Healthcare Information Technology

Learnings from a Major Healthcare Ransomware Attack

One of the most serious healthcare ransomware attacks occurred in Ireland earlier this year. The Health Service Executive (HSE), the Republic of Ireland’s national health system, suffered a major attack that resulted in Conti ransomware being deployed and forced its National Healthcare Network to be taken offline. That meant healthcare professionals across the country were prevented from accessing all HSE IT systems, including clinical care systems, patient records, laboratory systems, payroll, and other clinical and non-clinical systems which caused major disruption to healthcare services across the country.

Following the attack, the HSE Board commissioned PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) to conduct an independent post-incident review into the attack to establish the facts related to technical and operational preparedness and the circumstances that allowed the attackers to gain access to its systems, exfiltrate sensitive data, encrypt files, and extort the HSE.

Cybersecurity Failures that are Common in the Healthcare Industry

PWC’s recently published report highlights a number of security failures that allowed HSE systems to be infiltrated. While the report is specific to the HSE cyberattack, its findings are applicable to many healthcare organizations in the United States that have similar unaddressed vulnerabilities and a lack of preparedness for ransomware attacks. The recommendations made by PWC can be used to strengthen defenses to prevent similar attacks from occurring.

While the HSE ransomware attack affected a huge number of IT systems, it started with a phishing email. An employee was sent an email with a malicious Microsoft Excel spreadsheet as an attachment on March 16, 2021. When the attachment was opened, malware was installed on the device. The HSE workstation had antivirus software installed, which could have detected the malicious file and prevented the malware infection; however, the virus definition list had not been updated for over a year, which rendered the protection near to non-existent.

From that single infected device, the attacker was able to move laterally within the network, compromise several accounts with high-level privileges, gain access to large numbers of servers, and exfiltrate data ‘undetected’.  On May 14, 2021, 8 weeks after the initial compromise, Conti ransomware was extensively deployed and encrypted files. The HSE detected the encryption and shut down the National Health Network to contain the attack, which prevented healthcare professionals across the country from accessing applications and essential data.

During the 8 weeks that its systems were compromised, suspicious activity was detected on more than one occasion which should have triggered an investigation into a potential security breach, but those alerts were not acted upon. Had they been investigated the deployment of ransomware could have been prevented and potentially also the exfiltration of sensitive data.

Simple Techniques Used to Devastating Effect

According to PWC, the attacker was able to use well-known and simple attack techniques to move around the network, identify and exfiltrate sensitive data, and deploy Conti ransomware over large parts of the IT network with relative ease. The attack could have been far worse. The attacker could have targeted medical devices, destroyed data at scale, used auto-propagation mechanisms such as those used in the WannaCry ransomware attacks, and could also have targeted cloud systems.

The HSE made it clear that it would not be paying the ransom. On May 20, 2021, 6 days after the HSE shut down all HSE IT system access to contain the attack, the attackers released the keys to decrypt data. Had it not been for a strong response to the attack and the release of the decryption keys the implications could have been much more severe. Even with the keys to decrypt data it took until September 21, 2021, for the HSE to successfully decrypt all of its servers and restore around 99% of its applications. The HSE estimated the cost of the attack could rise to half a billion Euros.

Ireland’s Largest Employer Had No CISO

PWC said the attack was possible due to a low level of cybersecurity maturity, weak IT systems and controls, and staffing issues.  PWC said there was a lack of cybersecurity leadership, as there was no individual in the HSE responsible for providing leadership and direction of its cybersecurity efforts, which is very unusual for an organization with the size and complexity of the HSE. The HSE is Ireland’s largest employer and had over 130,000 staff members and more than 70,000 devices at the time of the attack, but the HSE only employed 1,519 staff in cybersecurity roles. PWC said employees with responsibility for cybersecurity did not have the necessary skills to perform the tasks expected of them and the HSE should have had a Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) with overall responsibility for cybersecurity.

Lack of Monitoring and Insufficient Cybersecurity Controls

The HSE did not have the capability to effectively monitor and respond to security alerts across its entire network, patching was sluggish and updates were not applied quickly across the IT systems connected to the National Health Network. The HSE was also reliant on a single anti-malware solution which was not being monitored or effectively maintained across its entire IT environment. The HSE also continued to use legacy systems with known security issues and remains heavily reliant on Windows 7.

“The HSE is operating on a frail IT estate that has lacked the investment over many years required to maintain a secure, resilient, modern IT infrastructure. It does not possess the required cybersecurity capabilities to protect the operation of the health services and the data they process, from the cyber attacks that all organizations face today,” concluded PWC. “It does not have sufficient subject matter expertise, resources, or appropriate security tooling to detect, prevent or respond to a cyber attack of this scale. There were several missed opportunities to detect malicious activity, prior to the detonation phase of the ransomware.”

Similar vulnerabilities in people, processes, and technology can be found in many health systems around the world, and the PWC recommendations can be applied beyond the HSE to improve cybersecurity and make it harder for attacks such as this to succeed.

The PWC report, recommendations, and learnings from the incident can be found here (PDF).

The post Learnings from a Major Healthcare Ransomware Attack appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

CISA Publishes Mobile Device Cybersecurity Checklist for Organizations

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) has published new guidance for enterprises to help them secure mobile devices and safely access enterprise resources using mobile devices.

The Enterprise Mobility Management (EMM) system checklist has been created to help businesses implement best practices to mitigate vulnerabilities and block threats that could compromise mobile devices and the enterprise networks to which they connect. The steps outlined in the checklist are easy for enterprises to implement and can greatly improve mobile device security and allow mobile devices to be safely used to access business networks.

