Health IT Law Blog : Health IT Law Blog : Post & Schell: Law Firm : HIT & Electronic Health Records

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).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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

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

You can view the NPRM by clicking here.

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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

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

• $250,000 fine to be paid to Connecticut;

• $500,000 contingency fund, to be paid to the state in the event it is determined that someone accessed the protected data on the lost disks; and

• a "corrective action plan" which is aimed to enhance security of protected data in possession of HealthNet and its parent companies.

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

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Breaches are not always caused by lost laptops or hackers.  They often result from simple errors by the hospital's or another provder's own staff.  In a very recent example, the California Department of Public Health found two instances of serious mishandling of protected patient information at Children's Hospital of Orange County.  Via Orange County Register:

In the first instance, the state found that after a doctor called to give the hospital a new fax number, patient records were instead sent to an auto business. Six faxes with health care information were picked up from the business, the report says.

A month later, the auto shop again notified the hospital that it had received a fax with a patient's name, date of birth and details of visits. The hospital discovered that the wrong fax number had not been changed in a data base.

Hospital staff said the breach would have been prevented if a test fax had been sent as required by hospital policy, the report said.

The other privacy breach occurred when the name of an emergency room patient's doctor was incorrectly entered into the system. Records were then faxed to the wrong doctor who notified the hospital.

CHOC is auditing its database to make sure information is accurate.

It is not clear whether CDPH is going to impose a fine on CHOC like the agency did earlier this month to five different hospitals. Regardless, this episode should serve as a great reminder for healthcare providers about how simple mistakes can lead to costly and highly embarrassing data breaches, especially in instances where the provider fails to adhere to its own privacy policy. 

"State blames CHOC in wrong-site surgery," Orange County Register (June 25, 2010).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Wall Street Journal devoted the front page of its "Marketplace" section to a report on Facebook's struggles with privacy advocates, regulators like FTC, and, at times, even its own employees.

The company can't afford not to act. The Federal Trade Commission is taking a close look at how online social networks are using people's data, and people close to the matter say it is increasingly focused on Facebook. <...>

A group of senators led by Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) called on Facebook to roll back the changes and more than a dozen privacy groups lodged a complaint with the FTC on grounds that Facebook was displaying user information without their consent.

Facebook faces a herculean task of keeping personal information of its 500 million subscribers private and secure.  Privacy is a major stumbling block for this young company, which hopes to earn billions in ad revenues by using the private data it collects from its subscribers. 

Facebook must clearly articulate to its subscribers the privacy risks and security settings available to them; but, ultimately -- as the clever someecard, above, suggests -- the best way to ensure the privacy of one's personal information is not to share it with the world, via Facebook or any other online social networking site.

"Facebook Grapples With Privacy Issues,"  Wall Street Journal (May 19, 2010).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Back in January, we wrote about Huping Zhou, a former employee at the UCLA Healthcare System, who 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.

On April 27, 2010, Zhou was sentenced to four months in prison after pleading guilty to four misdemeanor counts of HIPAA violations. Zhou is the first person ever sentenced to prison for violating HIPAA.  According to NBC Los Angeles:

Federal officials say Zhou is a licensed cardiothoracic surgeon in China. In 2003, he went to work for UCLA as a researcher with the UCLA School of Medicine. But his tenure was short and stormy. School officials notified him that he would be dismissed in October that year, and that's when federal officials say the snooping began.

In his plea agreement, Zhou admitted his actions, and that he had no legitimate reason for accessing the records. Federal authorities say there's no evidence that he did it for profit. Apparently, he just did it because he could.

"Former UCLA Healthcare Worker Sentenced to Prison for Snooping, " NBC Los Angeles (April 28, 2010).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Office of National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC) published on its web site a white paper analyzing the policies behind obtaining consent for the purposes of electronic health information exchange.  The paper examined the concept of patient control of their health information, focusing on "the issues, nuanced considerations, and possible tradeoffs associated with the various consent options to help facilitate informed decision making."  While the paper was written by researchers at the George Washington University, under contract with ONC, ONC clearly stated in the preamble that this white paper does not actually represent the views of the ONC or HHS.

You can find the full paper (and the attachments) by clicking here.  You can view the executive summary by clicking here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

• 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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There is little doubt that the healthcare industry must prepare for a growing number of - and expanding costs associated with - data breaches, particularly for breaches of protected health information.  Here are just a few notable reports on this subject:

• Infosecurity.com reported on a striking increase in attempts to hack into healthcare organizations, while the rate of hacking in other economic sectors remained flat:  "the last quarter of [2009] saw an average of 13 400 attempts to hack healthcare organizations, compared to an average of 6,500 in the first nine months."  According to researchers at SecureWorks, which produced the graph above, healthcare organizations are particularly vulnerable to such attacks because they "have to provide access to many external networks and web applications so as to stay connected with their patients, employees, insurers and business partners. This increases their risk to cyber attacks."

• Cnet News reported on similar findings by the Ponemon Institute, whose survey concluded that "Data breaches at U.S. companies attributed to malicious attacks and botnets doubled from 2008 to 2009 and cost substantially more than breaches caused by human negligence or system glitches."  The cost per compromised record involving a criminal act averaged $215, about 40% higher than breaches from negligence and 30% higher than those from glitches, the Ponemon survey found.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By popular demand, here is the video of David Pogue's report on the Obama Administration's efforts to digitize patient records in the U.S. 

Watch CBS News Videos Online

"Charting a New Course," CBS News (September 13, 2009).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

David Pogue, a reporter for the New York Times, posted the transcript of his interview with Dr. David Blumenthal, National Coordinator for Health IT. Mr. Pogue interviewed Dr. Blumenthal for a CBS news report on digitization of healthcare in America (the video is available after the jump).

