Study: Most data breaches are caused by insiders

Posted on September 7, 2011 by Steve Fox and Vadim Schick

A survey by Veriphyr, a provider of identity and access intelligence solutions, found that insiders were responsible for over 60% of data breaches of protected health information (PHI). Specifically, 35% of the PHI breaches were due to insiders' snooping into medical records of fellow employees, and 27% due to improper access to records of their friends and relatives.

Over 70% of surveyed entities, which included hospitals and other heathcare providers, reported suffering one or more breaches within the last 12 months. Veriphyr CEO estimated that data breaches cost healthcare organizations almost $6 billion annually, but found that an overwhelming majority of privacy and compliance officers within the surveyed group (79%) felt that they lacked "adequate controls to detect PHI breaches in a timely fashion."

It is worth noting that 45% of breaches in the survey were caused by loss or theft of medical records and/or equipment holding such records. We have recently seen HHS impose a $1 million fine on Massachusetts General Hospital in a case where, it seems, records were lost by an employee due to a simple mistake and with no malice. UCLA Health System also paid a high price for its employees' snooping into medical records of celebrities.

While it is difficult to anticipate or avoid all possible human error, certain best practices - including Board and executive-level support for privacy initiatives, staff training and updated privacy and security policies and procedures, will go a long way to help your organization protect itself from a disastrous and costly data breach.

"Insiders responsible for majority of privacy breaches, survey finds," Healthcare IT News (August 30, 2011).

 

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

UCLA Health System reaches $865,500 settlement with OCR

Posted on July 7, 2011 by Steve Fox and Vadim Schick

On July 6, 2011, the University of California at Los Angeles Health System (UCLAHS) reached a settlement with HHS's Office of Civil Rights (OCR) regarding UCLAHS's potential violations of HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules. The settlement includes a payment of $865,500 and a corrective action plan (CAP). 

According to the HHS press release, this settlement "resolves two separate complaints filed with OCR on behalf of two celebrity patients who received care at UCLAHS. The complaints alleged that UCLAHS employees repeatedly and without permissible reason looked at the electronic protected health information of these patients. OCR’s investigation into the complaints revealed that from 2005-2008, unauthorized employees repeatedly looked at the electronic protected health information of numerous other UCLAHS patients."

We reported on possible privacy violations at UCLA Health System before. Specifically, in May 2010, we wrote about Huping Zhou, a UCLAHS employee who was the first person to receive a criminal conviction for a HIPAA violation. It is not surprising that OCR stressed the importance of training staff in prevention of such privacy violations in the CAP required by the settlement. The CAP "requires UCLAHS to implement Privacy and Security policies and procedures approved by OCR, to conduct regular and robust trainings for all UCLAHS employees who use protected health information, to sanction offending employees, and to designate an independent monitor who will assess UCLAHS compliance with the plan over 3 years."

Via HHS press release:

Through policies and procedures, entities covered under HIPAA must reasonably restrict access to patient information to only those employees with a valid reason to view the information and must sanction any employee who is found to have violated these policies.

<...> Covered entities need to realize that HIPAA privacy protections are real and OCR vigorously enforces those protections. Entities will be held accountable for employees who access protected health information to satisfy their own personal curiosity,” said Director Verdugo.

Covered entities are responsible for the actions of their employees. This is why it is vital that trainings and meaningful policies and procedures, including audit trails, become part of the everyday operations of any health care provider,” said OCR Director Georgina Verdugo. “Employees must clearly understand that casual review for personal interest of patients’ protected health information is unacceptable and against the law.”
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Audit criticizes OCR and ONC over data privacy efforts

Posted on May 19, 2011 by Steve Fox and Vadim Schick

HHS's own Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a scathing report regarding pervasive breaches in privacy and security of patient data. OIG specifically called out the Office of Civil Rights (OCR), charged with enforcement of HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules, for failing to investigate and punish the vast majority of violators.

The audit tested seven hospitals' compliance with HIPAA in seven different states, and found 151 vulnerabilities in the systems and controls intended to cover e-PHI, 124 of which were categorized as "high-impact" (i.e., ones which may result in costly losses, injury or death.)  Violations included unencrypted wireless connections, easy passwords, and even a taped-over door lock on a room used for data storage. Via Modern Healthcare:

The audits of the seven hospitals revealed weaknesses in hospital IT defenses of electronic protected health information, or ePHI, ranging from the fact that several hospitals still were using obsolete and vulnerable encryption protocols to the fact that all seven had vulnerable access controls in which “Outsiders or employees at some hospitals could have accessed, and in one hospital did access, systems and beneficiaries' personal data and performed unauthorized acts without the hospitals' knowledge.”