CISA recommends a security-focused approach to mobile device management. When selecting mobile devices that meet enterprise requirements, an assessment should be performed to identify potential supply chain risks. The Mobile Device Management (MDM) system should be configured to update automatically to ensure it is always running the latest version of the software and patches are applied automatically to fix known vulnerabilities.

A policy should be implemented for trusting devices, with access to enterprise resources denied if the device does not have the latest patch level, has not been configured to enterprise standards, is jailbroken or rooted, and if the device is not continuously monitored by the EMM.

Strong authentication controls need to be implemented, including strong passwords/PINs, with PINs consisting of a minimum of 6 digits. Wherever possible, face or fingerprint recognition should be enabled. Two-factor authentication should be implemented for enterprise networks that require a password/passphrase plus one additional method of authentication such as an SMS message, rotating passcode, or biometric input.

CISA recommends practicing good app security, including only downloading apps from trusted app stores, isolating enterprise applications, minimizing PII stored in apps, disabling sensitive permissions, restricting OS/app synchronization, and vetting enterprise-developed applications.

Network communications should be protected by disabling unnecessary network radios (Bluetooth, NFC, Wi-Fi, GPS) when not in use, disabling user certificates, and only using secure communication apps and protocols such as a VPN for connecting to the enterprise network.

Mobile devices should be protected at all times. A Mobile Threat Defense (MTD) system should guard against malicious software that can compromise apps and operating systems and detect improper configurations. Devices should only be charged using trusted chargers and cables, and the lost device function should be enabled to ensure the devices are wiped after a certain number of incorrect login attempts (10 for example). It is also important to protect critical enterprise systems and prevent them from being accessed using mobile devices due to the risk of transferring malware.

The CISA mobile device cybersecurity checklist for organizations can be downloaded here.

The post CISA Publishes Mobile Device Cybersecurity Checklist for Organizations appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

Medical Devices Affected by 13 Siemens Nucleus RTOS TCP/IP Stack Vulnerabilities

13 vulnerabilities have been identified in the Siemens Nucleus RTOS TCP/IP stack that could potentially be exploited remotely by threat actors to achieve arbitrary code execution, conduct a denial-of-service attack, and obtain sensitive information.

The vulnerabilities, dubbed NUCLEUS:13, affect the TCP/IP stack and related FTP and TFTP services of the networking component (Nucleus NET) of the Nucleus Real-Time Operating System (RTOS), which is used in many safety-critical devices. In healthcare, Nucleus is used in medical devices such as anesthesia machines and patient monitors.

One critical vulnerability has been identified that allows remote code execution which has a CVSS v3 severity score of 9.8 out of 10. Ten of the vulnerabilities are rated high severity flaws, with CVSS scores ranging from 7.1 to 8.8. There are also two medium-severity flaws with CVSS scores of 6.5 and 5.3.

The vulnerabilities were identified by security researchers at Forescout Research Labs, with assistance provided by researchers at Medigate.

The vulnerabilities affect the following Nucleus RTOS products:

  • Capital VSTAR: All versions
  • Nucleus NET: All versions
  • Nucleus ReadyStart v3: All versions prior to v2017.02.4
  • Nucleus ReadyStart v4: All versions prior to v4.1.1
  • Nucleus Source Code: All versions

Identifying where vulnerable code has been used is a challenge. The researchers attempted to estimate the impact of the vulnerabilities based on evidence collected from the official nucleus website, the Shodan search engine, and the Forescout device cloud. Healthcare is the worst affected industry, with 2,233 vulnerable devices. 1,066 government devices were identified as vulnerable, with other vulnerable devices found in retail (348), financial (326), manufacturing (317), with 1,176 vulnerable devices found in other industry sectors. 76% of the vulnerable devices are used for building automation, 13% are used in operational technology, 4% for networking, 5% IoT, and 2% were computers running Nucleus.

The vulnerabilities were reported to Siemens under responsible disclosure guidelines and Siemens has made patches available to fix all of the identified vulnerabilities. Siemens said some of the flaws had been identified and addressed in previously released versions, but no CVEs were issued.

Applying patches to fix the vulnerabilities can be a challenge, especially for embedded devices and those of a mission-critical nature, such as devices used in healthcare settings.

If patches cannot be applied, Forescout and Siemens recommend implementing mitigating measures to reduce the potential for exploitation. Siemens recommends protecting network access to devices with appropriate mechanisms and ensuring the devices operate within protected IT environments that have been configured in accordance with Siemens’ operational guidelines.

Forescout has released an open-source script that uses active fingerprinting to detect devices running Nucleus for discovery and inventory purposes. After identifying devices, Forescout recommends enforcing segmentation controls and practicing proper network hygiene, including restricting external communication paths and isolating or containing vulnerable devices in zones until they can be patched.

In addition, all network traffic should be monitored for malicious traffic and progressive patches released by vendors of affected devices should be monitored. A remediation plan should be developed for all vulnerable assets that balances risk with business continuity requirements.

Specific mitigations recommended by Forescout are detailed in the table below:

Nucleus 13 Mitigations recommended by Forescout.

The post Medical Devices Affected by 13 Siemens Nucleus RTOS TCP/IP Stack Vulnerabilities appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

Vulnerabilities Identified in B. Braun Infusomat Space and Perfusor Space Infusion Pumps

B. Braun has released software updates to fix five vulnerabilities in its Infusomat Space and Perfusor Space Infusion Pumps. The vulnerabilities could be exploited remotely in a low complexity attack.

