contractual protections in your license and services agreements with such third parties, including indemnification or cost reimbursement provisions in the applicable Business Associate Agreements. A hacker or an intentional theft or disclosure by an employee may be difficult to control or prevent; but each healthcare provider can protect themselves contractually for the costs associated with a data breach, if such such breach was caused by the negligence of a business associate or a third party contractor.

Updated: Slides from Webinar on HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules

Post & Schell, in collaboration with Kroll Fraud Solutions, presented a free webinar examining the crucial changes and updates to the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules included in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) issued by the Office of Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on July 8, 2010. Post & Schell's Steve Fox and Vadim Schick highlighted the key provisions in the NPRM, including:

  • New restrictions on use and disclosure of protected health information (PHI) for marketing, fundraising, and other commercial purposes
  • Providing patients with e-copies of their PHI
  • Extension of HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules to business associates
  • Effect of new rules on business associate agreements

In addition, our guest presenter for this webinar, Alex Ricardo, CIPP of Kroll Fraud Solutions, discussed the practical implications of this new set of regulations on covered entities and business associates, including:

  • Assessing an organization's policies, procedures and practices for compliance with the HIPAA Rules and these updates
  • Reviewing current contractual agreements and relationships with business associates and their subcontractors
  • Training staff of the organization
  • Breach preparedness and breach response

You can view or download the slides from this presentation by clicking here.

For more information, contact Vadim Schick at vschick@postschell.com or 202-661-6945.

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.

Updated: breaches and fines on the rise

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).

Medical associations sue FTC over Red Flags Rule

Just days prior to the latest enforcement deadline of the Red Flags Rule ("RFR"), medical and osteopathic associations sued the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) over the applicability of RFR's identity theft prevention requirements to their member organizations.  FTC is to begin enforcement of the Rule on June 1, 2010.  Among other claims, medical associations are seeking the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to prevent the FTC from defining healthcare providers as "creditors" under FACTA.  According to Health Data Management:

'The worst part is, I think, from a strictly ethical point of view, that you have to approach every new patient with suspicion about their identity,' said AMA spokesman Robert Mills. 'That violates every precept of the physician-patient relationship; the FTC is asking doctors to violate their role as trusted healer and counselor.'

The physician groups say that the rule requires them to set up identity theft prevention and detection programs, which aren't necessary, and said the FTC was 'arbitrary and capricious' in extending the application of the law to them. Also, the extension of the Red Flag Rule to doctors would do nothing to improve care, the physician groups say.

<...> According to the lawsuit, complying with the Red Flags Rule 'imposes significant burdens on physicians, particularly sole practitioners, and those practicing in small groups.'

Since most personal health information is already protected by HIPAA, including as modified by the HITECH Act, medical associations argue that the additional privacy safeguards imposed by RFR are simply not necessary.  In addition, the American Bar Association succeeded in excluding lawyers from RFR requirements.  Physicians argue that the exemption of lawyers should apply to healthcare professionals.

We will keep you posted regarding any developments in this case.  However, until the court rules on the AMA's motion, healthcare organizations should remember the June 1, 2010 enforcement date for the Red Flags Rule.  Click here for more information regarding the RFR requirements, but keep in mind the new enforcement date of June 1, 2010.

"Lawsuit: Red Flags Rule Violates Doctor/Patient Relationship," Health Data Management (May 21, 2010).

Connecticut radiologist breaches privacy of hundreds

HealthImaging.com reported yesterday that a Connecticut radiologist, previously affiliated with the Griffin Hospital in Derby, Conn. "accessed patient radiology reports on the hospital's PACS using the passwords of other radiologists and an employee within the radiology department. The passwords were obtained and/or used without their knowledge." From HealthImaging.com:

From the investigation conducted by Griffin, it appears the radiologist who gained unauthorized access scanned the PACS directory listings of 957 patients who had radiology studies performed at Griffin during the period and selected and downloaded the image files of 339 of these patients.

On and after Feb. 26, Griffin received inquiries on behalf of patients regarding unsolicited contact by the physician who offered to perform professional services at another area hospital despite the patients' interest in having those services provided at Griffin. The inquiries prompted the investigation that revealed unauthorized intrusions into Griffin's PACS and, thereby, the breach of protected patient health information.

This should serve as a reminder for healthcare providers regarding maintaining the safeguards necessary to prevent wrongful access to patient data.  For example, and there is no indication that this is what occurred in this case, clinicians and other hospital staff should not keep their system passwords on sticky notes next to or on their monitors.  Even if you believe that everyone in your office is fully trustworthy, you never know who can get a hold of such restricted information as usernames and passwords.  The reputational and financial damage to your organization could be very substantial; and your contract with the PACS system vendor is unlikely to indemnify or protect you from such losses.