“These vulnerabilities placed the confidentiality, integrity and availability of ePHI at risk,” the auditors said. The individual hospital audit reports were not disclosed “because the reports contained restricted, sensitive information that may be exempt from release under the Freedom of Information Act,” according to the report.

 

OIG also criticized the Office of National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC) for their failure to develop standards ensuring privacy and security of patient data as part of ARRA's push for digitizing medical records:

As a yardstick for ONC performance as a security champion, the inspector general's auditors reviewed last year's ONC-developed interim final rule and final rule on standards, implementation specifications and certification criteria for the ARRA-funded electronic health record system incentive payment program. The auditors found both wanting.

The report's authors differentiated between two types of security measures. One they described as “application security controls” that “function inside systems or applications to ensure that they work correctly.” Such measures include security controls covered by the ONC final rule and used in testing and certification of electronic health-record systems as able to meet meaningful-use requirements for providers participating in the federal IT incentive payment programs. An example is a requirement that certified EHRs be able to encrypt data shared between providers.

The auditors called the other type of measures “general information technology security controls,” described as “structure, policies and procedures that apply to an entity's overall computer operation.”

An example would be a policy that requires providers to use encryption software on their systems and encrypt all data copied from an EHR and placed on a portable storage device, such as a laptop, CD or a portable thumb drive. The auditors found that the ONC had included application controls in writing its interoperability specifications for meaningful use, but that "there were no (health IT) standards that included general IT security controls.”

Other examples of general controls not addressed by the ONC but suggested for development by the report would be requirements that providers use two-factor authentication to gain access to an organization's health IT system and policies that mandate that organizations install “patches” or bug fixes in a routine and timely manner to computers that process and store EHRs.

"Audit reports hit HHS on digital security," Modern Healthcare (May 17, 2011).

 
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Updates to privacy and security regulations expected soon

Posted on May 16, 2011 by Steve Fox and Vadim Schick

According to Healthcareinfosecurity.com, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) is still working on the final rule regarding the updates to HIPAA and the related HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules mandated by the HITECH Act. Susan McAndrew, deputy director for health information privacy at OCR, stated at a conference in Washington, DC, that such changes will be contained in one omnibus regulation and is expected to be published in a matter of months, if not weeks.

Such omnibus regulation will cover:

  • HITECH Act-mandated modifications to the HIPAA privacy, security and enforcement rules. These changes, for example, formalize higher penalties for HIPAA violations and make it clear that business associates must comply with HIPAA. Last December, HHS had indicated in its semi-annual regulatory agenda that the final HIPAA modifications, many of which were issued in preliminary form last year, would be completed by March.
     
  • The breach notification rule. An interim final version is already in effect. OCR yanked a proposed final version of the rule last year for further consideration. Some observers speculated that the office may be reconsidering the controversial "harm standard" in the interim final version of the rule, which enables organizations to conduct a risk assessment to determine whether a security incident represents a significant risk of harm and thus merits reporting.
     
  • Privacy provisions under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. These provisions will formalize that using genetic information for insurance underwriting purposes is a privacy violation as well as a non-discrimination violation, McAndrew said.

 

Ms. McAndrew also indicated that "a notice of proposed rulemaking revealing a proposal for accounting for disclosures of information in electronic health records "probably" would be issued before the omnibus set of final regulations. Once that notice is issued, OCR will accept comments before issuing a proposed rule."

"HITECH Mandated Regs Still in Works," Healthcareinfosecurity.com (May 11, 2011).

 
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cignet Health fined $4.3 million for HIPAA Privacy Rule violation

Posted on February 22, 2011 by Steve Fox and Vadim Schick

Cignet Health, a Maryland health plan and a HIPAA covered entity, has been fined $4.3 million for failing to produce health records upon request to 41 patients, and for failing to cooperate with OCR with the agency's investigation.  This is the very first civil money penalty (CMP) issued by HHS under the HIPAA Privacy Rule.

Via HHS Press Release:

In a Notice of Proposed Determination issued Oct. 20, 2010, OCR found that Cignet violated 41 patients’ rights by denying them access to their medical records when requested between September 2008 and October 2009. These patients individually filed complaints with OCR, initiating investigations of each complaint. The HIPAA Privacy Rule requires that a covered entity provide a patient with a copy of their medical records within 30 (and no later than 60) days of the patient’s request. The CMP for these violations is $1.3 million.