In North America, the flaws affect Battery pack SP with WiFi (All software Versions 028U000061 and earlier) that have been installed in an Infusomat Space Infusion Pump or a Perfusor Space Infusion pump, and SpaceStation with SpaceCom 2 (All software Versions 012U000061 and earlier). The vulnerabilities were identified by Douglas McKee and Philippe Laulheret of McAfee, who reported them to B. Braun.

The most serious vulnerability is a critical flaw in B. Braun SpaceCom2 that has been assigned a CVSS severity score of 9 out of 10. The flaw – tracked as CVE-2021-33885 – is due to insufficient verification of data authenticity and could be exploited by a remote attacker to send malicious data to the device, which would be used in place of the correct data.

An improper input validation flaw – CVE-2021-33886 – would allow a remote unauthenticated attacker to gain user-level command-line access by passing a raw external string straight through to printf statements, although the attacker would need to be on the same network as the device, which limits the potential for exploitation. The flaw has been assigned a CVSS score of 6.8.

A missing authentication for critical function vulnerability – CVE-2021-33882 – could be exploited by a remote attacker to reconfigure the device from an unknown source, due to the lack of authentication on proprietary networking commands. The flaw has also been assigned a CVSS score of 6.8.

Due to unrestricted uploads of dangerous file types, a remote attacker could upload a malicious file to the /tmp directory of the device through the webpage API, which could result in critical files being overwritten affecting device functionality. The flaw is tracked as CVE-2021-33884 and has a CVSS severity score of 6.5.

The last vulnerability is an information exposure issue that could allow an attacker to obtain critical values for a pump’s internal configuration due to the transmission of sensitive information in cleartext. The flaw is tracked as CVE-2021-33883 and has been assigned a CVSS severity score of 5.9.

  1. Braun has fixed the flaws in the following software updates:
  • Battery pack SP with Wi-Fi, software 028U00062 (SN 138852 and lower)
  • Battery pack SP with Wi-Fi, software 054U00091 (SN 138853 and higher)
  • SpaceStation with SpaceCom 2 software Versions 012U000083

At present, there have been no reported cases of exploitation of the flaws; however, the updates should be applied as soon as possible.

B.Braun also recommends ensuring infusion pumps are housed in separate environments that are protected by firewalls or VLANs, that authentication measures are put in place to prevent unauthorized access, and that the devices are not directly accessible over the Internet. If remote access is required, secure methods of access should be used, such as a Virtual Private Network (VPN).

The post Vulnerabilities Identified in B. Braun Infusomat Space and Perfusor Space Infusion Pumps appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

KLAS Research: Clinical Communication Platforms Improve Efficiency in Healthcare

The recently published 2021 KLAS Clinical Communication Platform Report has confirmed clinical communication platforms improve efficiency in healthcare, streamline communication across most areas of hospitals, and lead to concrete outcomes, with improvements to clinical communication the biggest benefit.

KLAS Research is a Utah-based company that provides data and insights into health information technology (HIT) that helps healthcare organizations identify HIT solutions that will provide important benefits and a good ROI. KLAS collects data on HIT solutions, including from healthcare industry reports, websites, and feedback from healthcare professionals that are using HIT in the workplace. KLAS analyzes the data, identifies key trends and insights, and produces reports on the findings of its research. The researchers also work with leadership teams at vendors to help them improve their HIT solutions based on user feedback to help them deliver better outcomes.

For its latest Clinical Communication Platform Report, KLAS researchers profiled some of the most innovative and cutting-edge vendors in the field whose solutions are delivering invaluable benefits in healthcare and users of clinical communication platforms were surveyed and asked for their feedback on the solutions they have adopted.

TigerConnect, the leading clinical communication platform provider in the United States, was recognized as having the largest base of acute care customers and for the value its clinical communication platform delivered. Feedback from healthcare professionals that use the platform confirmed it has led to improved efficiency for clinical support staff and improved nurse satisfaction and patient satisfaction and care through timely, efficient communication.

The top outcomes healthcare delivery organizations have achieved by implementing the TigerConnect platform are improved clinician response times, increased transparency into patient teams and schedules, and increased clinician workflow satisfaction with fewer call interruptions and much easier access to communication. TigerConnect customers confirmed the solution has helped improve patient team collaboration in terms of patient transport, bed management and environmental services, increased access to and the secure sharing of patient data, more efficient clinics and outpatient care, and a reduction in readmissions, fewer errors, and a faster crash team response.

“Our administration uses TigerConnect’s solution. If people ask for TigerConnect accounts, we can give them accounts. I don’t know how we would have been able to get through the COVID-19 pandemic without this solution,” said one TigerConnect user.

The solution was highly praised for ease of use coupled with enterprise contracting, which allows simple rollouts by many different user groups to achieve organization-wide efficient communication.

“One outcome that we have achieved with TigerConnect’s solution has been improved communication between our nurses, providers and administration. We can just text someone in administration rather than having to know their personal phone number.,” said one TigerConnect user. “The value of adding two-way asynchronous communication in our clinical areas has been huge. They can always put themselves on ‘do not disturb’ if they don’t want people to text them. When nurses or providers are actively engaged with patients, they can get the information they need with the system, and then return that information.”

This year has seen TigerConnect roll out significant feature enhancements based on customer feedback, and the company has also made key acquisitions of on-call physician scheduling and advanced middleware solutions, deepening the capabilities of its platform considerably.

