Posted by Health Law Informer Author
on March 21, 2016
HHS,
OCR /
No Comments
On consecutive days, the Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) of the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) recently announced two large HIPAA breach settlements. On March 16, 2016, OCR announced that it entered into a Resolution Agreement with North Memorial Health Care of Minnesota for $1.55 million plus a two-year corrective action plan. On March 17, 2016 OCR followed by announcing that Feinstein Institute for Medical research, a New York biomedical research institute, agreed to pay to OCR $3.9 million and enter into a three-year corrective action plan to settle potential HIPAA violations. Both cases resulted from the all too familiar scenario of breaches resulting from stolen, unencrypted laptops.
In the Minnesota hospital breach, the unencrypted laptop containing the PHI of over 9,000 individuals was stolen from the locked car of an employee of a business associate of the hospital. According to the OCR’s investigation, the hospital failed to have a business associate agreement in place with that particular business associate. OCR also alleged that the hospital had not previously performed a risk analysis to identify and address potential risks and vulnerabilities to the ePHI it maintained, accessed or transmitted.
In the New York research corporation breach, OCR alleged that the institution did not have policies and procedures in place, including a policy on encryption and one that addressed use and access of electronic devices (e.g., the removal of the devices from the institution’s facility), nor did it have in place a security management process that sufficiently addressed potential security risks and vulnerabilities to ePHI, namely, its confidentiality, vulnerability or integrity. Notably, the stolen, unencrypted laptop contained the PHI of approximately 13,000 individuals.
As above, both OCR settlements also include multiple year corrective action plans requiring the hospital and research facility to conduct risk analyses/assessments, train their employees, and have HIPAA compliant policies and procedures in place. The Resolution Agreement for the Minnesota hospital breach is available here, and the Resolution Agreement for the New York research institute breach is available here.
Takeaways: The OCR’s 2016 breach enforcement is off to a very strong start with two high dollar settlements. Lessons learned from both breaches include the significance of encrypting electronic devices, conducting and updating on a regular basis security risk assessments and analyses, having adequate safeguards in place to protect PHI, having business associate agreements with all business associates, and having and implementing HIPAA policies and procedures to protect the security and privacy of PHI, including for example, policies related to encryption, authorized access to ePHI/PHI, and removal of electronic devices from facilities.
For more information, contact Greg Fliszar, J. Nicole Martin, or a member of Cozen O’Connor’s Health Law team.
About The Authors
Tags: breach, Business Associate, Business Associate Agreement, corrective action plan, covered entity, encryption, ePHI, HHS, HIPAA, laptop, OCR, PHI, policies and procedures, resolution agreement, risk analysis, risk assessment, settlement, unencrypted
Posted by Health Law Informer Author
on November 20, 2015
Federal Trade Commission,
FTC,
HIPAA /
No Comments
Last June we wrote about the FTC’s enforcement action against LabMD, a medical testing laboratory, which was forced to wind down its business because of the costs associated with challenging the FTC since 2013. Using its broad enforcement authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act, the FTC alleged that LabMD failed to “provide reasonable and appropriate security for personal information on its computer networks,” which the FTC claimed lead to the data of thousands of consumers being leaked.
On November 13, 2015, Chief Administrative Law Judge D. Michael Chappell ruled in favor of LabMD, dismissing the FTC’s complaint because the FTC “fail[ed] to prove that [LabMD’s] alleged unreasonable data security caused, or is likely to cause, substantial consumer injury, as required by Section 5(n) of the FTC Act, [LabMD’s] alleged unreasonable data security cannot properly be declared an unfair act or practice in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act.” Notably, Judge Chappell concluded that Continue reading…
About The Author
Tags: breach, ePHI, file sharing, HHS, OCR, peer-to-peer, practice, risk assessment, safeguards, security practices, unfair act
Posted by Health Law Informer Author
on September 03, 2015
HHS,
HIPAA,
OCR /
No Comments
In August 2012, a Physician Group—comprising of nearly 20 physicians—reported its HIPAA breach to HHS, which resulted from a laptop bag containing the employee’s laptop and a computer server backup being stolen from an employee’s car in July 2012. According to the Resolution Agreement between HHS and the Physician Group, the laptop did not contain ePHI, but the portable, unencrypted server backup in the employee’s bag did. The backup contained ePHI for 55,000 individuals. To settle this matter, the Physician Group has agreed to pay $750,000.
