Healthcare Data Security

OIG Discovers Multiple Security Vulnerabilities in Alabama’s Medicaid Management Information System

Posted by HIPAA Journal

The HHS’ Office of Inspector General (OIG) has conducted a review of Alabama’s Medicaid data and information systems to ascertain whether the state was in compliance with federal regulations. The review covered the Medicaid Management Information System (MMIS) and associated policies and procedures. OIG also conducted a vulnerability scan on networked devices, databases, websites, and servers to identify vulnerabilities that could potentially be exploited to gain access to systems and sensitive data.

The audit revealed Alabama’s MMIS had multiple vulnerabilities that could potentially be exploited by hackers to gain access to its systems and Medicaid data.

Alabama had adopted a security program for its MMIS, although several vulnerabilities had been allowed to persist. OIG said in its report, the vulnerabilities were “collectively and, in some cases, individually significant.”

OIG did not uncover any evidence to suggest the vulnerabilities had already been exploited, although the vulnerabilities did place the integrity of the state Medicaid program at risk. By exploiting the vulnerabilities, unauthorized individuals could have gained access to the MMIS and viewed, altered, or stolen data. OIG concluded the state had not done enough to comply with federal regulations on data security.

Additionally, OIG auditors determined there was insufficient oversight of the state’s Medicaid fiscal agent, HP, to ensure that it had implemented appropriate security controls as was required by the terms of its contract.

Details of the vulnerabilities identified during the audit were not published, although Alabama was provided with a detailed report and was given several recommendations to improve data security. Alabama concurred with all the recommendations and has agreed to implement additional controls to better secure its information systems and Medicaid data and will address all of the identified vulnerabilities.

Alabama only objected to the title of the report – Alabama Did Not Adequately Secure Its Medicaid Data and Information Systems – commenting, “Alabama has always, and will continue to always, strive to secure its Medicare data and information systems.”

Since OIG identified multiple, significant vulnerabilities that could have led to the MMIS being compromised, the title of the report was not changed.

The post OIG Discovers Multiple Security Vulnerabilities in Alabama’s Medicaid Management Information System appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

Fall in Healthcare Data Breaches in August: Rise in Breach Severity

Posted by HIPAA Journal

Healthcare data breaches have fallen for the second month in a row, according to the latest installment of the Breach Barometer report from Protenus/Databreaches.net. In August, there were 33 reported healthcare data breaches, down from 36 incidents in July and 56 in June. While the reduction in data breaches is encouraging, that is still more than one healthcare data breach per day.

August may have been the second best month of the year to date in terms of the number of reported incidents, but it was the third worst in terms of the number of individuals impacted. 575,142 individuals were impacted by healthcare data breaches in July, with the figure rising to 673,934 individuals in August. That figure will rise further still, since two incidents were not included in that total since it is not yet known how many individuals have been affected.

The worst incident of the month was reported by Pacific Alliance Medical Center – A ransomware attack that impacted 266,133 patients – one of the worst ransomware incidents of the year to date.

Throughout the year, insider incidents have dominated the breach reports, although in July hacking was the biggest cause of PHI breaches. That trend has continued in August with hackers responsible for 54.5% of all reported data breaches. Those incidents accounted for 95% of all breached patient records in the month. The hacking totals also include phishing and ransomware incidents. There were at least five reported data breaches in August that involved ransomware.

In August, insiders were responsible for 9 incidents – 27.3% of the total – seven of which were insider errors, with two incidents due to insider wrongdoing. 15.2% of breaches were the result of the loss or theft of unencrypted devices containing PHI.

While breaches of electronic protected health information dominated the breach reports, there were six incidents reported that involved physical records, including two mailings in which PHI was visible through the clear plastic windows of the envelopes.

Protenus notes that while healthcare organizations appear to be getting better at discovering data breaches more quickly, the figures for the past two months may be misleading. Alongside the decrease in time taken to identify breaches there has been an increase in hacking incidents, which tend to be discovered faster than insider breaches.

Protenus explains, “For the month of August, time to discover a hacking incident took an average of 26 days (median = 22.5 days), while insider incidents took an average of 209.8 days (median = 115 days),” demonstrating the difficulty healthcare organizations have in detecting insider breaches.