“2021 has proven a tipping point as healthcare systems evolve their requirements from secure messaging to the most contextual, advanced clinical collaboration experiences. Clinicians are demanding an all-in-one mobile collaboration experience that helps them raise the standard of care and improve patient outcomes,” said Will O’Connor, MD, TigerConnect Chief Medical Information Officer. “The KLAS report validates TigerConnect in our vision to make hospitals and care delivery more agile.”

The post KLAS Research: Clinical Communication Platforms Improve Efficiency in Healthcare appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

NSA/CISA Issue Guidance on Selecting Secure VPN Solutions and Hardening Security

The National Security Agency (NSA) and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) have issued new guidance on selecting and improving the security of Virtual Private Networks (VPN) solutions.

VPN solutions allow remote workers to securely connect to business networks. Data traffic is routed through an encrypted virtual tunnel to prevent the interception of sensitive data and to block external attacks. VPNs are an attractive targeted for hackers, and vulnerabilities in VPN solutions have been targeted by several Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) groups. APT actors have been observed exploiting vulnerabilities in VPN solutions to remotely gain access to business networks, harvest credentials, remotely execute code on the VPN devices, hijack encrypted traffic sessions, and obtain sensitive data from the devices.

Several common vulnerabilities and exposures (CVEs) have been weaponized to gain access to the vulnerable devices, including Pulse Connect Secure SSL VPN (CVE-2019-11510), Fortinet FortiOS SSL VPN (CVE-2018-13379), and Palo Alto Networks PAN-OS (CVE_2020-2050). In some cases, threat actors have been observed exploiting vulnerabilities in VPN solutions within 24 hours of patches being made available.

Earlier this year, the NSA and CISA issued a warning that APT groups linked to the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) had successfully exploited vulnerabilities in Fortinet and Pulse Secure VPN solutions to gain a foothold in the networks of U.S. companies and government agencies. Chinese nation state threat actors are believed to have exploited a Pulse Connect Secure vulnerability to gain access to the networks of the U.S. Defense Industrial Base Sector. Ransomware gangs have similarly been targeting vulnerabilities in VPNs to gain an initial foothold in networks to conduct double-extortion ransomware attacks.

The guidance document is intended to help organizations select secure VPN solutions from reputable vendors that comply with industry security standards who have a proven track record of remediating known vulnerabilities quickly. The guidance recommends only using VPN products that have been tested, validated and included in the National Information Assurance Partnership (NIAP) Product Compliant List. The guidance recommends against using Secure Sockets Layer/Transport Layer Security (SSL/TLS) VPNs, which use non-standard features to tunnel traffic via TLS as this creates additional risk exposure.

The guidance document also details best practices for hardening security and reducing the attack surface, such as configuring strong cryptography and authentication, only activating features that are strictly necessary, protecting and monitoring access to and from the VPN, implementing multi-factor authentication, and ensuring patches and updates are implemented promptly.

The post NSA/CISA Issue Guidance on Selecting Secure VPN Solutions and Hardening Security appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

FTC Tells Developers of Health Apps and Wearable Devices to Notify Individuals About Data Breaches

Developers of health apps and wearable devices such as fitness trackers that collect health data have been warned by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that they are required to comply with the FTC Health Breach Notification Rule and must notify consumers about data breaches.

The FTC Health Breach Notification Rule was introduced in 2009 as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and requires individuals to be notified if there is a breach of their health data. The Health Breach Notification Rule applies to vendors of personal health records and associated companies, but in a policy statement issued on September 16, 2021, the FTC said health apps and other connected devices that collect or use the health information of U.S. consumers are also covered by Rule. The policy statement was approved during an open meeting on Wednesday by a vote of 3-2.

The FTC Health Breach Notification Rule applies to health apps and wearable devices that collect health information from a consumer and can draw information from multiple sources, such as through an API that allows synching with a device such as a fitness tracker. Compliance will be enforced by the FTC, which has the authority to impose financial penalties. Those penalties can be as high as $43,792 for each day that notifications have not been issued.

Health apps can collect a wide range of sensitive personal and health data, either by directly recording the information through paired sensors, or by individuals entering the data into the apps manually. Health apps have been growing in popularity and usage has increased during the pandemic. Given the wide range of sensitive data stored by the apps, they are an attractive target for cybercriminals.

“As many Americans turn to apps and other technologies to track diseases, diagnoses, treatment, medications, fitness, fertility, sleep, mental health, diet, and other vital areas, this Rule is more important than ever,” said the FTC in the policy statement.

A lot of the data collected by health apps would be considered protected health information if collected by a healthcare provider, which would mean the information would be subject to the restrictions on uses and disclosures stipulated by the HIPAA Privacy Rule. Safeguards would need to be implemented to secure the data, in accordance with the HIPAA Security Rule, and a breach of health data would require notifications per the HIPAA Breach Notification Rule. However, unless a health app is developed for use by a HIPAA-covered entity, it falls outside of HIPAA protections.

Health apps often have security features to protect the privacy of users, but they are often limited. There have been calls for HIPAA to be extended to cover health app developers to improve privacy protections for users, or to implement new legislation covering these apps that requires certain standards of privacy and security to be adopted.

The FTC policy statement will at least help to ensure that users of health apps and wearable devices will be notified should a data breach occur, which will allow them to take steps to protect their identities and prevent fraud.

“While this Rule imposes some measure of accountability on tech firms that abuse our personal information, a more fundamental problem is the commodification of sensitive health information, where companies can use this data to feed behavioral ads or power user analytics,” said FTC Chair Lina M. Khan. “Given the growing prevalence of surveillance-based advertising, the Commission should be scrutinizing what data is being collected in the first place and whether particular types of business models create incentives that necessarily place users at risk.”