Although stolen laptops and lack of encryption is nothing new in the world of HIPAA breaches, this situation stands out for a few reasons:
- The Physician Group did not conduct “an accurate and thorough” risk assessment;
- The significance of encryption extends not only to desktop computers and laptops, but also to portable devices, including but not limited to computer server backups; and
- This is a notable fine for a Physician Group of less than 20 physicians.
For more information regarding this incident and HIPAA compliance, including the importance of encryption and risk assessments, contact J. Nicole Martin or any member of Cozen O’Connor’s healthcare law team.
About The Author
Tags: breach, computer server, encryption, ePHI, HIPAA, laptop, physician group, Security Rule
Posted by Health Law Informer Author
on December 04, 2014
CMS,
HHS,
HIPAA,
OIG /
No Comments
On October 31, 2014, The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) released its Work Plan for fiscal year (FY) 2015. The Work Plan summarizes “new and ongoing reviews of activities that OIG plans to pursue with respect to HHS programs and operations during the current fiscal year and beyond.” In the Work Plan OIG identified several areas related to HIPAA and/or information technology that it will examine and address during FY 2015.
As a new addition to the Work Plan, OIG will determine the extent to which hospitals comply with the contingency requirements of HIPAA. HIPAA’s Security Rule requires covered entities and their business associates to have in place a contingency plan that establishes policies and procedures for responding to an emergency or other event (such as, for example, natural disasters, system failures, terrorism) that damages systems containing electronic protected health information (ePHI). These policies and procedures must, at a minimum, include data backup plans, data recovery plans and plans to continue to protect the security of ePHI while operating in emergency operations mode. In the Work Plan OIG advises that it will compare contingency plans used by hospitals with government and industry recommended practices.
As part of the Work Plan, OIG will continue to examine whether the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) oversight of hospitals’ security controls over networked medical devices is sufficient to protect ePHI. The OIG noted that computerized medical devices such as dialysis machines, radiology systems and medication dispensing systems that use hardware, software and networks to monitor a patient’s condition and transmit and/or receive data using wired or wireless communications pose a growing threat to the security and privacy of personal health information.
OIG also plans to continue to perform audits of covered entities receiving incentive payments for the use of electronic health records (EHRs) and their business associates (including cloud providers) to determine whether they are adequately protecting ePHI created or maintained by certified EHR technology. In addition, OIG will review the adequacy of CMS’ oversight of states’ Medicaid system and information controls. Prior OIG audits found that states often fail to have in place adequate security features, potentially exposing Medicaid beneficiary information to unauthorized access.
As to future endeavors, the Work Plan stated that other areas under consideration for new work include the security of electronic data, the use and exchange of health information technology, and emergency preparedness and response efforts. In addition, OIG advises that in FY 2015 and beyond, it will continue to focus on IT systems security vulnerabilities in health care reform programs such as health insurance marketplaces.
About The Author
Tags: 2015, Business Associate, cms, covered entity, EHR, ePHI, health care reform, health insurance marketplace, HHS, HIPAA, medicaid, OIG, Security Rule, work plan
Posted by Health Law Informer Author
on July 29, 2014
HIPAA,
HITECH /
No Comments
Daily news stories about data breaches and enforcement actions seem to be the new norm, so it’s no surprise that people may start to believe that hackers have won the war and that no personal health information is safe. But exactly how many breaches have been reported in the last several years? And were the breaches the result of nefarious plots or just plain incompetence? About how many HIPAA investigations has the government actually launched?