During the investigations, Cignet refused to respond to OCR’s demands to produce the records. Additionally, Cignet failed to cooperate with OCR’s investigations of the complaints and produce the records in response to OCR’s subpoena. OCR filed a petition to enforce its subpoena in United States District Court and obtained a default judgment against Cignet on March 30, 2010. On April 7, 2010, Cignet produced the medical records to OCR, but otherwise made no efforts to resolve the complaints through informal means.

 

 OCR also found that Cignet failed to cooperate with OCR’s investigations on a continuing daily basis from March 17, 2009, to April 7, 2010, and that the failure to cooperate was due to Cignet’s willful neglect to comply with the Privacy Rule. Covered entities are required under law to cooperate with the Department’s investigations. The CMP for these violations is $3 million.

“Covered entities and business associates must uphold their responsibility to provide patients with access to their medical records, and adhere closely to all of HIPAA’s requirements,” said OCR Director Georgina Verdugo. “The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will continue to investigate and take action against those organizations that knowingly disregard their obligations under these rules.”

Individuals who believe that a covered entity has violated their (or someone else’s) health information privacy rights or committed another violation of the HIPAA Privacy or Security Rule may file a complaint with OCR at http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/complaints/index.html.

A copy of the Notice of Proposed Determination and Notice of Final Determination can be found at http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy. Additional information about OCR’s enforcement activities can be found at http://www.hhs.gov/ocr.

 
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Updated: Slides from Webinar on HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules

Posted on October 7, 2010 by Steve Fox and Vadim Schick

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.

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

Rite Aid settles FTC and OCR privacy charges

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

The Rite Aid Corporation, the third largest pharmacy chain in the United States, reached a major settlement with both the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and HHS's Office of Civil Rights (OCR) regarding charges that Rite Aid violated federal privacy and security laws and regulations by failing to keep its customers' and employees' data safe. 

Rite Aid employees were reported to discard prescriptions and pill bottles containing sensitive patient data into the dumpsters behind various Rite Aid pharmacies, which were easily accessible to the public.  Such practices violate the HIPAA Privacy Rule, which requires covered entities to safeguard the privacy of patient information, even when such information is being destroyed.  Rite Aid's actions may also violate the company's own promises to their customers regarding keeping their health information private and secure (this broken promise being the basis for FTC's charges).

 

In addition, OCR and FTC found that Rite Aid:

  • failed to implement adequate policies and procedures to appropriately safeguard patient information during the disposal process;
  • failed to adequately train employees on how to dispose of such information properly;
  • failed to employ a reasonable process for discovering and remedying risks to personal information; and
  • did not maintain a sanctions policy for members of its workforce who failed to properly dispose of patient information.

Pursuant to their settlement with HHS, Rite Aid agreed to pay HHS a cool $1 million and agreed to implement a strong corrective action program (lasting 3 years) which includes:

  • Revising and distributing its policies and procedures regarding disposal of protected health information and sanctioning workers who do not follow them;
  • Training workforce members on these new requirements;
  • Conducting internal monitoring; and
  • Engaging a qualified, independent third-party assessor to conduct compliance reviews and render reports to HHS.

Finally, Rite Aid has also agreed to external independent assessments of its pharmacy stores’ compliance with the FTC consent order, which will be in place for 20 years.

FTC and OCR have previously filed charges against CVS Caremark, another major pharmacy chain which was reported to engage in similar violations to Rite Aid's.  

The current economic conditions require most organizations to do more with less. The unfortunate end result is that long term projects, such as major privacy and security compliance reviews and overhauls get postponed and overlooked.  Rite Aid and CVS cases should remind covered entities and other organizations responsible for keeping patient information safe that neglect or procrastination with regard to privacy policies and practices can lead to major fines, PR embarrassments and excessive compliance and legal costs. 

It is also key to remember that your organization must comply with its own privacy policies and procedures -- otherwise, FTC can charge your organization for "false promises," as was the case with Rite Aid.  In order to comply with such policies, however, your organization must train the staff about the critical importance of privacy.  Without such training, all the policies and procedures will be rendered entirely ineffective.

You can read the full OCR press release by clicking here.

You can read the full FTC press release by clicking here.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

HLM: OCR to release privacy and security rules in two weeks

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

Via Health Leaders Media:

OCR will release proposed rules later this month [or 'about two weeks or around June 26th'] on most of the HIPAA privacy and security-related provisions in HITECH, according to the North Carolina Healthcare Information and Communications Alliance (NCHICA).

<...> NCHICA reports the proposed rules will not include accounting for disclosures, which will be the subject of a separate proposed rule. The NPRM will also include clarification regarding "willful neglect" (penalty tiers).

Currently, that represents the most egregious breach of unsecured PHI and can include a penalty of at least $1.5 million under new HITECH tiers in the enforcement final rule.

