HIPAA Compliance News

On-the-spot Email Interventions Reduce Repeat Medical Record Snooping Incidents by 95%

Posted by HIPAA Journal

Immediate intervention following an instance of unauthorized access to protected health information (PHI) by a healthcare employee is 95% effective at preventing repeat offenses, according to a new study published in JAMA Open Network.

Healthcare data breaches are occurring at record levels, and while large data breaches are often the result of hacking and other IT incidents, insider breaches such as snooping on medical records are common. According to HHS data, in 2019, 92% of combined small and large breaches were tied to unauthorized access.

While many cases of employees snooping on the medical records of VIP patients have been covered in the media, these types of snooping incidents are relatively uncommon. It is much more common for healthcare employees to access the medical records of family members, friends, and colleagues, and those privacy violations can be just as damaging for patients.

All cases of unauthorized access start with an employee accessing a single patient record, but they can easily turn into major data breaches if left unchecked. There have been several cases of healthcare employees accessing the medical records of thousands of patients without authorization over several years when the unauthorized access is not promptly identified and addressed.

A study conducted by Bai, Jiang, and Flasher in 2017 found the risk of data breaches was higher at large academic medical centers than at other hospitals. Around one-quarter of the data breaches were cases of employees accessing patient information without authorization.

The recent study, Effectiveness of Email Warning on Reducing Hospital Employees’ Unauthorized Access to Protected Health Information: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial, conducted by researchers at Michigan State University, Johns Hopkins, and Nick Culbertson, CEO and Co-founder of the healthcare compliance analytics firm Protenus, investigated the effectiveness of email warnings at preventing repeat offenses by employees.

Between January 1 and July 31, 2018, a system that monitored unauthorized accessing of PHI at a large academic medical center flagged unauthorized accessing of electronic medical records by 444 employees, all of whom were professional medical staff who were not part of the patient’s intervention team and did not have access permission.

A group of 219 employees was randomly selected and received an email warning on the night of their access. The email explained that the individual had been identified as having accessed a patient’s electronic medical record when there was no work-related reason for doing so, and that it was a privacy violation. The remaining 225 employees formed a control group and received no email warning.

In the group that received an email intervention, 4 employees out 219 went on to access patient information without authorization on a second occasion between 20 and 70 days after the initial unauthorized access. In the control group, 90 out of the 225 employees accessed the protected health information of patients again without authorization between 20 and 70 days after the initial unauthorized access.

While there were limitations of the study and the findings may not translate to other hospitals, it demonstrates that on-the-spot intervention can be highly effective at preventing further privacy breaches and that if no action is taken, employees are likely to continue to access patient data in violation of the HIPAA Rules.

“What an email warning can do to deter employees’ unauthorized access is stunning. A simple email can lead to big changes,” said Dr. Ge Bai, a professor at Johns Hopkins Carey Business School and Bloomberg School of Public Health, and corresponding author of the study.

For the duration of the trial, no disciplinary action was taken against any of the employees. Disciplinary action was taken after the trial was concluded against all employees involved for violating the PHI access policy of the medical center, which prohibits employees from accessing the records of family members, coworkers, friends, or other acquaintances without prior written authorization.

The post On-the-spot Email Interventions Reduce Repeat Medical Record Snooping Incidents by 95% appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

OCR Seeks Comment on Recognized Security Practices and the Sharing of HIPAA Settlements with Harmed Individuals

Posted by HIPAA Journal

The Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights has released a Request for information (RFI) related to two outstanding requirements of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 (HITECH Act).

The HITECH Act, as amended in 2021 by the HIPAA Safe Harbor Act, requires the HHS consider the security practices that have been implemented by HIPAA-regulated entities when considering financial penalties and other remedies to resolve potential HIPAA violations discovered during investigations and audits.

The aim of the HIPAA Safe Harbor Act was to encourage HIPAA-regulated entities to implement cybersecurity best practices, with the reward being lower financial penalties for data breaches and less scrutiny by the HHS if industry-standard security best practices have been implemented for the 12 months prior to a data breach occurring.

Another outstanding requirement that dates back to when the HITECH Act was signed into law, is for the HHS to share a percentage of the civil monetary penalties (CMPs) and settlement payments with individuals who have been harmed as a result of the violations for which the penalties have been applied. The HITECH Act calls for a methodology to be established by the HHS for determining appropriate amounts to be shared, based on the nature and extent of the HIPAA violation and the nature and extent of the harm that has been caused.

Earlier this year, the recently appointed Director of the HHS’ Office for Civil Rights (OCR) – Lisa J. Pino – confirmed that these two requirements of the HITECH Act were being addressed this year. Yesterday, OCR published the RFI in the Federal Register seeking public comment on these two requirements of the HITECH Act.

Specifically, OCR is seeking feedback on what constitutes “Recognized Security Practices,” the recognized security practices that are being implemented to safeguard electronic protected health information by HIPAA-compliant entities, and how those entities anticipate adequately demonstrating that recognized security practices are in place. OCR would also like to learn about any implementation issues that those entities would like to be clarified by OCR, either through further rulemaking or guidance, and suggestions on the action that should initiate the beginning of the 12-month look-back period, as that is not stated in the HIPAA Safe Harbor Act.