Organizations are reporting breaches to HHS and notifying patients within 60 days of the discovery of a breach on the whole, with only three organizations exceeding the deadline. One of those entities took 177 days from the discovery of the breach to report the incident to HHS. The average time was 53 days and the median time was 58 days.

The breach reports followed a similar pattern to most months, with healthcare providers experiencing the majority of breaches (72%), followed by health plans (18.2%). Business associates reported 3% of breaches and 6% were reported by other entities, including a pharmacy and a private school. Texas was the worst affected state in August with five breaches, followed by California with four, and Ohio and New York with three apiece.

The post Fall in Healthcare Data Breaches in August: Rise in Breach Severity appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

FDA Releases Final Premarket Guidance for Medical Device Manufacturers on Secure Data Exchange

Posted by HIPAA Journal

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has released final guidance on medical device interoperability, making several recommendations for smart, safe, and secure interactions between medical devices and health IT systems.

The FDA says, “Advancing the ability of medical devices to exchange and use information safely and effectively with other medical devices, as well as other technology, offers the potential to increase efficiency in patient care.”

Providers and patients are increasingly reliant on rapid and secure interactions between medical devices. All medical devices must therefore be able to reliably communicate information about patients to healthcare providers and work seamlessly together. For that to be the case, safe connectivity must be a central part of the design process. Manufacturers must also consider the users of the devices and clearly explain the functionality, interfaces, and correct usage of the devices.

The guidelines spell out what is required and should help manufacturers develop devices that can communicate efficiently, effectively, and securely; however, the guidelines are only recommendations and are not legally enforceable. It is down to each manufacturer to ensure the recommendations are incorporated into the design of the devices.

FDA Associate Director for Digital Health, Bakul Patel, Patel explained in a recent blog post that the guidelines focus on three key areas: Ensuring interoperability is at the core of the design of their devices, that verification, validation and risk management activities are performed, and that the functional, performance, and interface characteristics of the devices are clearly specified to ensure users.

In terms of interoperability, the guidelines say, “In designing a medical device’s electronic interface, manufacturers should consider the level of interoperability needed to achieve the purpose of the interface, as well as the information necessary to describe the interface.”

Manufacturers should “address the risks associated with the anticipated users of the device, reasonably foreseeable misuse of the device, and reasonably foreseeable combinations of events that could result in a hazardous situation.”

Devices must also be clearly labelled to advise users of the functional, performance and interface characteristics, including explicit warnings against foreseeable uses that could result in harm.

Patel explained, the FDA’s main concern is safety. “Errors and inadequate interoperability, such as differences in units of measure (e.g., pounds vs. kilograms) can occur in devices connected to a data exchange system. Our guidance recommends appropriate functional, performance, and interface requirements for devices with such interactions.”

Manufacturers should be transparent about the functions and characteristics of the devices and their interfaces to ensure those using the devices with systems and devices can do so safely. If it is not clearly explained to users how the devices function and interface, this could potentially lead to devices malfunctioning, which would have an impact on patient safety. The guidelines say, “The manufacturer should determine the appropriate way to provide the information based upon the anticipated users and the risk analysis.”

Patel explained, “Our guidance is a good step towards safer devices, and we will continue to work with all stakeholders to adapt along with the technology.”

The final guidelines can be downloaded here.

The post FDA Releases Final Premarket Guidance for Medical Device Manufacturers on Secure Data Exchange appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

FDA Releases Final Premarket Guidance for Medical Device Manufacturers on Secure Data Exchange

Posted by HIPAA Journal

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has released final guidance on medical device interoperability, making several recommendations for smart, safe, and secure interactions between medical devices and health IT systems.

The FDA says, “Advancing the ability of medical devices to exchange and use information safely and effectively with other medical devices, as well as other technology, offers the potential to increase efficiency in patient care.”

Providers and patients are increasingly reliant on rapid and secure interactions between medical devices. All medical devices must therefore be able to reliably communicate information about patients to healthcare providers and work seamlessly together. For that to be the case, safe connectivity must be a central part of the design process. Manufacturers must also consider the users of the devices and clearly explain the functionality, interfaces, and correct usage of the devices.

The guidelines spell out what is required and should help manufacturers develop devices that can communicate efficiently, effectively, and securely; however, the guidelines are only recommendations and are not legally enforceable. It is down to each manufacturer to ensure the recommendations are incorporated into the design of the devices.