The post FTC Tells Developers of Health Apps and Wearable Devices to Notify Individuals About Data Breaches appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

Future of HIPAA: Reflections at the 25th Anniversary of HIPAA

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act is now 25 years old. How effective has this healthcare law been and what is the future of HIPAA?

It is now exactly 25 years to the day since the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) was signed into law by President Clinton. On August 21, 1996, when President Clinton added his signature to the legislation, few people would have realized how HIPAA would evolve and grow into the comprehensive national health privacy law that it is today.

It is difficult to argue that HIPAA has not been an overall success, but the legislation has attracted a fair amount of criticism over the years, especially initially due to the considerable administrative burden it placed on healthcare organizations. On balance, the improvements to healthcare that have come from compliance with HIPAA more than outweigh the negatives.

The biggest successes are the improvements to patient privacy and data security, the rights given to patients with respect to their healthcare data, greater efficiency in the healthcare system, and changes that have helped to reduce waste and healthcare fraud. The improvements have generally been made for relatively little cost.

HIPAA certainly has its strengths, but there are also limitations that have become increasingly apparent in recent years and even now, 25 years after the legislation was first introduced, there is still confusion about what compliance entails.

In this article we will explore the strengths and limitations of HIPAA, assess how effective HIPAA has been, and will explore the future of HIPAA and what can be expected in terms of updates to the legislation. First, however, it is useful to provide a brief recap of the history of HIPAA and how the legislation has evolved over the years.

A Brief History of HIPAA

HIPAA was initially introduced to improve the portability of health insurance coverage for employees between jobs, to combat waste, fraud and abuse in health insurance and healthcare delivery, to promote the use of medical savings accounts by introducing tax breaks, and to simplify the administration of health insurance. The legislation was later augmented with new Rules covering the privacy and security of healthcare data.

Initially, HIPAA only applied to a limited number of entities in the healthcare industry – healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses, and only those that transmit healthcare data in electronic form for certain transactions for which the HHS maintains standards. The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act expanded the scope of HIPAA to cover business associates of HIPAA covered entities – third-party firms that require access to protected health information (PHI) to provide services or products to covered entities.

Important updates to HIPAA are detailed below:

  • HIPAA Signed into Law by President Bill Clinton – August 1996
  • Effective Date of the HIPAA Privacy Rule – April 2003
  • Effective Date of the HIPAA Security Rule – April 2005
  • Effective Date of the HIPAA Enforcement Rule – March 2006
  • Effective date of HITECH and the Breach Notification Rule – September 2009
  • Effective Date of the Final Omnibus Rule – March 2013

HIPAA’s Strengths and Weaknesses

There are many positives that have come from HIPAA, the best known of which are improving privacy protections for patients and improving the security of healthcare data. HIPAA limits the uses and disclosures of patient data to those related to treatment, payment, or healthcare operations and all covered entities and business associates must implement appropriate administrative, physical, and technical safeguards to ensure patient data are appropriately protected from internal and external threats.

Importantly, HIPAA gave individuals new rights with respect to their healthcare data. Prior to the introduction of the HIPAA Privacy Rule, patients were not even permitted to see their medical files. HIPAA gave individuals the right to obtain and inspect a copy of their healthcare data and request errors be corrected. HIPAA made sure patients are informed about how their healthcare data will be used and disclosed, gave patients the right to further limit disclosures of their health data, and also allowed them to view an “accounting of disclosures” to see who has been provided with their healthcare data.

HIPAA has improved the portability of health insurance for employees between jobs and has helped to prevent discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions when receiving health insurance coverage. Efficiency in healthcare has been improved by standardizing transactions through the use of standard code sets and has helped to significantly reduce waste and fraud in healthcare.

However, it has not all been plain sailing. One of the initial requirements of HIPAA was to create a national patient identifier system, but 25 years on and that requirement has still failed to be implemented. Without a national patient identifier system, it can be difficult identifying patients which can result in medical record mismatching. One ONC study in 2014 suggested between 50% and 60% of records are mismatched when shared between different healthcare providers.

Another weakness of HIPAA is its coverage of healthcare data, which is limited to healthcare data collected, held, processed, stored, or transmitted by HIPAA-covered entities and business associates. If a non-HIPAA-covered entity or non-business associate collects the exact same data, HIPAA protections do not apply.

The HIPAA Rules are not clear in places due to the flexibility built into the legislation, so there is potential for misinterpretation of the requirements and there is still confusion among some HIPAA covered entities and business associates when it comes to compliance.

One criticism often made by patients is the lack of a private cause of action. It is not possible to sue for a HIPAA violation, even if the HIPAA Rules have clearly been violated and harm has been suffered. Legal action can only be taken under state laws.

Has HIPAA Been Effective?

In the early years following the introduction of the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules, questions were asked about how effective the legislation has been. HIPAA certainly looked good on paper but was less effective in practice and noncompliance was widespread. Even the introduction of the HIPAA Enforcement Rule in 2006, which gave the HHS’ Office for Civil Rights the authority to impose financial penalties and sanctions for noncompliance, failed to have a major effect at spurring covered entities into compliance. Enforcement was also very slow at first. It took until 2008 for the first enforcement action to result in a financial penalty, then there was only one financial penalty in 2009 and just two in 2010.