"Radiologist breaches data, images of nearly 1,000 patients via PACS," HealthImaging.com (March 31, 2010).

In the news: medical ID theft on the rise; CHIME comments on meaningful; and more

  • Javelin Strategy & Research survey found over 275,000 cases of medical identity theft in 2009, with an average price tag greater than $12,000 per incident.  This is twice as many cases as in 2008.  Keeping health information safe is going to be of paramount importance in the next decade, especially considering the steep rise in use of electronic health records. According to Computerworld.com (citing a study by IDC, a research firm), "about a quarter of all Americans -- 77 million people -- already have an EHR, up from 14% from in 2009." By 2015, experts believe the number will reach up to 60%, partially due to the transformation of the health IT industry by the HITECH Act.
  • In its comments to CMS regarding the meaningful use NPRM, College of Healthcare Information Management Executives (CHIME) insisted that the present "all or nothing" approach to achieving meaningful use is going to prevent significant numbers of eligible providers from receiving any incentive payments under the HITECH Act.  According to American Medical News:

Among CHIME's suggestions: a gradual implementation process that would allow physicians to qualify for incentives by achieving 25% of meaningful use objectives by 2011, 50% by 2013, 75% by 2015, and 100% by 2017.

'Without an approach that rewards progress or provides sufficient time, organizations with limited resources will likely have little chance of qualifying for payments, thus widening the 'digital divide' in the country,' CHIME wrote.

  • U.S. Senate passed a bill which, if approved by the House and signed by the President, would limit the definition of "hospital-based" eligible professionals to just those practicing in an inpatient or emergency room hospital setting.  If passed, this change would make the Medicare and Medicaid EHR incentive payments available to a far wider range of eligible professionals.
  • CCHIT may be getting some competition from the Drummond Group, which announced plans to become an ONC-authorized certifying body of EHR technology (ONC-ATCB).

"U.S. Senate backs expanded physician eligibility for MU," HealthImaging.com (March 11, 2010).

"Drummond Group in EHR testing for the 'long term'," Healthcare IT News (March 12, 2010).

"Patient Billed for Liposuction as Medical Theft Rises," Bloomberg.com (March 23, 2010).

"As health data goes digital, security risks grow," Computerworld.com (March 22, 2010).

"EMR meaningful use rules warrant gradual approach," American Medical News (March 17, 2010).

In the news: Privacy breaches and de-identification

  • According to LA Weekly, Huping Zhou, a former employee at the UCLA Healthcare System, pleaded guilty to federal charges of breaches of patient privacy.  Zhou, 48, accessed the UCLA patient records system 323 times during the three-week period, mostly looking for the files of celebrities, after being let go by the hospital. Names of targeted celebrities have not been revealed.  This case follows a similar breach at UCLA Medical Center, when Lawanda Jackson, a former nurse at the Center, plead guilty to wrongfully accessing information of Britney Spears and Farrah Fawcett.
  • Delaware Online reports about a new unfortunate trend in medical identity theft -- searching for copies of discarded prescriptions:  "In the latest crime trend to hit Delaware, police are reporting that people looking for drugs such as Oxycontin and Vicodin are stalking customers who throw away prescription bags containing paperwork with details about their pills and themselves. They use the personal information to call in prescriptions and charge them to the victims' insurance. Then they turn around and sell the drugs."  According to Bruce DiVincenzo, chief agent of Delaware's Office of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs:

They're making their own scripts by ordering paper from the Internet," he said. "It's the patient's name that they want, because that person is actively listed as a customer of the pharmacy and will not raise suspicion."

Pharmacies like CVS and Happy Harry's (a subsidiary of Walgreens) take certain precautions to prevent such identity theft, including checking ID's before filling prescriptions and reminding customers to be careful with their receipts and copies of prescriptions.

  • According to Washington Technology, HHS is looking for a contractor to research the effectiveness of "de-identifying" PHI:

Under this new contract, HHS will research re-identifying the data and matching it to a specific individual.

'The contractor shall take one or more HIPAA Privacy Rule de-identified data sets and, using methods and technologies that exclude 'brute force' matching, demonstrate the ability or inability to re-identify the data,' the notice states.

The re-identification must be an accurate and unambiguous match to an individual.

"Former UCLA Health Worker Pleads Guilty To Accessing Celebrities' Medical Records," LA Weekly (January 8, 2010).

"Delaware crime: Trash-picking identity theft targets pharmacy customers," Delaware Online (January 6, 2009).

"HHS wants contractor to test privacy of 'anonymous' data," Washington Technology (January 5, 2010).