Here are some highlights from the interview:

On current state of health IT in the US:

We found that about 17 percent of physicians in 2008 had adopted an electronic health record, and about ten percent of hospitals. <...> The rest is paper. It's basically the same system that physicians have used since Hippocrates, which is writing on some piece of paper.

On reimbursement penalties for those failing to achieve meaningful use by 2015:

From 2011 to 2015, there is a bonus. The Congress has put $45 billion on the table to ease physicians and hospitals into this new world of computerized medicine.After 2015, if you have not adopted, and you see Medicare or Medicaid patients, you may experience a penalty. 2015 is six years off. Six years is plenty of time for physicians to get themselves organized to put a record in place and avoid those penalties.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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

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

<...>

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

You can find the full text of the rule here.

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Healthcare providers are generally familiar with and are used to the complex network of state and federal data privacy protection laws (e.g., HIPAA and HIPAA Privacy and Security regulations).  However, most providers may not be aware of another set of data security standards, the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards (PCI DSS), imposed by a non-governmental, private organization representing the credit card industry.  

Contrary to popular belief, PCI standards apply to any processor of credit cards, regardless of volume of credit card transactions.  (However, PCI DSS differ based on each organization's transactions volume.)  In other words, if your healthcare enterprise or practice accepts credit cards as payment for services (which virtually all practices do), your organization is subject to PCI DSS.  

SC Magazine's recent contribution from Jim Lacy, CFO of healthcare IT company ZirMed, provides an excellent reminder for all healthcare providers accepting credit cards to take note of PCI DSS and begin the process of compliance with such standards.

A few lessons from Jim Lacy's piece and more after the jump.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The New York Times reported today on the growing threat posed to patients and consumers by medical identity theft.  The article rightfully notes that this threat may only become more prominent with the widespread adoption of electronic health records technology championed by the Obama Administration. 

According to the Times, over 250,000 Americans are victims of medical identity theft each year, and this number does not include those who are not yet aware that they are victims of such identity theft.  The article profiled one case of medical identity theft, that of Brandon Sharp, a 37-year-old manager at an oil and gas company in Houston:

In Mr. Sharp’s case, someone got hold of his name and Social Security number and used them to receive emergency medical services, which many hospitals are obliged to provide whether or not a person has insurance. Mr. Sharp still does not know whether he fell victim to one calamitous perp who ended up in several emergency rooms or a ring of accident-prone conspirators.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On June 4, 2009, Sears Holdings Corporation (Sears) settled its dispute with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regarding Sears's controversial online tracking software.  Sears paid its customers $10 to join "My SHC community" and download  software which would track participants' online behavior.  However, FTC alleged that Sears did not adequately disclose the enormous scope of information Sears collected on the participants:

<...> Sears represented to consumers that the software would track their “online browsing.” The FTC charges that the software would also monitor consumers’ online secure sessions – including sessions on third parties’ Web sites – and collect information transmitted in those sessions, such as the contents of shopping carts, online bank statements, drug prescription records, video rental records, library borrowing histories, and the sender, recipient, subject, and size for web-based e-mails. The software would also track some computer activities that were not related to the Internet.

Sears did disclose the full extent of what information it would monitor, but only "in a lengthy user license agreement, available to consumers at the end of a multi-step registration process", which the FTC deemed to be inadequate. 

Under the settlement, Sears is required to destroy the data collected under this program, and to "clearly and prominently disclose the types of data the software will monitor, record, or transmit" if Sears advertises or disseminates any tracking software in the future.  The FTC also required Sears to make such disclosure prior to installation of the software and separate from any user license agreement; and disclose whether any of the data will be used by a third party.

"Sears Settles FTC Charges Regarding Tracking Software", FTC press release (June 4, 2009).
"Sears settles with FTC in privacy flap", Reuters (June 4, 2009).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Deloitte published the results of its 2009 survey of more than 4,000 healthcare consumers, and the findings included some good news for the healthcare IT industry:

• 9% of consumers have an electronic personal health record (PHR), but 42% are interested in creating one connected online to their physicians.  This leaves much room for growth for companies like Microsoft and Google which offer a PHR product.
   
• 55% want the ability to communicate with their doctor via email to exchange health information and get answers to questions, and 57% would be interested in scheduling appointments, buying prescriptions and completing other transactions online if their information is protected.

• 4 in 10 favor increasing government funding and incentives to support adoption of electronic medical records by doctors, hospitals and health plans.

However, consumers remain worried about the privacy and security of their personal health information, with 38% of those surveyed being "very concerned" as opposed to 24% of those who are not concerned at all.  Sixty percent support government establishing standards "for how medical for how medical information is collected, stored, exchanged and protected." 

The full survey findings can be downloaded here.

"Deloitte Survey Finds Healthy Consumer Demand For Electronic Health Records, Online Tools and Services", PRNewswire.com, April 6, 2009.

"2009 Survey of Health Care Consumers: Key Findings, Strategic Implications", Deloitte Center for Health Solutions, released April 2009.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

• 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.)
  
   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Hospitals, multi-hospital systems, and integrated healthcare delivery systems are increasingly utilizing data-sharing technology to communicate with, and share documents among, their officers and directors. 

For example, some healthcare business enterprises use online services to upload documents to a “secure” Internet web site for Board members’ review prior to Board meetings, in lieu of sending out such documents via e-mail or in paper form. Healthcare business enterprises using such services need to be aware of many potential security and privacy risks inherent in transmitting, uploading and storing sensitive, confidential or even proprietary information via the Internet.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link