FDA Associate Director for Digital Health, Bakul Patel, Patel explained in a recent blog post that the guidelines focus on three key areas: Ensuring interoperability is at the core of the design of their devices, that verification, validation and risk management activities are performed, and that the functional, performance, and interface characteristics of the devices are clearly specified to ensure users.

In terms of interoperability, the guidelines say, “In designing a medical device’s electronic interface, manufacturers should consider the level of interoperability needed to achieve the purpose of the interface, as well as the information necessary to describe the interface.”

Manufacturers should “address the risks associated with the anticipated users of the device, reasonably foreseeable misuse of the device, and reasonably foreseeable combinations of events that could result in a hazardous situation.”

Devices must also be clearly labelled to advise users of the functional, performance and interface characteristics, including explicit warnings against foreseeable uses that could result in harm.

Patel explained, the FDA’s main concern is safety. “Errors and inadequate interoperability, such as differences in units of measure (e.g., pounds vs. kilograms) can occur in devices connected to a data exchange system. Our guidance recommends appropriate functional, performance, and interface requirements for devices with such interactions.”

Manufacturers should be transparent about the functions and characteristics of the devices and their interfaces to ensure those using the devices with systems and devices can do so safely. If it is not clearly explained to users how the devices function and interface, this could potentially lead to devices malfunctioning, which would have an impact on patient safety. The guidelines say, “The manufacturer should determine the appropriate way to provide the information based upon the anticipated users and the risk analysis.”

Patel explained, “Our guidance is a good step towards safer devices, and we will continue to work with all stakeholders to adapt along with the technology.”

The final guidelines can be downloaded here.

The post FDA Releases Final Premarket Guidance for Medical Device Manufacturers on Secure Data Exchange appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

Warning Issued About Vulnerabilities in Smiths Medical Medfusion 4000 Devices

Posted by HIPAA Journal

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has issued a warning about vulnerabilities in Smiths Medical Medfusion 4000 wireless syringe infusion pumps. The vulnerabilities could potentially be exploited by hackers to alter the performance of the devices.

Smiths Medical Medfusion 4000 devices are used to deliver small doses of medication and are used throughout the United States and around the world in acute care settings. Eight vulnerabilities have been identified in three versions of the wireless syringe infusion pumps (V1.1, v1.5 and v1.6), with CVSS v3 scores ranging from 3.7 to 8.1. The vulnerabilities could be exploited remotely, potentially causing harm to patients. Hackers could also exploit the vulnerabilities to gain access to other healthcare IT systems if the devices are not segmented on the network.

DHS says the impact to organizations depends on several factors, based on specific clinical usage and hospital’s operational environments. Six of the vulnerabilities relate to hard-coded passwords/credentials, certificate validation issues, and authentication gaps which could allow hackers to gain access to the devices. The other two vulnerabilities involve third-party components, although those vulnerabilities would be much harder to exploit.

Smiths Medical has reassured healthcare organizations that while the vulnerabilities could potentially be exploited, in a clinical setting this would be highly unlikely, explaining the exploit “requires a complex and an unlikely series of conditions.” Attackers would also require a high skill level to exploit the vulnerabilities in Smiths Medical Medfusion 4000 wireless syringe infusion pumps. ICS-CERT says there are no publicly known exploits targeting the vulnerabilities.

Smiths Medical has been working closely with DHS and will resolve the flaws, although the Plymouth, MN-based medical device manufacturer will not do so until the release of Medfusion 4000 v1.6.1 in January 2018.

In the meantime, healthcare organizations using vulnerable versions of the devices have been advised by Smiths Medical to take steps to reduce risk. Those steps include:

  • Assigning static IP addresses to the infusing pumps
  • Monitoring network activity for rogue DNS and DHCP servers
  • Ensuring network segments are installed and the devices are segregated from other parts of hospital networks. Hospitals have been advised to consider network micro segregation
  • Using network virtual local area networks (VLANs) for the segmentation
  • Adopting password best practices, such as setting strong passwords and not re-using passwords
  • Performing routine backups and evaluations.

ICS-CERT recommends disconnecting the devices from the network until the product fix is applied, although this would require the drug library to be updated manually on all devices.