The first phase of HIPAA compliance audits conducted in 2011/2012 highlighted just how many covered entities had ineffective HIPAA compliance programs. The audits uncovered many violations of both the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules. Even those violations, some of which were serious, did not result in any financial penalties. Some of the fiercest criticism of HIPAA in the early years was it was all bark and no bite.

The introduction of the HITECH Act was a major turning point in the history of HIPAA. Prior to the HITECH Act, business associates were not covered to a large extent by HIPAA, even though they were frequently provided with PHI. The HITECH Act made the HIPAA Rules directly applicable to business associates, which could then be fined directly if they did not also comply with the HIPAA Rules. Business associates include a huge range of third-party companies such as accountants, attorneys, billing companies, collection agencies, consultants, data analysts, and IT firms, so the HITECH Act, and subsequent Omnibus Rule, addressed that major gap.

The introduction of the HITECH Act also saw the penalties for noncompliance significantly increased and OCR also increased its HIPAA enforcement activities. With major fines issued for HIPAA violations, HIPAA compliance became a major focus for HIPAA-covered entities and business associates.

Enforcement of compliance has been critical to the success of HIPAA and while there are still many cases each year of noncompliance, on the whole the requirements of HIPAA have been largely implemented and the benefits of HIPAA are being realized.

Issues with Patient Access to PHI

Since the 2000 HIPAA Privacy Rule was introduced, patients have been given the right to obtain a copy of their own healthcare data, or to have that data sent to their nominated representative. The HITECH Act updated that right and helped individuals obtain a copy of their health data in electronic form, due to the increasing use of electronic health record systems.

While healthcare organizations have implemented policies that allow patients to exercise their access rights, many patients have experienced problems obtaining a copy of their healthcare data. They have either been refused access, requests have been delayed, and patients have been charged excessive fees for exercising their access rights – HIPAA only permits covered entities to charge a reasonable, cost-based fee for providing records.

One of the requirements of the 21st Century Cures Act, introduced in 2016, was to call on the Government Accountability Office to report on the barriers to patient medical record access and following assessments the HHS’ Office for Civil Rights launched a new HIPAA enforcement initiative targeting violations of the HIPAA Right of Access of the HIPAA Privacy Rule in the fall of 2019. That enforcement initiative is still active and, up until the end of July 2021, OCR has imposed 19 financial penalties on healthcare providers found to have been in violation of the HIPAA Right of Access.

Prior to the OCR enforcement initiative, only one financial penalty had been imposed for violations of this important right and that was the $4,300,000 financial penalty imposed on Cignet Health of Prince George’s County in 2011 for denying 741 patients access to their medical records.

HIPAA has Improved Healthcare Data Security

Prior to the introduction of the HIPAA Security Rule, healthcare organizations only had to comply with state laws covering data security. The Security Rule set new minimum standards for data security to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of electronic PHI. The Security Rule requires risk analyses to be conducted and risks reduced to a reasonable and acceptable level. Access controls are required to prevent unauthorized access to healthcare data, logs must be maintained and checked to identify unauthorized access, backups of data must be made, measures must be implemented to protect against reasonably anticipated, impermissible uses or disclosures, and staff must be provided with security awareness training.

Data security has improved, but data breaches are now occurring at records levels. For the past 5 months, data breaches have been reported by healthcare organizations and business associates at a rate of over 2 per day, but without the Security Rule requirements, far more breaches would be likely to occur.

The HIPAA Security Rule does have weaknesses. To remain relevant the HIPAA Security Rule had to be technology agnostic, so specific measures for security are generally not stipulated. It is left to the discretion of each entity to determine what constitutes “reasonable” protections. If the Security Rule was more specific with regard to required security protections, many more data breaches could be prevented.

The Security Rule also only applies to HIPAA covered entities and business associates, not to any other entity. It therefore has limited reach, and does not cover health data collected by health apps, or the huge volumes of data collected and sold by data brokers. There is therefore considerable scope for improvement to better protect all health data.

The HIPAA Security Rule also calls for security awareness training for staff but does not stipulate how frequently it should be provided. With the threat landscape constantly changing, regular training must be provided to the workforce to ensure employees are kept aware of the latest threats and are taught how to avoid them. Many covered entities and business associates are compliant with this requirement yet fail to provide training regularly enough to prevent cyberattacks and the associated privacy violations.

How Has HIPAA Fared with Changing Technology?

No legislative act will be able to maintain pace with the pace at which technology has evolved, especially one covering the healthcare industry. This is why HIPAA provided a framework rather than specifics and incorporated flexibility to accommodate for changes to healthcare technology and evolving privacy and security best practices.

Updates have been made over the years which have amended HIPAA to maintain relevance, such as the 2008 Genetic Information Non-discrimination Act (GINA) which restricts the use of individuals’ genetic data by health insurers and employers and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, of which the HITECH Act was part, which strengthened HIPAA in relation to the adoption of EHRs.

However, many new technologies have emerged over the years that are not covered by HIPAA. Personal electronic devices are extensively used which can collect huge amounts of personal and health data, such as fitness trackers and other wearable devices and smartphones have made it much easier for individuals to obtain, use, and share healthcare data.

Many of these devices collect data that would fall under the category of PHI if created or collected by a HIPAA-covered entity but are not within the scope of HIPAA, even though the same data are often collected by those devices. The extent to which these devices are now being used, and the sheer volume of digital health and wellness data being generated outside the healthcare system by individuals, is a growing cause of concern. Without the protections of HIPAA, healthcare data may not be properly protected and could be shared extensively or sold on with ease.