One of the main issues with the requirement to share CMPs and settlements with victims is the HITECH Act has no definition of harm. OCR is seeking comment on the types of “harms” that should be considered when distributing a percentage of SMPs and settlements, and suggestions on potential methodologies for sharing and distributing monies to harmed individuals.

“This request for information has long been anticipated, and we look forward to reviewing the input we receive from the public and regulated industry alike on these important topics,” said Pino. “I encourage those who have been historically underserved, marginalized, or subject to discrimination or systemic disadvantage to comment on this RFI, so we hear your voice and fully consider your interests in future rulemaking and guidance.”

In order to be considered, comments must be submitted to OCR by June 6, 2022.

The post OCR Seeks Comment on Recognized Security Practices and the Sharing of HIPAA Settlements with Harmed Individuals appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

OCR Announces 4 Financial Penalties to Resolve HIPAA Violations

Posted by HIPAA Journal

The Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has announced its first financial penalties of 2022 to resolve alleged violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Three of the cases were settled with OCR, and one resulted in a civil monetary penalty being imposed.

OCR is continuing to enforce compliance with the HIPAA Right of Access, with two of the enforcement actions resolving violations of this important HIPAA provision. One of the fines was been imposed, in part, for overcharging a patient who requested a copy of their medical records – The first financial penalty under the 2019 enforcement initiative to allege overcharging for copies of medical records. To date, OCR has imposed 27 financial penalties on healthcare providers that have failed to provide patients with timely access to their medical records. The other two cases involved impermissible disclosures of the protected health information of patients.

“Between the rising pace of breaches of unsecured protected health information and continued cyber security threats impacting the health care industry, it is critical that covered entities take their HIPAA compliance responsibilities seriously,” said OCR Director Lisa J. Pino. “OCR will continue our steadfast commitment to protect individuals’ health information privacy and security through enforcement, and we will pursue civil money penalties for violations that are not addressed.”

Dental Practitioner Fined $30,000 for Noncompliance with the HIPAA Right of Access

Dr. Donald Brockley D.D.M, a solo dental practitioner in Butler, PA, was investigated by OCR over a complaint from a patient who had not been provided with a copy of the requested medical records within the time allowed by the HIPAA Privacy Rule. OCR determined that there had been a HIPAA Right of Access violation and provided Dr. Brockley with the opportunity to provide written evidence of any mitigating factors in an August 27, 2019, letter. No response was received.

OCR then notified Dr. Brockley of its intention to impose a financial penalty of $104,000, and Dr. Brockley requested a hearing with an Administrative Law Judge to contest the financial penalty. On October 8, 2021, the parties filed a joint motion to stay proceedings for 60 days, during which time an agreement was reached with both parties and the case was settled.

Dr. Brockley agreed to pay a $30,000 financial penalty and adopt a corrective action plan which included updating policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the HIPAA Right of Access.

$28,000 Financial Penalty for California Psychiatric Medical Services in HIPAA Right of Access Case

Jacob & Associates, a California provider of psychiatric medical services, was investigated by OCR over a complaint from a patient who claimed that medical records had been requested from Jacob & Associates on July 1, 2018, but had not been provided. The complainant claimed to have sent similar requests every July 1 since 2013 but had never been provided with the requested records.

After submitting the complaint to OCR, the complainant resent their record request was provided with a complete copy of the requested records on May 16, 2019, by electronic mail. However, in order for the patient to be provided with those records, she was required to travel to the practice to complete a record access form in person. She was also charged $25 for the copy of her records, and initially was only provided with an incomplete, single-page copy and had to submit another request to obtain her full records.

OCR determined that Jacob & Associates had violated the HIPAA Right of Access by not providing timely access to the patient’s medical records, had charged the patient an unreasonable non-cost-based fee, and did not have policies and procedures in place concerning the right of patients to access their protected health information.

During the investigation, OCR also determined that Jacob & Associates had not designated a HIPAA Privacy Officer and its notice of privacy practices lacked the required content. The case was settled for $28,000 and Jacob & Associates agreed to a corrective action plan to address all areas of alleged non-compliance.

$50,000 Civil Monetary Penalty Imposed on Dental Practice for Social Media HIPAA Violation

Dr. U. Phillip Igbinadolor, D.M.D. & Associates, P.A., (UPI), a dental practice with offices in Charlotte and Monroe, NC, was investigated by OCR after a patient submitted a complaint in November 2015 alleging an unauthorized disclosure of his protected health information in response to a negative online review of the practice.

On or around September 28, 2015, the complainant, using a pseudonym to protect his privacy, posted a negative review on UPI’s Google page.  UPI responded to the review and claimed the accusations made by the patient were unsubstantiated; however, UPI identified the patient and mentioned the patient’s full name on three occasions in the response, the symptoms the patient was experiencing, and the treatment that was recommended but not provided.