Rest assured, Congress has been asking similar questions as well. The HITECH Act requires the Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to submit annual reports to Congress that provide contextualized information about incident rates and government action; OCR published its most recent two reports on Breaches of Unsecured Protected Health Information (Breach Report) and HIPAA Privacy, Security, and Breach Notification Rule Compliance (HIPAA Compliance Report). In addition to including cumulative data, the reports cover relevant activities that occurred between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2012. Continue reading…
About The Authors
Tags: breach, breach notification rule, Compliance, encryption, ePHI, HHS, OCR, Privacy Rule, Security Rule
Posted by Health Law Informer Author
on June 10, 2014
FTC,
HIPAA /
No Comments
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is not the only government arm that enforces data breaches. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has broad authority to regulate the security of consumer information and hold companies liable for a failure to use adequate data security practices. In August 2013, the FTC targeted LabMD, a medical testing laboratory, which maintains personal financial and health information for nearly one million consumers. The FTC alleged that LabMD failed to “provide reasonable and appropriate security for personal information on its computer networks,” which resulted in the data of thousands of consumers being leaked on to the peer-to-peer file-sharing network LimeWire, the black-market and in the hands of illegal data brokers.
Until recently the FTC enforced its breach authority under the Act without pushback, so a company facing allegations would simply settle. However, LabMD became the second company to challenge the FTC’s enforcement of data breaches (a hotel chain company was the first to challenge the FTC’s authority). LabMD attempted to stop the investigation by filing appeals to federal district and appellate courts and the FTC. The appeals were based primarily on two arguments: (i) the FTC does not have the statutory authority to set data security standards for companies; and (ii) LabMD is already subject to the OCR’s enforcement authority under HIPAA’s security regulations, so it should not also be subject to the FTC’s enforcement authority.
Despite LabMD’s best efforts, two Eleventh Circuit judges refused to intervene before the FTC issued its final order, the FTC rejected LabMD’s motion to dismiss and it moved forward with the administrative proceedings. However, LabMD continues to fightback. Recently, LabMD filed a motion to dismiss with the FTC, and contended that the FTC had not proven that the data breach caused injury, specifically, that it did not present evidence that there was substantial harm or likely to be substantial harm to consumers as a result of the breach.
During trial, Michael Daugherty, CEO of LabMD, testified that the effect of the FTC’s allegations and subsequent probe has placed the company in a “very deep coma” and that he “can’t understate how damaging and confusing and sideswiping [the matter is] to the attitude, energy and morale of [LabMD’s] management staff.”
Interestingly, the trial has been on recess since May 30 when the administrative law judge delayed the proceeding until June 12 in response to an announcement that the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform was investigating Tiversa Inc., the cyber-intelligence firm that played a central role in the FTC’s case against LabMD. In a separate lawsuit, LabMD is alleging that Tiversa provided the FTC with patient information files that it stole from LabMD.
When trial resumes on June 12, the focus will continue to be on whether LabMD’s data security standards that it used to protect consumers’ personal information were reasonable. It will be interesting whether developments from the Tiversa investigation impact the outcome of the trial. For more information about this proceeding go to the FTC website.
Practice Tip: Ensure that your security policies and procedures are being implemented and followed in accordance with HIPAA security requirements because inadequate security safeguards may lead to enforcement actions by the OCR and the FTC.
About The Authors
Tags: breach, ePHI, file sharing, HHS, OCR, peer-to-peer, risk assessment, safeguards, security practices, unfair act or practice
Posted by Health Law Informer Author
on May 28, 2014
HIPAA /
No Comments
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) settled for the collective amount of $1,975,220 with Concentra Health Services (Concentra) and QCA Health Plan, Inc. (QCA). The settlements stem from OCR investigations in 2011 and 2012 related to each of the companies reporting a single stolen laptop; Concentra also had a laptop stolen in 2009.
In its press release, HHS stated that after further investigating Concentra it found that Concentra was aware prior to the most recent laptop theft that not all of its laptops, desktop computers, medical equipment, tablets and other devices that contained ePHI were encrypted. But despite Concentra’s discoveries as a result of risk analyses that it had conducted, it failed to remedy the critical risks and did not encrypt all of the devices. OCR also found that Concentra had insufficient security management processes. OCR’s investigation of QCA revealed that in addition to the unencrypted laptop, QCA failed to comply with numerous HIPAA privacy and security requirements for several years.