ICS-CERT also recommends:

  • Closing Port 20/FTP, Port 21/FTP, and Port 23/Telnet if the devices need to be networked
  • Disabling the FTP server on the pumps
  • Closing all unused ports
  • Monitoring and logging all network traffic attempting to reach the affected products, including attempts on closed ports
  • Locating the devices behind firewalls
  • Using VPNs to connect to the devices if remote access is required, and to ensure the latest version of VPNs are installed.

The post Warning Issued About Vulnerabilities in Smiths Medical Medfusion 4000 Devices appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

NCCoE/NIST Release Draft Guidelines for Ransomware Recovery

Posted by HIPAA Journal

Draft guidelines for ransomware recovery have been issued by the National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence (NCCoE) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The guidelines – NIST Special Publication 1800-11 – apply to all forms of data integrity attacks.

SP 1800-11 is a detailed, standards-based guide that can be used by organizations of all sizes to develop recovery strategies to deal with data integrity attacks and establish best practices to minimize the damage caused and ensure a speedy recovery.

NIST says, “When data integrity events occur, organizations must be able to recover quickly from the events and trust that the recovered data is accurate, complete, and free of malware.”

NCCoE/NIST collaborated with cybersecurity vendors (GreenTec, HP, IBM, Tripwire, the MITRE Corporation and Veeam) to develop the guidelines, which will help organizations prepare for the worst and develop an effective strategy to recove from a cybersecurity event such as a ransomware attack. By adopting the best practices detailed in the guidelines, the recovery process should be smoother, critical business and revenue generating operations can be maintained, and enterprise risk can be effectively managed.

The NIST guidelines for ransomware recovery will help organizations prepare for an attack and develop strategies to allow them to restore data to the last known good configuration, identify the correct backup copies to use, and determine whether data have been altered or poisoned.

In the event of data alteration, organizations are shown how to identify the individual(s) who have altered data and determine the impact of data alteration on business processes. The guidelines also explain how businesses can ensure systems are free from malware during the recovery process.

The guidelines are split into three volumes: Volume A is an executive summary which is of particular relevance for business decision makers including CSOs and CISOs; Volume B outlines approach, architecture and security characteristics which will help technology and security program managers identify, understand, assess, and mitigate risk. Volume C includes how-to guides, including specific product installation, configuration, and integration instructions for a selection of software solutions and tools that can be used to help organizations recover from data integrity attacks.

The draft guidelines for ransomware recovery are open for comments and can be downloaded on this link.

The post NCCoE/NIST Release Draft Guidelines for Ransomware Recovery appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

OCR Stresses Need for Covered Entities to Prepare for Hurricanes and Other Natural Disasters

Posted by HIPAA Journal

Hospitals in Texas and Louisiana had to ensure medical services continued to be provided during and after Hurricane Harvey, without violating HIPAA Rules. Questions were raised about when it is permitted to share health information with patients’ friends and family, the media and the emergency services and how the Privacy Rule applies in emergencies. The Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights responded by issuing guidance to covered entities on the HIPAA Privacy Rule and disclosures of patient health information in emergency situations to help healthcare organizations protect patient privacy and avoid violating HIPAA Rules. Allowable disclosures are summarized in this document.

Hot on the heels of hurricane Harvey comes hurricane Irma, closely followed by hurricane Jose. Hospitals in other parts of the United States will have to cope with the storm and its aftermath and still comply with HIPAA Rules. OCR has taken the opportunity to remind covered entities of the need to prepare.

OCR has explained that the HIPAA Privacy Rule was carefully created to ensure that in emergency situations, healthcare organizations can protect the privacy of patients and still share individually identifiable health information.

OCR also reconfirmed that even in emergency situations, the HIPAA Security Rule is not suspended and preparation for emergencies is essential. HIPAA-covered entities and business associates are required to implement strategies to ensure ePHI remains secured at all times and the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of ePHI is not placed in jeopardy. During and after an emergency, ePHI must be accessible, which means covered entities must plan for all eventualities to ensure patient health information can always be accessed.

OCR explained that the HIPAA Security Rule – § 164.308(a)(7) – requires contingency plans to include a data backup plan, disaster recovery plan, and emergency mode operation plan. These are all required elements of the HIPAA Security Rule.