OCR reviewed the complaint and requested documentation from UPI in July 2016 on its policies and procedures covering responses to online reviews and social media, uses and disclosures of PHI, safeguarding PHI, and details of HIPAA training that was provided prior to, and in response to, the incident. UPI confirmed that a response had been posted to the Google page, but only provided OCR with its notice of privacy practices.

In August 2016, OCR informed UPI that the response to the review violated the HIPAA Privacy Rule and was an impermissible disclosure of PHI and told UI to remove its response to the review and implement policies and procedures, if they had not already been implemented, covering online reviews and social media. In 2017, OCR requested a copy of the policies and procedures and again told UPI to remove the response to the review.

Only an acknowledgment of training was provided to OCR, and it did not include any of the training content. The response to the review was not removed. OCR then requested financial statements to be used to determine an appropriate financial penalty, but UPI refused to provide them claiming they were not related to HIPAA. After OCR explained why they were required, UPI responded in September 2017 and refused to provide the records, and included the statement “I will see you in court”.

After receiving and failing to respond to an administrative subpoena requesting the provision of policies and procedures, training, income statements, balance sheets, statements of cash flow, and federal tax returns, and the failure to respond to further communications, OCR obtained the authorization of the Attorney General of the United States and imposed a civil monetary penalty of $50,000 under the penalty tier of wilful neglect with no correction.

Dental Practice Fined $62,500 for Impermissible Disclosure of PHI for Marketing Purposes

Northcutt Dental-Fairhope, LLC (Northcutt Dental), a Fairhope, AL dental practice, was investigated by OCR over an impermissible disclosure of PHI. Dr. David Northcutt, the operator and owner of Northcutt Dental, ran for state senator for Alabama District 32 in 2017. Dr. Northcutt engaged a campaign manager and a third-party marketing company to provide assistance with the state senate election campaign. The campaign manager was provided with an Excel spreadsheet that included the names and addresses of 3,657 patients, and letters were sent to those individuals to notify them that Dr. Northcutt was running for state senate.  The email addresses of those individuals, along with the email addresses of a further 1,727 patients, were provided to the marketing company Solutionreach to send a campaign email.

OCR determined that the disclosures of PHI to the campaign manager and third-party marketing company were impermissible disclosures of PHI. OCR also determined that Northcutt Dental had not appointed a HIPAA Privacy Officer until November 14, 2017, and policies and procedures related to the HIPAA Privacy and Breach Notification Rules were not implemented until January 1, 2018. The case was settled and Northcutt Dental agreed to a $62,500 penalty and a corrective action plan to address the alleged areas of non-compliance.

The post OCR Announces 4 Financial Penalties to Resolve HIPAA Violations appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

February 2022 Healthcare Data Breach Report

Posted by HIPAA Journal

For the third successive month, the number of data breaches reported to the HHS’ Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has fallen. 46 healthcare data breaches of 500 or more records were reported to OCR in February – an 8% fall from January. February saw the lowest number of data breaches in the past 5 months. Even with the reduction in breaches, on average, more than 2 healthcare data breaches have been reported each day over the past 12 months. From March 1, 2021, to February 28, 2022, there have been 723 reported data breaches of 500 or more records.

Healthcare data breaches in the past 12 months

Across February’s 46 incidents, the records of 2,525,023 individuals were exposed or compromised – a 2.28% fall from the previous month – which is considerably lower than the 3,506,400 records that have been breached each month, on average, from March 1, 2021, to February 28, 2022. At least 42,076,805 healthcare records were exposed over that period. In February, the average breach size was 48,957 records and the median breach size was 7,014 records.

breached healthcare records over the past 12 months

Largest Healthcare Data Breaches Reported in February 2022

22 HIPAA-regulated entities reported breaches of 10,000 or more healthcare records in February. The largest breach of the month was reported by Morley Companies, which was a hacking incident that resulted in the exposure and possible theft of the protected health information of 521,046 members of its health plan.

Monongalia Health System reported a major hacking incident that potentially resulted in the theft of the PHI of 492,861 individuals. The breach was discovered a few days after the health system announced a previous data breach – a phishing and business email compromise attack – that affected almost 398,164 individuals.