The HIPAA Privacy Rule does not adequately cover the collection of healthcare data, as it only covers uses and disclosures by certain entities. It does not apply to health data itself, and this could be argued is one of the biggest failures of HIPAA. The same is true of the HIPAA Security Rule, which also has a restrictive scope and only calls for administrative, physical, and technical safeguards for the healthcare data held, received, or transmitted by HIPAA-covered entities and their business associates.

Healthcare data is extremely valuable, and not only to bad actors such as cybercriminals. Cybercriminals can use healthcare data for fraud and identity theft, but it also has tremendous value to a wide range of businesses. Healthcare and wellness data can be used by insurers to gauge risk – which can affect insurance premiums. Employers can use health data to make decisions about potential new hires, and all manner of other businesses can use the data to make decisions about individuals that could have significant consequences for the data subjects.

The question about whether HIPAA should be updated to cover all healthcare data has yet to be fully answered. Many attempts have been made to introduce legislation to cover all healthcare data, but each has failed to make it through the Senate.

The scope of HIPAA could be expanded to include individually identifiable health information collected, used, transmitted, or maintained by non-HIPAA covered entities and non-business associates. Alternatively, new separate legislation is required to cover healthcare data not currently regulated by HIPAA. The solution could well be to leave HIPAA as it is and to instead introduce a national privacy law akin to the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA).

HIPAA Training and Education Need to Improve

HIPAA is not perfect and there are still significant gaps in the legislation, something that the coronavirus pandemic has highlighted. HIPAA doesn’t extend to the army of contact tracers and the data they collect, nor does it adequately cover exposure notification apps and may disclosures of COVID-19 related data. This is an area, like personal health apps, that needs to be addressed as there is considerable potential for privacy violations.

Vaccination programs have highlighted several areas where education needs to be improved. There have been many cases of HIPAA being cited as a reason not to disclose or share vaccination data, when HIPAA does not place restrictions on disclosures of vaccination information by individuals to employers or others.

Training remains a key issue with HIPAA and is often a much bigger weakness than technology or the HIPAA text itself. It is often uninformed people, and not healthcare technology and privacy and security controls, that are the reason for security breaches and privacy violations. While updates to HIPAA are needed, improvements need to be made to training programs to ensure all individuals with access to PHI or systems containing PHI are aware of their responsibilities and are trained how to be HIPAA-compliant employees.

Training needs to be appropriate to the role of each individual and training needs to be reinforced. Regular training sessions need to be provided to the workforce to make sure that the requirements of HIPAA are fully understood and are not forgotten over time. At many covered entities and business associates, employee training on HIPAA is not provided frequently enough.

Proposed Updates to the HIPAA Privacy Rule

Ahead of the 25-year anniversary of the HIPAA Privacy Rule, a significant update was proposed by the HHS. The proposed update published by the HHS in 2020 is intended to address several aspects of the Privacy Rule that are hampering care coordination and adding an unnecessary administrative burden on healthcare providers.

One of the main reasons for the update, according to then HHS Secretary Alex Azar, was to “break down barriers that have stood in the way of common sense care coordination and value-based arrangements for far too long.” The proposed update will improve care coordination and case management for patients, allow families and caregivers to become more involved in the provision of care to individuals, improve patients’ access to their health data, and will introduce new flexibilities covering disclosures of PHI in emergency and threatening situations, while also reducing the administrative burden on healthcare organizations. These updates have been long overdue but there has been criticism that the updates do not go far enough, and that some of the suggested updates are ill-advised.

One of the aspects addressed in the update will make it easier for patients to obtain a copy of their electronic healthcare data, but there are potential privacy and security risks with the change. Patients will be given the “right to direct the transmission of certain protected health information in an electronic format to a third party.” This right will help patients share their healthcare data with research organizations, but there are concerns that this change could have a negative impact on patients. Patients could request their health data be sent to anyone they choose, when the transmission of data to an entity not covered by the protections of HIPAA carries a security risk. The new right will certainly give patients much greater access and control over their personal data, but potentially it increases the risks that PHI may fall into the hands of bad actors.

The Future of HIPAA

HIPAA has been a great success, but it is far from perfect. There are still areas that require tweaking to improve usability and remove some of the administrative burden placed on HIPAA-covered entities. Proposed updates to the HIPAA Privacy Rule go some way to addressing some of the issues, but for many, the new HIPAA regulations that have been proposed do not go nearly far enough and some of the proposed changes have potential to cause privacy issues.

Overall, for legislation that is 25 years old, HIPAA has, with its various amendments, survived the test of time and is even more relevant and useful now than it was when it was first signed into law in 1996. HIPAA should be viewed as a work in progress though, and as far as the Future of HIPAA is concerned, there are likely to need to be further updates to ensure it remains relevant and effective.

Future of HIPAA FAQs

Does HIPAA cover all healthcare data?

HIPAA covers identifiable healthcare data, which is any healthcare data created, collected, transmitted, or maintained by a HIPAA-covered entity or business associate for treatment, payment for healthcare, or healthcare operations relating to the past, present, or future health status of an individual. Health data is not covered by HIPAA if it is created, stored, or transmitted by a non-HIPAA-covered entity or non-business associate.

Who does HIPAA apply to?

HIPAA applies to HIPAA-covered entities and their business associates. HIPAA-covered entities are healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses that conduct electronic transactions involving PHI for which the HHS has developed standards. Business associates are vendors that provide products or services to HIPAA-covered entities that requires contact with PHI. HIPAA does not apply to other entities such as reporters, senators, individuals, and most employers.