The data backup plan must ensure retrievable, exact copies of electronic protected health information are created and maintained. The disaster recovery plan must ensure any data lost during a natural disaster or emergency can be recovered from backups. Procedures must be established, and implemented as necessary, to ensure data can be quickly recovered. During emergency mode, security processes to protect ePHI must be maintained, even during power outages and technical failures.

Further, there are two addressable requirements: testing and revision procedures and application and data criticality analysis. Covered entities should periodically test their contingency plans and revise them as necessary to ensure they continue to be effective in an emergency situation. Covered entities should also identify software applications that store, maintain or transmit ePHI, and assess how important each is to business needs. Priorities must be set for data backup, emergency operations, and disaster recovery.

OCR has drawn attention to an interactive decision tool on the HHS website that has been developed to help healthcare organizations prepare for the worst and find out how HIPAA Rules apply in emergency situations. OCR explains, “The tool is designed for covered entities as well as emergency preparedness and recovery planners at the local, state and federal levels.”

While the reminders have been issued specifically to help covered entities prepare for when hurricane Irma makes landfall, even covered entities unlikely to be affected must ensure they are prepared for the worst.

The post OCR Stresses Need for Covered Entities to Prepare for Hurricanes and Other Natural Disasters appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

OCR Head Expects Major HIPAA Settlement for a Big, Juicy, Egregious Breach in 2017

Posted by HIPAA Journal

Roger Severino, the Director of the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has stated his main enforcement priority for 2017 is to find a “big, juicy, egregious” HIPAA breach and to use it as an example for other healthcare organizations of the dangers of failing to follow HIPAA Rules.

When deciding on which cases to pursue, OCR considers the opportunity to use the case as an educational tool to remind covered entities of the need to comply with specific aspects of HIPAA Rules.

At the recent ‘Safeguarding Health Information’ conference run by OCR and NIST, Severino explained that “I have to balance that law enforcement instinct with the educational component that we do.” Severino went on to say, “I really want to make sure people come into compliance without us having to enforce. I want to underscore that.”

Severino did not explain what aspect of noncompliance with HIPAA Rules OCR is hoping to highlight with its next big, juicy settlement, although no healthcare organization is immune to a HIPAA penalty if they are found to have violated HIPAA Rules. Severino said, “Just because you are small doesn’t mean we’re not looking and that you are safe if you are violating the law. You won’t be.”

Severino also explained that the number of complaints OCR is now receiving is colossal. More than 20,000 complaints about security incidents and privacy violations are received each year. OCR has many staff issuing technical assistance to help covered entities with their compliance programs.  The goal is to significantly reduce the number of complaints and enjoy a “culture of compliance” throughout the country.

The majority of HIPAA violations are resolved through technical assistance and voluntary compliance, but financial penalties are appropriate for egregious breaches of HIPAA Rules.

Already this year, OCR has agreed eight settlements with covered entities to resolve HIPAA violations discovered during investigations of complaints and data breaches and has issued one civil monetary penalty:

2017 HIPAA Enforcement Actions

  • Memorial Healthcare System – $5.5 million
  • Children’s Medical Center of Dallas- $3.2 million (Civil monetary penalty)
  • Cardionet – $2.5 million
  • Memorial Hermann Health System (MHHS) – $2.4 million
  • MAPFRE Life Insurance Company of Puerto Rico – $2.2 million
  • Presense Health – $475,000
  • Metro Community Provider Network – $400,000
  • Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital Center Inc. – $387,000
  • The Center for Children’s Digestive Health – $31,000

The largest HIPAA settlement of 2017 was agreed with Memorial Healthcare System – a health system consisting of 6 hospitals and various other facilities in South Florida. The settlement of $5.5 million resolved potential violations of HIPAA Rules relating to the impermissible accessing of ePHI by employees and the impermissible disclosure of PHI to affiliated physician office staff.  The settlement underscored the importance of audit controls and the need to carefully control who has access to the ePHI.

The second largest HIPAA settlement of 2017 was for $2.5 million and resolved multiple potential violations of HIPAA Rules that contributed to a breach of 1,391 patient records. The incident involved the theft of an unencrypted laptop computer from healthcare services provider Cardionet. The settlement underscored the importance of conducting a comprehensive risk assessment and of addressing vulnerabilities to the confidentiality of ePHI.