Name of Covered Entity State Covered Entity Type Individuals Affected Type of Breach Cause of Breach
Morley Companies, Inc. MI Business Associate 521,046 Hacking/IT Incident Unspecified hacking incident
Monongalia Health System, Inc. WV Healthcare Provider 492,861 Hacking/IT Incident Unspecified hacking incident
Norwood Clinic AL Healthcare Provider 228,000 Hacking/IT Incident Unspecified hacking incident
Logan Health Medical Center MT Healthcare Provider 213,543 Hacking/IT Incident Unspecified hacking incident
South Shore Hospital Corporation IL Healthcare Provider 115,670 Hacking/IT Incident Unspecified hacking incident
Comprehensive Health Services FL Healthcare Provider 106,752 Hacking/IT Incident Business email compromise
US Radiology Specialists, Inc. NC Business Associate 87,552 Hacking/IT Incident Unknown
Memorial Village ER TX Healthcare Provider 80,000 Hacking/IT Incident Unspecified hacking incident
Montrose Regional Health CO Healthcare Provider 52,632 Hacking/IT Incident Compromised email accounts
Cross Timbers Health Clinics dba AccelHealth TX Healthcare Provider 48,126 Hacking/IT Incident Ransomware attack
Jacksonville Spine Center, P.A. FL Healthcare Provider 38,000 Hacking/IT Incident Ransomware attack
The Puerto Rican Organization to Motivate, Enlighten, and Serve Addicts, Inc. NY Healthcare Provider 30,220 Hacking/IT Incident Compromised email accounts
EPIC Pharmacy Network, Inc. VA Healthcare Provider 28,776 Hacking/IT Incident Compromised email accounts
Ascension Michigan (single affiliated covered entity) ACE MI Healthcare Provider 27,177 Unauthorized Access/Disclosure Unauthorized EHR access by an employee
Bako Diagnostics GA Healthcare Provider 25,745 Hacking/IT Incident Unspecified hacking incident (data exfiltration confirmed)
Ultimate Care, Inc. NY Healthcare Provider 15,788 Hacking/IT Incident Compromised email accounts
Alliance Physical Therapy Group, LLC MI Business Associate 14,970 Hacking/IT Incident Unspecified hacking incident
University Medical Center Southern Nevada NV Healthcare Provider 12,230 Hacking/IT Incident Unknown
Seneca Nation Health System NY Healthcare Provider 12,000 Hacking/IT Incident Unknown
CareOregon Advantage OR Health Plan 10,467 Unauthorized Access/Disclosure Misdirected email
Extend Fertility NY Healthcare Provider 10,373 Hacking/IT Incident Ransomware attack
Houston Health Department TX Healthcare Provider 10,291 Unauthorized Access/Disclosure Misconfigured web portal

Causes of February 2022 Healthcare Data Breaches

As the table above shows, hacking incidents dominated the breach reports in February. 39 of the month’s data breaches were hacking/IT incidents, the majority of which saw unauthorized individuals hack into networks and view and/or exfiltrate sensitive data. It is common for breached entities to disclose hacking incidents but not publicly disclose details about the exact nature of the attacks, such as if they involved malware or ransomware. Across those 39 breaches, the records of 2,184,973 individuals were exposed or compromised. The average breach size was 56,025 records and the median breach size was 6,221 records.

causes of february 2022 healthcare data breaches

There were 6 unauthorized access/disclosure incidents reported in February involving the records of 62,550 individuals. The average breach size was 10,425 records and the median breach size was 8,953 records. There was one loss incident involving a desktop computer that contained the PHI of 4,500 individuals. There were no reported theft or improper disposal incidents.location of breached PHI in February 2022 healthcare data breaches

Healthcare Data Breaches by State

HIPAA-regulated entities in 23 states reported data breaches in February. New York the worst affected state with 6 reported breaches, followed by Florida, Michigan, and New Jersey which each had 5.

State Number of reported breaches
New York 6
Florida, Michigan, and New Jersey 5
Texas and Virginia 3
Pennsylvania and West Virginia 2
Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, and Washington 1

Healthcare Data Breaches by HIPAA-Regulated Entity Type

Healthcare providers were the worst affected entity in February 2022 having reported a total of 35 data breaches involving the records of 1,597,155 individuals. There were 6 data breaches reported by health plans involving 21,284 records, and 5 data breaches were self-reported by business associates of HIPAA-covered entities, which involved the records of 633,584 individuals.

10 breaches occurred at business associates but were reported by the affected covered entity, with the adjusted figures shown in the chart below.

February 2022 healthcare data breaches by HIPAA-regulated entity type

HIPAA Enforcement Actions in February 2022

There were no announcements by the HHS’ Office for Civil Rights or state Attorneys General about HIPAA enforcement actions in February. In fact, there have been no financial penalties imposed for HIPAA violations so far in 2022.

OCR Director, Lisa J. Pino, has confirmed that the Department of Health and Human Services has an ambitious regulatory agenda for 2021, which will include strong enforcement of HIPAA compliance, including the continuation of its enforcement initiative targeting healthcare providers that violate the HIPAA Right of Access and fail to provide individuals with timely access to their medical records.

The post February 2022 Healthcare Data Breach Report appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

OCR: HIPAA Security Rule Compliance Can Prevent and Mitigate Most Cyberattacks

Posted by HIPAA Journal

Healthcare hacking incidents have been steadily rising for a number of years. There was a 45% increase in hacking/IT incidents between 2019 and 2020, and in 2021, 66% of breaches of unsecured electronic protected health information were due to hacking and other IT incidents. A large percentage of those breaches could have been prevented if HIPAA-regulated entities were fully compliant with the HIPAA Security Rule.

The Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights explained in its March 2022 cybersecurity newsletter that compliance with the HIPAA Security Rule will prevent or substantially mitigate most cyberattacks. Most cyberattacks on the healthcare industry are financially motivated and are conducted to steal electronic protected health information or encrypt patient data to prevent legitimate access. The initial access to healthcare networks is gained via tried and tested methods such as phishing attacks and the exploitation of known vulnerabilities and weak authentication protocols, rather than exploiting previously unknown vulnerabilities.