Identity thieves target victims of accidents at a medical center in Nevada

This article serves as a great reminder about the importance of safeguarding your patients' data, both from thieves outside and, unfortunately, from within the organization.  Via Las Vegas Sun:

Private information about accident victims treated at University Medical Center has apparently been leaking for months, the Sun has learned, allegedly so ambulance-chasing attorneys could mine for clients.

Sources say someone at UMC is selling a compilation of the hospital’s daily registration forms for accident patients. This is confidential information — including names, birth dates, Social Security numbers and injuries — that could also be used for identity theft.

Hospital officials knew of rumors of the leaks since the summer, but doubted them until provided evidence Thursday by the Sun. Now they’re scrambling to catch up to a crisis that may affect hundreds, if not thousands, of patients.

The full article is available here.

"UMC has patient privacy leak," Las Vegas Sun (November 20, 2009).

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).

HIT Standards Committee endorses privacy and security standards

On September 15, 2009, the HIT Standards Committee endorsed a set of privacy and security standards for electronic health record systems. 
These standards will be recommended to Dr. David Blumenthal, the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, as a basis for establishing the privacy and security criteria for, inter alia, "certified EHR technology" as defined under the HITECH Act.  Eligible healthcare providers must meet the criteria for "meaningful use" of "certified EHR technology" in order to qualify for significant incentives available under the HITECH Act.

The committee’s Privacy and Security Workgroup included access control, authentication, authorization and transmission of health data among the requirements that electronic health record systems must include by 2011 in order to meet the definition of "certified EHR technology."   Specifically for 2011, the Standards Committee approved the Workgroup's recommendation to require certified products to provide the capabilities necessary to support the HIPAA and ARRA security and privacy requirements and best practices for “meaningful use.”  The endorsed privacy and security standards will become more rigorous in 2013 and 2015.

You can find the spreadsheet of endorsed privacy and security standards here.

You can also view the presentation from the Workgroup here.

"Federal panel okays EHR security, privacy standards," Government Health IT (September 15, 2009).

 

 

New York Times reports on privacy concerns about use of de-identified health information

The New York Times reported on Americans' growing concern regarding commercial use of their personal health information, especially the use of re-identified prescription drugs information for marketing purposes.  

The article points out correctly that the Recovery Act of 2009 (ARRA) included a few key changes to the present privacy regime, which would make it more difficult for pharmacies and data mining companies to use patient information for marketing or fundraising purposes.  While the new law (and the upcoming applicable HHS regulations sanctioned by ARRA) will close a few loopholes in the current medical privacy regime, data mining companies like IMS Health and Verispan do not seem to be overly worried about these new developments:

The law won’t shut down the medical data mining industry, but there will be more restrictions on using private information without patients’ consent and penalties for civil violations will be increased. Government agencies are still writing new regulations called for in the law.  <...>

IMS Health reported operating revenue of $1.05 billion in the first half of 2009, down 10.6 percent from the period a year earlier. [An IMS representative] said he did not expect growing awareness of privacy issues to affect the business.

The Times article also touches on a few other important areas of concern for privacy advocates:  the effect of widespread adoption and use of electronic health records (EHR's) and personal health records (PHR's) on privacy and security of patients' protected health information.  

Interestingly, the article notes that while "Microsoft and WebMD acknowledge that the privacy rules in the stimulus law apply to them," "Google says the law’s prohibitions do not apply to it, except for its duty to report any breaches of medical privacy."  According to a Google spokeswoman, "Google is bound by the privacy policy that people agree to when they sign up."  Right after the enactment of the Recovery Act, Google claimed that the additional privacy rules included in the ARRA did not apply to its PHR products.  However, Google acknowledged the applicability of ARRA's data breach notification requirements a few months thereafter.  This quote in the Times may reintroduce, if not underscore, Google's ambiguous attitude toward applicability of the new privacy and security rules.

"And You Thought a Prescription Was Private," The New York Times (August 9, 2009).

 

 

LA Times reminds providers that patients are entitled to copies of their medical records

The Los Angeles Times reported on a story of a patient trying to obtain a copy of her blood tests from her doctor's office.  The office wanted to charge the patient $25 to retrieve the test results and send them to her via first-class mail (refusing to fax such results to her for free).

Under both HIPAA and California privacy laws, however, the patient was entitled to such records with only minimum administrative charges:

Most providers are required to follow both HIPAA and the California law, deferring to whichever offers greater consumer protection in cases where the laws differ. As a result, [this patient's] doctor had no legal basis for charging the $25 administrative fee for her lab results.

Under California law, healthcare providers are allowed to charge a fee for the cost of copying a patient's medical record and for the postage to mail it. But the cost cannot exceed 25 cents per page for photocopies and 50 cents per page for microfilm.