In May, OCR announced a $2.4 million settlement with Memorial Hermann Health System. The settlement resolved HIPAA violations discovered during the investigation of an impermissible disclosure of a patient’s ePHI in a press release and during subsequent meetings with advocacy groups and state representatives.

In January, a $2.2 million settlement was agreed with MAPFRE Life Insurance Company of Puerto Rico. The incident that triggered the investigation involved the theft of an unencrypted pen drive containing the PHI of 2,209 individuals. The investigation revealed multiple violations of HIPAA Rules including the failure to conduct a thorough and accurate risk assessment, the failure to implement a security awareness training program, the failure to encrypt ePHI and the failure to implement appropriate policies to safeguard ePHI.

The civil monetary penalty against Children’s Medical Center of Dallas was issued for the impermissible disclosure of ePHI and multiple failures to comply with the HIPAA Security Rule over several years. The settlement resolves HIPAA failures that contributed to a breach of 3,800 records involving the loss of an unencrypted Blackberry device in 2009 and the loss of an unencrypted laptop containing 2,462 records in 2013.

There has been a period of quiet on the enforcement front over the summer, with the last settlement announced in May. The fall is likely to see more settlements announced and this year looks on track to be another record year for HIPAA enforcement. The big, juicy egregious breach that OCR is looking for may prove to be the largest HIPAA penalty yet.

The post OCR Head Expects Major HIPAA Settlement for a Big, Juicy, Egregious Breach in 2017 appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

FDA Announces Voluntary Recall of St. Jude Medical Implantable Cardiac Pacemakers

Posted by HIPAA Journal

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is recommending all patients with vulnerable St. Jude Medical implantable cardiac pacemakers visit their providers to have the firmware on their devices updated. The update will make the devices more resilient to cyberattacks.

Last year, MedSec Holdings passed on the findings of a study of cybersecurity vulnerabilities in St. Jude Medical devices to the short-selling firm Muddy Waters Capital. The report identified a number of vulnerabilities that could be exploited to alter the functioning of the devices and drain batteries prematurely.

While St. Jude Medical initially denied the vulnerabilities existed, the FDA investigated the claims and confirmed that remotely exploitable vulnerabilities were present in certain St. Jude Medical Products.

Now, a year after the vulnerabilities were disclosed, the FDA has announced a voluntary recall of the devices to update the firmware to prevent the devices from being hacked via radio frequency communications.

There are between 450,000 and 500,000 vulnerable devices currently in use in the United States and a recall of this scale will almost certainly cause problems for healthcare providers. The FDA and Abbot Laboratories, which acquired St. Jude Medical last year, have suggested patients have the firmware upgrade applied at their next scheduled visit to their healthcare provider rather than make a separate visit.

The recall does not apply to implantable cardiac defibrillators or cardiac resynchronization ICDs, only to the following St. Jude Medical pacemakers:

  • Accent SR RF™
  • Accent MRI™
  • Assurity™
  • Assurity MRI™
  • Accent DR RF™
  • Anthem RF™
  • Allure RF™
  • Allure Quadra RF™
  • Quadra Allure MP RF™

The update will require any device attempting to communicate with the implanted pacemaker to be authenticated via the Merlin Programmer and Merlin@home Transmitter. All Abbott Laboratories devices manufactured after August 28, 2017 will include the updated firmware. The firmware update was released on August 29.

The FDA has not recommended devices be removed and replaced as the firmware update will make the devices secure. The update is a quick and simple process that takes just three minutes, although patients will be required to visit their providers to have the update applied. The update cannot be issued remotely as there is “a low risk [<0.023%] of update malfunction”.  During the update, the device will continue to function in backup mode and life-saving functionality will be maintained. The devices will return to normal settings after the update has been applied.

It has been more than a year since the report of the vulnerabilities was published, although during that time there have been no reported attacks or harm caused to patients. The Department of Homeland Security says exploiting the vulnerabilities would require “a highly complex set of circumstances.”

“All industries need to be constantly vigilant against unauthorized access,” said Robert Ford, executive vice president, Medical Devices at Abbot Laboratories. He explained, “[cybersecurity] isn’t a static process, which is why we’re working with others in the healthcare sector to ensure we’re proactively addressing common topics to further advance the security of devices and systems.”

The post FDA Announces Voluntary Recall of St. Jude Medical Implantable Cardiac Pacemakers appeared first on HIPAA Journal.