Prevention of Phishing

Phishing is one of the commonest ways that cyber actors gain a foothold in healthcare networks. Coveware’s Q2, 2021 Quarterly Ransomware Report suggests 42% of ransomware attacks in the quarter saw initial network access gained via phishing emails. Phishing attacks attempt to trick employees into visiting a malicious website and disclosing their credentials or opening a malicious file and installing malware.

Anti-phishing technologies such as spam filters and web filters are key technical safeguards to prevent phishing attacks. They stop emails from being delivered from known malicious domains, scan attachments and links, and block access to known malicious websites where malware is downloaded or credentials are harvested. These tools are important technical safeguards for ensuring the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of ePHI.

OCR reminded HIPAA-regulated entities that “The Security Rule requires regulated entities to implement a security awareness and training program for all workforce members,” which includes management personnel and senior executives. “A regulated entity’s training program should be an ongoing, evolving process and be flexible enough to educate workforce members on new and current cybersecurity threats (e.g., ransomware, phishing) and how to respond,” said OCR.

The Security Rule also has an addressable requirement to send periodic security reminders to the workforce. OCR said one of the most effective forms of “security reminders” is phishing simulation emails. These exercises gauge the effectiveness of the training program and allow regulated entities to identify weak links and address them. Those weak leaks could be employees who have not fully understood their training or gaps in the training program.

“Unfortunately, security training can fail to be effective if it is viewed by workforce members as a burdensome, “check-the-box” exercise consisting of little more than self-paced slide presentations,” suggested OCR. “Regulated entities should develop innovative ways to keep the security trainings interesting and keep workforce members engaged in understanding their roles in protecting ePHI.”

Prevention of Vulnerability Exploitation

Some cyberattacks exploit previously unknown vulnerabilities (zero-day attacks) but it is much more common for hackers to exploit known vulnerabilities for which patches are available or mitigations have been made public. It is the failure to patch and update operating systems promptly that allows cyber actors to take advantage of these vulnerabilities.

The continued use of outdated, unsupported software and operating systems (legacy systems) is common in the healthcare industry. “Regulated entities should upgrade or replace obsolete, unsupported applications and devices (legacy systems),” said OCR. “However, if an obsolete, unsupported system cannot be upgraded or replaced, additional safeguards should be implemented or existing safeguards enhanced to mitigate known vulnerabilities until upgrade or replacement can occur (e.g., increase access restrictions, remove or restrict network access, disable unnecessary features or services”

The HIPAA Security Rule requires regulated entities to implement a security management process to prevent, detect, contain, and fix security violations. A risk analysis must be conducted and risks and vulnerabilities to ePHI must be reduced to a reasonable and appropriate level. The risk analysis and risk management process should identify and address technical and non-technical vulnerabilities.

To help address technical vulnerabilities, OCR recommends signing up for alerts and bulletins from CISA, OCR, the HHS Health Sector Cybersecurity Coordination Center (HC3), and participating in an information sharing and analysis center (ISAC). Vulnerability management should include regular vulnerability scans and periodic penetration tests.

Eradicate Weak Cybersecurity Practices

Cyber actors often exploit poor authentication practices, such as weak passwords and single-factor authentication. The 2020 Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report suggests over 80% of breaches due to hacking involved compromised or brute-forced credentials.

“Regulated entities are required to verify that persons or entities seeking access to ePHI are who they claim to be by implementing authentication processes,” explained OCR. The risk of unauthorized access is higher when users access systems remotely, so additional authentication controls should be implemented, such as multi-factor authentication for remote access.

Since privileged accounts provide access to a wider range of systems and data, steps should be taken to bolster the security of those accounts. “To reduce the risk of unauthorized access to privileged accounts, the regulated entity could decide that a privileged access management (PAM) system is reasonable and appropriate to implement,” suggests OCR. “A PAM system is a solution to secure, manage, control, and audit access to and use of privileged accounts and/or functions for an organization’s infrastructure.  A PAM solution gives organizations control and insight into how its privileged accounts are used within its environment and thus can help detect and prevent the misuse of privileged accounts.”

OCR reminds regulated entities that they are required to periodically examine the strength and effectiveness of their cybersecurity practices and increase or add security controls to reduce risk as appropriate, and also conduct periodic technical and non-technical evaluations of implemented security safeguards in response to environmental or operational changes affecting the security of ePHI.

The post OCR: HIPAA Security Rule Compliance Can Prevent and Mitigate Most Cyberattacks appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

Video: Why HIPAA Compliance is Important for Healthcare Professionals

Posted by HIPAA Journal

Many sources explaining why HIPAA compliance is important for healthcare professionals tend to focus on the purpose of HIPAA regulations rather than the benefits of compliance for healthcare professionals. The same sources also tend to focus on how noncompliance affects patients and employers, rather than the impact it can have on healthcare professionals´ lives.