The state alliance also reports state attorneys general (SAG) are "developing training programs, including information for SAG staff, covered entities and business associates regarding HIPAA requirements and processes for filings with HHS, based on lessons learned from the first AG filing in Connecticut." Under HITECH, state AGs can pursue lawsuits for HIPAA violations, and Connecticut's AG was the first to do so.

OCR is expected to begin its HITECH-required compliance audits next year, the alliance reports. OCR's audits will be outsourced because its resources are limited, according to the e-mail.

"Much remains to be decided," Susan McAndrew, JD, deputy director for Health Information Privacy, for OCR, said in the "Quiz the Regulator" session on June 7.

"State Alliance: Proposed HITECH Regulations Coming in Two Weeks," Health Leaders Media (June 15, 2010).

Tags: , , , , , ,

OCR adds investigators to boost security rule enforcement

Posted on May 13, 2010 by Steve Fox and Vadim Schick

According to Health Data Management, Susan McAndrew, deputy director for privacy at the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announced at a recent conference that OCR added investigators to 10 regional offices in order to boost enforcement of HIPAA privacy and security rules. 

On August 3, 2009, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius transferred the responsibility for HIPAA Security Rule enforcement from CMS to OCR, which is now tasked with enforcement of both the HIPAA Security Rule and the HIPAA Privacy Rule.

While the transition from CMS to OCR "took longer than expected," Ms. McAndrew believes that OCR is finally in a position to increase enforcement efforts in order to realize the privacy and security initiatives enacted last year pursuant to the HITECH Act.

We’re hoping to move security to the forefront and make it a real partner with privacy in our enforcement... [and] that with additional feet on the ground, we’ll be able to do many more security cases as the year moves forward.

"OCR Boosting Security Enforcement," Health Data Management (May 12, 2010).

 

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

In the news: patient privacy edition

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

 
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

OCR delays enforcement of certain HITECH provisions

Posted on March 18, 2010 by Steve Fox and Vadim Schick

In a much-anticipated move, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) within the Department of Health and Human Services has issued an update regarding delays of certain HITECH provisions, while confirming enforcement of others.  Via OCR press release:

OCR will implement important privacy and security provisions of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act through notice and comment rulemaking, as required by the Administrative Procedure Act. These provisions include: business associate liability; new limitations on the sale of protected health information, marketing, and fundraising communications; and stronger individual rights to access electronic medical records and restrict the disclosure of certain information. OCR continues work on a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding these provisions. Although the effective date (February 17, 2010) for many of these HITECH Act provisions has passed, the NPRM and the final rule that follows will provide specific information regarding the expected date of compliance and enforcement of these new requirements.

However, interim final rules implementing HITECH Act provisions in two areas have already been issued and are currently in effect: enforcement and breach notification. New civil money penalty amounts apply to HIPAA Privacy and Security Rule violations occurring after February 17, 2009. Covered entities and business associates must comply now with breach notification obligations for breaches that are discovered on or after September 23, 2009. OCR announced previously that it would use its enforcement discretion not to impose fiscal sanctions with regard to breaches discovered before February 22, 2010. Since that date has passed, OCR will enforce the Breach Notification Interim Final Rule, including with the possible imposition of sanctions, as it does with the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rule requirements.

You can find about more here.

"HITECH Act Rulemaking and Implementation Update," OCR Press Release (March 18, 2010).

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

HHS begins enforcement of breach notification requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on February 23, 2010 by Steve Fox and Vadim Schick

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

Sebelius shifts responsibility for HIPAA Security Rule enforcement to OCR

Posted on August 4, 2009 by Steve Fox and Vadim Schick

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has delegated the responsibility for administration and enforcement of the HIPAA Security Rule to the Office of Civil Rights, a division of HHS.  Previously, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), another HHS division, was responsible for Security Rule administration, while OCR was tasked with administering and enforcing the HIPAA Privacy Rule.  Effective immediately, OCR is responsible for administering both Security  Rule and Privacy Rule, as well as all HIT privacy and security related provisions in the HITECH Act.

According to HHS, this move "will eliminate duplication and increase efficiencies in how the department ensures that Americans’ health information privacy is protected."  This transfer of authority is not meant to create any disruption of current procedures.  Consumers may continue to submit HIPAA security complaints using the on-line resource – the Administrative Simplification Enforcement Tool (ASET) -- which can be accessed here. New security complaints may also be sent to the Office for Civil Rights. 

You can find the Federal Register notice here.

"HHS Delegates Authority for the HIPAA Security Rule to Office for Civil Rights," HHS Press Release (August 3, 2009).

 

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