Are there privacy risks associated with health apps?

Health apps, fitness trackers, and other wearable devices are not generally covered by HIPAA, nor are the data they collect or transmit. Without the protection of HIPAA, health app developers may use, disclose, or sell health data collected through the apps, and the security measures implemented may not meet HIPAA standards. There may be privacy and security risks associated with the use of these apps and devices.

Does HIPAA prevent disclosures of COVID-19 vaccination information?

Many people hide behind HIPAA and use the regulation as an excuse not to answer questions. One of the most notable recent examples, of which there are many, came from Marjorie Taylor Greene when asked about her vaccination status and cited HIPAA as the reason she could not disclose the information. HIPAA does not prevent such discloses. It only places restrictions on uses and disclosures by healthcare providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses, and business associates of those entities.

How often does HIPAA training need to be provided?

HIPAA training must be provided to all healthcare employees within a reasonable period of time after the person joins the covered entity’s workforce, as well as when functions are affected by a material change in policies or procedures and following any updates to the HIPAA Rules. HIPAA refresher training should also be provided at least annually, and no later than every two years. Annual training is the best practice.

The post Future of HIPAA: Reflections at the 25th Anniversary of HIPAA appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

The Average Cost of a Healthcare Data Breach is Now $9.42 Million

IBM Security has published its 2021 Cost of a Data Breach Report, which shows data breach costs have risen once again and are now at the highest level since IBM started publishing the reports 17 years ago. There was a 10% year-over-year increase in data breach costs, with the average cost rising to $4.24 million per incident. Healthcare data breaches are the costliest, with the average cost increasing by $2 million to $9.42 million per incident. Ransomware attacks cost an average of $4.62 million per incident.

Source: IBM Security

The large year-over-year increase in data breach costs has been attributed to the drastic operational shifts due to the pandemic. With employees forced to work remotely during the pandemic, organizations had to rapidly adapt their technology. The pandemic forced 60% of organizations to move further into the cloud. Such a rapid change resulted in vulnerabilities being introduced and security often lagged behind the rapid IT changes. Remote working also hindered organizations’ ability to quickly respond to security incidents and data breaches.

According to IBM, data breaches costs were more than $1 million higher when remote work was indicated as a factor in the data breach. When remote work was a factor, the average data breach cost was $4.96 million compared to $3.89 million when remote work was not a factor. Almost 20% of organizations that reported data breaches in 2020 cited remote work as a factor, with the cost of a data breach around 15% higher when remote work was a factor.

To compile the report, IBM conducted an in-depth analysis of data breaches involving fewer than 100,000 records at 500 organizations between May 2020 and March 2021, with the survey conducted by the Ponemon Institute.

The most common root cause of data breaches in the past year were compromised credentials, which accounted for 20% of data breaches. These breaches took longer to detect and contain, with an average of 250 days compared to an overall average of 212 days.

The most common types of data exposed in data breaches were customers’ personal data such as names, email addresses, passwords, and healthcare data. 44% of all data breaches included those types of data. A data breach involving email addresses, usernames, and passwords can easily have a spiral effect, as hackers can use the compromised data in further attacks. According to the Ponemon Institute survey, 82% of individuals reuse passwords across multiple accounts.

Breaches involving customers’ personally identifiable information (PII) were more expensive than breaches involving other types of data, with a cost per record of $180 when PII was involved compared to $161 per record for other types of data.

Data breach costs were lower at companies that had implemented encryption, security analytics, and artificial intelligence-based security solutions, with these three mitigating factors resulting in data breach cost savings of between $1.25 million and $1.49 million per data breach.

Adopting a zero-trust approach to security makes it easier for organizations to deal with data breaches. Organizations with a mature zero trust strategy had an average data breach cost of $3.28 million, which was $1.76 million lower than those who had not deployed this approach at all.

“Higher data breach costs are yet another added expense for businesses in the wake of rapid technology shifts during the pandemic,” said Chris McCurdy, Vice President and General Manager, IBM Security. “While data breach costs reached a record high over the past year, the report also showed positive signs about the impact of modern security tactics, such as AI, automation and the adoption of a zero-trust approach – which may pay off in reducing the cost of these incidents further down the line.”

Security automation greatly reduces data breach costs. Organizations with a “fully deployed” security automation strategy had average breach costs of $2.90 million per incident, compared to $6.71 million at organizations that had no security automation.

Companies with an incident response team that had tested their incident response plan had 54.9% lower breach costs than those that had neither. The average data breach cost was $3.25 million compared to $5.71 million when neither were in place.

The cost of a data breach was $750,000 (16.6%) higher for companies that had not undergone any digital transformation due to COVID-19. Cloud-based data breach costs were lower for organizations that had adopted a hybrid cloud approach, with an average cost of $3.61 million at organizations with hybrid cloud infrastructure compared to $4.80 million for organizations with a primarily public cloud and $4.55 million for those that had adopted a private cloud approach. Data breach costs were 18.8% higher when a breach was experienced during a cloud migration project.

Organizations that were further into their cloud migration plan were able to detect and respond to data breaches far more quickly – on average 77 days more quickly for organizations that were at a mature state of their cloud modernization plan than those in the early stages.

Mega data breaches – those involving between 50 million and 65 million records – cost an average of $401 million per incident, which is more than 100 times the cost of breaches involving between 1,000 and 100,0000 records.

The post The Average Cost of a Healthcare Data Breach is Now $9.42 Million appeared first on HIPAA Journal.