This article discusses why HIPAA compliance is important for healthcare professionals from a healthcare professional´s perspective. It explains why healthcare professionals cannot avoid HIPAA; and that, by complying with HIPAA, healthcare professionals can foster patient trust, keep patients safer, and contribute towards better patient outcomes. This is turn raises morale, creates a more rewarding work experience, and enables healthcare professionals to get more from their vocation.

Conversely, the failure to comply with HIPAA can have significant professional and personal consequences. Yet the failure to comply with HIPAA is not always a healthcare professional´s fault. Sometimes it can be due to insufficient training or cultural norms. We look at why Covered Entities might not always be able to provide sufficient training or monitor HIPAA compliance, why they may not accept responsibility when an avoidable HIPAA violation occurs, and how you can avoid HIPAA violations due to a lack of knowledge.

Click here for free HIPAA training

Click here to view HIPAA training pricing

Why Healthcare Professionals Cannot Avoid HIPAA

One of the objectives of HIPAA is to provide a federal floor of privacy protections for individuals´ identifiable health information held by Covered Entities. To achieve this objective, the Privacy and Security Rules imposes standards Covered Entities must comply with in order to protect the privacy of “Protected Health Information” (PHI). The failure to comply with the HIPAA standards can result in substantial financial penalties – even when no data breach occurs and PHI is not compromised.

Most healthcare organizations are Covered Entities and, as such, are required to implement policies and procedures to comply with the Privacy and Security Rule standards. As employees of Covered Entities, healthcare professionals are required to comply with their employer´s policies and procedures. This is why healthcare professionals cannot avoid HIPAA. However, this is not the only reason why HIPAA compliance is important for healthcare professionals.

The Benefits of HIPAA Compliance for Healthcare Professionals

There is little doubt the most important element of a patient/healthcare professional relationship is trust. Patients trust their healthcare professionals with intimate details of their lives because they trust healthcare professionals work in their best interests to achieve optimal health outcomes. However, trust can be a fragile commodity. If their intimate details are exposed due to a HIPAA violation, patients may withhold information crucial to the delivery of care despite the potential long-lasting consequences for their health.

Healthcare professionals can mitigate the risk of trust being broken by complying with the policies and procedures implemented by their employer to prevent HIPAA violations. When patients are confident their privacy is being respected, this fosters trust – which contributes to the delivery of better care in order to achieve optimal health outcomes. Better patient outcomes raise the morale of healthcare professionals and result in a more rewarding work experience.

The Professional and Personal Consequences of Noncompliance

One of the policies a Covered Entity is required to implement is a sanctions policy for when members of its workforce do not comply with HIPAA policies and procedures. Covered Entities are required to enforce the sanctions policy and act on HIPAA violations by healthcare professionals because, if they don´t enforce the sanctions policy, the Covered Entity will be in violation of HIPAA. Furthermore, if the Covered Entity fails to act, noncompliance can deteriorate into a cultural norm.

Being sanctioned for a HIPAA violation can have professional and personal consequences for healthcare professionals. Penalties can range from verbal warnings to the loss of professional accreditation – which will make it difficult for a healthcare professional to get another job – and, if a criminal conviction results from the noncompliance, it will likely be reported in the media which will have repercussions for a healthcare professional´s personal reputation.

Who is Responsible for HIPAA Violations?

As mentioned previously, the failure to comply with HIPAA is not always the healthcare professional´s fault. Although Covered Entities are required to provide training on policies and procedures that relate to healthcare professionals´ functions, they may not have the resources to provide training on every conceivable scenario a healthcare professional may encounter, or to monitor compliance 24/7 in order to prevent the development of cultural norms.

Consequently, unintentional violations of HIPAA can occur due to a lack of knowledge. However, Covered Entities are not always willing to accept responsibility for unintentional violations due to a lack of knowledge because it implies they failed to conduct a thorough risk assessment, overlooked a threat to the privacy of PHI, and failed to provide “necessary and appropriate” training – or, when a cultural norm has developed, failed to monitor compliance with policies and procedures.

How You Can Avoid Unintentional Violations of HIPAA

The best way to avoid unintentional HIPAA violations and the professional and personal consequences of noncompliance – even when they are not your fault – is to ensure your knowledge of HIPAA covers every area of your role and the scenarios you may encounter. To achieve this level of knowledge, you should take advantage of third-party HIPAA training courses that provide you with an in-depth knowledge of HIPAA and its rules and regulations.

Taking responsibility for your own knowledge of HIPAA – and using that knowledge to work in a HIPAA-compliant manner – protects your career, improves your job prospects, and enables you to get more from your vocation. Given the choice, most healthcare professionals would prefer to work in an environment which operates compliantly to delivery better patient outcomes, in which morale is high, and in which the healthcare professional enjoys a more rewarding work experience.

Click here to view HIPAA training pricing

The post Video: Why HIPAA Compliance is Important for Healthcare Professionals appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

Poor Employee Cyber Hygiene is Putting Healthcare Cybersecurity at Risk

Posted by HIPAA Journal

There have been calls for healthcare organizations to take steps to improve security due to a major rise in hacking incidents, ransomware attacks, and vulnerability disclosures in 2021. Record numbers of healthcare data breaches were reported last year, and tens of millions of healthcare records were compromised.