Susan McAndrew, OCR’s Deputy Director of Health Information Privacy, reiterated the significance of encryption and the obligations of covered entities and business associates to adequately secure mobile devices when she stated that OCR’s message to covered entities and business associates is simple: “encryption is your best defense against these incidents.” Ms. McAndrew’s statement is significant and a shift from the view that although security is an obligation, encryption is not required under the HIPAA Security Rule. In light of these two settlements and the Deputy Director’s commentary it is evident that OCR views encryption as an essential security safeguard for laptops, desktop computers, medical equipment, tablets and other mobile devices. In light of these two settlements and the Deputy Director’s commentary it is evident that OCR views encryption as an essential security safeguard for laptops, desktop computers, medical equipment, tablets and other mobile devices.
Concentra has agreed to pay HHS a monetary settlement of $1,725,220 and QCA has agreed to pay $250,000. Both entities have also agreed to each undertake a corrective action plan (CAP), which CAPs include risk analyses, development of risk management plans, policy and procedure revisions, staff training and certification of staff training. Concentra’s CAP contains more onerous requirements, including the continued submission of additional documents, reports and encryption status updates to HHS. Concentra’s CAP may be more extensive than QCA’s because it already had a laptop that contained ePHI stolen in 2009 and because it failed to remedy the encryption issue it discovered during the risk analyses it performed prior to the second laptop being stolen. OCR also noted that QCA did encrypt its devices after the laptop was stolen and it discovered the breach.
For more information about the settlements and the CAPs, see the Concentra Resolution Agreement and the QCA Resolution Agreement.
Practice Tip: Audit your encryption policies and practices for all mobile devices to adequately secure your company’s mobile devices.
About The Authors
Tags: breach, corrective action plan, encryption, ePHI, HHS, OCR, risk assessment, Security Rule, self-disclosure, self-report, technical safeguards
Posted by Health Law Informer Author
on May 23, 2014
HIPAA /
No Comments
In the largest HIPAA enforcement action to date, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) extracted $4.8 million from two leading New York institutions, New York-Presbyterian Hospital (NYP) and Columbia University (CU), despite NYP and CU’s self-disclosure of the breach. OCR charged NYP and CU jointly with failing to secure 6,800 patients’ electronic protected health information (ePHI), which resulted in a 2010 breach. NYP and CU did not learn of the breach until a complaint was filed by a representative of a deceased former NYP patient whose ePHI was found on the Internet. The patient data included status, vital signs, medications and laboratory results.
Larger, more frequent fines may be the new normal as OCR launches its major new audit program. In its press release, HHS wrote that “neither entity had conducted an accurate and thorough risk analysis that identified all systems that access NYP ePHI. As a result, neither entity had developed an adequate risk management plan that addressed the potential threats and hazards to the security of ePHI.” OCR has made clear that risk assessment will be a priority in the upcoming audits. OCR will not be satisfied with “glossy” HIPAA policies and procedures if they are not followed in practice.
To make the point even more explicit, Christina Heide, Acting Deputy Director of Health Information Privacy for OCR, said, “Our cases against NYP and CU should remind health care organizations of the need to make data security central to how they manage their information systems.”
OCR’s investigation began after NYP and CU self-disclosed an inadvertent leakage of certain ePHI to Internet search engines when a computer server was errantly reconfigured. The source of the breach was a CU physician who had tried to deactivate a personally owned computer server on the network containing information on hospital patients. NYP and CU failed to implement technical safeguards for the deactivation of computer servers, so the attempted deactivation resulted in ePHI being posted online.
NYP has agreed to pay HHS a monetary settlement of $3.3 million and CU has agreed to pay $1.5 million. Both entities have also agreed to each undertake a substantive corrective action plan (CAP), which includes a risk analysis, development of a risk management plan, policy and procedure revisions, staff training and regular progress reports. For more information about the settlements and the CAPs, see the NYP Resolution Agreement and the CU Resolution Agreement.
HIPAA Practice Tip: Now is the time to ensure that your HIPAA policies and procedures are being implemented and followed.
About The Authors
Tags: breach, corrective action plan, ePHI, HHS, OCR, risk assessment, Security Rule, self-disclosure, self-report, technical safeguards