The law in California also permits doctors to charge a "retrieval fee" for locating patient records and for making them available. But HIPAA does not allow it. Because HIPAA offers consumers greater protection than California law in this area, doctors in the state cannot charge patients fees beyond those allowed for photocopying.

 

The doctor's office was also wrong about refusing to fax the test results to the patient, claiming it would violate patient confidentiality and potentially compromise the privacy and security of her information.

But under HIPAA, sending health information by fax is not prohibited. In addition, the law states that the provider must give patients the information they ask for in the format they request.

The full article is available here.

"Those Medical Tests Are Yours," Los Angeles Times (July 27, 2009).

Steve Fox on the ARRA privacy requirements

In an interview with Thompson's Compliance Information Center, Steve Fox urged healthcare providers to begin the compliance process to meet the new data privacy and security requirements imposed under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: 

“The main message for providers is that ARRA is not something they can wait until next year for,” said Steven J. Fox, Esq., a partner at the law firm Post & Schell in Washington D.C. and co-author of the Guide to Medical Privacy & HIPAA.  Although Fox does not advise covered entities to completely overhaul their HIPAA compliance programs before HHS issues regulations, he does say they should begin reviewing all of their current privacy and security policies and procedures and comparing them with the new ARRA requirements. Entities should conduct “a thorough self analysis to determine where they stand.

Covered entities also should train their staff so they understand the importance of privacy and security. Under ARRA’s new penalty provisions, there is an increased potential of significant fines being levied, so entities should prepare by readying their staff for new requirements.

“People need to be trained and retrained to understand how their jobs are changing” as a result of the ARRA privacy and security provisions, Fox said. But, he cautioned “it is premature to do an overhaul of training programs” right away. “Someone needs to revise the whole compliance training program to include all of the ARRA changes — but not too far in advance before the changes are required,” he said.

This interview also headlined IAPP's Daily Dashboard briefing on April 16, 2009.

 

This just in: New HHS guidance about securing protected information

From HHS:

On April 17, 2009, HHS issued guidance specifying the technologies and methodologies that render protected health information unusable, unreadable, or indecipherable to unauthorized individuals, as required by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act passed as part of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). This guidance was developed through a joint effort by OCR, the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC), and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

This guidance relates to two forthcoming breach notification regulations – one to be issued by HHS for covered entities and their business associates under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) (Sec. 13402 of HITECH) and one to be issued by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for vendors of personal health records and other non-HIPAA covered entities (Sec. 13407 of HITECH). HITECH requires these regulations to be published within 180 days of enactment. If the entities subject to the regulations apply the technologies and methodologies specified in the guidance to secure information, they will not be required to provide the notifications required by the regulations in the event the information is breached.

The Guidance can be viewed (in PDF) here.

In the news: CVS and Google; Connect Open Source Software; and more

  • CVS pharmacy customers now have the ability to download their prescription and medication histories to Google Health accounts after CVS and Google expanded their partnership.  Patients at CVS' walk-in MinuteClinics are also able to add summaries of their visits to their Google Health accounts.  It would be interesting to find out if CVS and Google ever executed a Business Associate Agreement.  After the enactment of the HITECH Act, Google famously maintained that its personal health records product is not a subject to the new legislation and certain privacy and security provisions under HIPAA.  ("CVS-Google Health pact now includes drugstores", AP, April 6, 2009.)
  • The federal government released Connect, and open source software which allows public and private entities to share health information via the National Health Information Network.  The source code is free to download (the code and its documentation are available here), but organizations choosing to acquire and use this product will be responsible for costs associated with the installation and maintenance of Connect.  The Social Security Administration, Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and the CDC are among the many government agencies using this software for health information exchange already.  ("NHIN software released to open-source community", Government Health IT, April 7, 2009.)

     

 

  • This Business Week article analyzes the various data privacy and security concerns facing health care providers and patients alike.  ("Putting Patient Privacy in Peril?", Business Week, April 6, 2009.)
  • The New York Times reports that New York-Presbyterian Hospital became "the first large institution to move beyond the pilot stage this week as it begins to offer consumer-controlled health records for patients... New York-Presbyterian has been working with Microsoft for more than a year, not only on technical matters but also ease-of-use concerns with patients. The introduction will be gradual, beginning with heart patients, who will be told of the potential benefits of personal health records when they visit a New York-Presbyterian hospital or outpatient clinics."  Once again, it would be very interesting to find out if NYB and Microsoft signed a Business Associate Agreement, or if Microsoft acknowledged whether it is now subject to certain privacy and security provisions under HIPAA.  ("A Hospital Is Offering Digital Records", New York Times, April 5, 2009.)