Adhering to the minimum requirements of the HIPAA Security Rule and conducting risk analyses, having robust risk management practices, conducting vulnerability scans, and implementing technical safeguards such as intrusion prevention systems, next-generation firewalls, and spam filters are all important measures to improve cybersecurity and ensure HIPAA compliance, but it is also important to improve the human aspect of cybersecurity. Risky employee behaviors need to be eradicated and the workforce needs to be trained to be more security-aware and taught how to recognize common attacks that target individuals, such as phishing and social engineering.

The human aspect of cybersecurity is often one of the weakest links in the security chain, which has been highlighted by a recent study commissioned by New Zealand-based Mobile Mentor and conducted by the Austin, TX-based Center for Generational Kinetics. The aim of the study was to explore the Endpoint Ecosystem to understand how employees perceive privacy, productivity, and personal well-being in the modern workplace. The Endpoint Ecosystem is the combination of all devices, applications, and tools that are used by employees coupled with the experiences of employees using technologies.

The survey was conducted on 1,500 employees in highly regulated industries such as government, healthcare, education, and finance in the United States and Australia, and the findings are detailed in the Mobile Mentor report, The Endpoint Ecosystem – 2022 National Study.

Employees are Taking Security Risks

The survey confirmed what other studies have found – The pandemic has led to the workforce becoming much more distributed and employers have had difficulty adapting to this new way of working and ensuring security policies are implemented and enforced that are well suited to the change in how employees are working.

One of the major findings was a lack of awareness about security policies and a failure of employers to provide security awareness training to the workforce. 27% of employees said they saw security policies less than once a year and 39% said they receive security awareness training less than once a year. Healthcare and education employees were the least likely to see security policies and employees often felt they were not adequately trained to protect company data.

41% of respondents said security policies implemented by their employers restricted the way they work, and 36% of employees said they had found a way to work around security policies. The use of shadow IT – applications and services that have not been authorized by the IT department – was found to be out of control. Workers are routinely using unregulated apps and services for work activities, which can involve regulated data.  Employees commonly used services such as Gmail and Dropbox because they believe it makes them more efficient, even though the use of those services has an impact on security.

Interestingly, while remote working is viewed as a security risk, remote workers appeared to be much more tech-savvy, were more aware of security and privacy policies, and were more careful with their passwords. That said, workers are allowing family members to use their work devices – 46% of younger workers said other family members use their work devices.

The lines are getting blurred between device use for personal and work purposes. Overall, 64% of respondents said they use personal devices for work, but only 31% had a secure BYOD program.  57% of younger workers said they use work devices for personal use and 71% said they used personal devices for work. Many employers are failing to address the security risks associated with the use of personal devices for work purposes and work devices for personal use.

Poor Password Hygiene is a Major Security Risk

One of the main security risks identified in the study related to passwords. Poor password hygiene is a major security risk. 80% of cyberattacks start with a compromised password. One of the findings, mirrored by a recent IDC survey, is employees have too many passwords to remember. While password policies may be in place – and enforced – they are often circumvented. 69% of respondents said they choose passwords that are easy to remember, 29% of employees said they write down their passwords in a personal journal, and 24% said they store work passwords on their phones. While many of the security problems associated with passwords can be solved by using a password manager, only 31% of respondents used one.

The survey revealed employees are much more concerned about personal privacy than security, with healthcare employees the most concerned about protecting personal privacy. Mobile Mentor suggests that healthcare employers looking to improve security need to teach employees that privacy and security are two sides of the same coin.

“When the endpoint ecosystem works well, you have a secure, productive, and happy workforce. It’s always been important, but it became urgent over the last two years when the pandemic forced more people to work remotely, cybersecurity attacks increased, and the Great Resignation forced employers to rethink how they support their employees,” said Denis O’Shea, founder of Mobile Mentor. “Until employers prioritize the importance of each component within the Endpoint Ecosystem, their company security and employee productivity are going to be exposed to serious risk.”

The post Poor Employee Cyber Hygiene is Putting Healthcare Cybersecurity at Risk appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

Poor Employee Cyber Hygiene is Putting Healthcare Cybersecurity at Risk

Posted by HIPAA Journal

There have been calls for healthcare organizations to take steps to improve security due to a major rise in hacking incidents, ransomware attacks, and vulnerability disclosures in 2021. Record numbers of healthcare data breaches were reported last year, and tens of millions of healthcare records were compromised.

Adhering to the minimum requirements of the HIPAA Security Rule and conducting risk analyses, having robust risk management practices, conducting vulnerability scans, and implementing technical safeguards such as intrusion prevention systems, next-generation firewalls, and spam filters are all important measures to improve cybersecurity and ensure HIPAA compliance, but it is also important to improve the human aspect of cybersecurity. Risky employee behaviors need to be eradicated and the workforce needs to be trained to be more security-aware and taught how to recognize common attacks that target individuals, such as phishing and social engineering.

The human aspect of cybersecurity is often one of the weakest links in the security chain, which has been highlighted by a recent study commissioned by New Zealand-based Mobile Mentor and conducted by the Austin, TX-based Center for Generational Kinetics. The aim of the study was to explore the Endpoint Ecosystem to understand how employees perceive privacy, productivity, and personal well-being in the modern workplace. The Endpoint Ecosystem is the combination of all devices, applications, and tools that are used by employees coupled with the experiences of employees using technologies.

The survey was conducted on 1,500 employees in highly regulated industries such as government, healthcare, education, and finance in the United States and Australia, and the findings are detailed in the Mobile Mentor report, The Endpoint Ecosystem – 2022 National Study.

Employees are Taking Security Risks

The survey confirmed what other studies have found – The pandemic has led to the workforce becoming much more distributed and employers have had difficulty adapting to this new way of working and ensuring security policies are implemented and enforced that are well suited to the change in how employees are working.

One of the major findings was a lack of awareness about security policies and a failure of employers to provide security awareness training to the workforce. 27% of employees said they saw security policies less than once a year and 39% said they receive security awareness training less than once a year. Healthcare and education employees were the least likely to see security policies and employees often felt they were not adequately trained to protect company data.

41% of respondents said security policies implemented by their employers restricted the way they work, and 36% of employees said they had found a way to work around security policies. The use of shadow IT – applications and services that have not been authorized by the IT department – was found to be out of control. Workers are routinely using unregulated apps and services for work activities, which can involve regulated data.  Employees commonly used services such as Gmail and Dropbox because they believe it makes them more efficient, even though the use of those services has an impact on security.

Interestingly, while remote working is viewed as a security risk, remote workers appeared to be much more tech-savvy, were more aware of security and privacy policies, and were more careful with their passwords. That said, workers are allowing family members to use their work devices – 46% of younger workers said other family members use their work devices.

The lines are getting blurred between device use for personal and work purposes. Overall, 64% of respondents said they use personal devices for work, but only 31% had a secure BYOD program.  57% of younger workers said they use work devices for personal use and 71% said they used personal devices for work. Many employers are failing to address the security risks associated with the use of personal devices for work purposes and work devices for personal use.

Poor Password Hygiene is a Major Security Risk

One of the main security risks identified in the study related to passwords. Poor password hygiene is a major security risk. 80% of cyberattacks start with a compromised password. One of the findings, mirrored by a recent IDC survey, is employees have too many passwords to remember. While password policies may be in place – and enforced – they are often circumvented. 69% of respondents said they choose passwords that are easy to remember, 29% of employees said they write down their passwords in a personal journal, and 24% said they store work passwords on their phones. While many of the security problems associated with passwords can be solved by using a password manager, only 31% of respondents used one.

The survey revealed employees are much more concerned about personal privacy than security, with healthcare employees the most concerned about protecting personal privacy. Mobile Mentor suggests that healthcare employers looking to improve security need to teach employees that privacy and security are two sides of the same coin.

“When the endpoint ecosystem works well, you have a secure, productive, and happy workforce. It’s always been important, but it became urgent over the last two years when the pandemic forced more people to work remotely, cybersecurity attacks increased, and the Great Resignation forced employers to rethink how they support their employees,” said Denis O’Shea, founder of Mobile Mentor. “Until employers prioritize the importance of each component within the Endpoint Ecosystem, their company security and employee productivity are going to be exposed to serious risk.”

The post Poor Employee Cyber Hygiene is Putting Healthcare Cybersecurity at Risk appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

HIPAA Violation Reporting

Posted by HIPAA Journal

There is no one-size-fits-all HIPAA violation reporting process because different organizations have different policies and procedures for reporting HIPAA violations, while the process for reporting violations to HHS´ Office for Civil Rights varies according to the nature of the violation and who is making the report.

There are many different types of HIPAA violations, but some are not as serious as others. For example, the failure to send periodic security reminders (an implementation specification of 45 CFR § 164.308) is a HIPAA violation, but it is unlikely to have as serious consequences as the theft of an unencrypted laptop containing the ePHI of twenty thousand patients.

Consequently, a single Covered Entity or Business Associate may have several HIPAA violation reporting processes depending on the nature and potential severity of the event. Similarly, the HHS´ Office for Civil Rights – the HIPAA enforcement agency – has three reporting processes through which organizations, members of the workforce, and patients can report a HIPAA violation.

HIPAA Violation Reporting by Employees

When a HIPAA violation is identified by a member of a Covered Entity´s or Business Associate´s workforce, the reporting process is determined by the organization´s HIPAA policies and procedures. Some organizations´ policies require a verbal report to an immediate supervisor or manager, while others require the violation to be reported in writing directly to the organization´s Privacy or Security Officer. In some cases, the recipient of the report depends on the nature of the violation.

Some organizational policies include a process for escalating HIPAA violation reporting. Typically, if the immediate supervisor fails to address the violation, the report should be escalated to the Privacy or Security Officer. If the violation remains unaddressed, the report should be escalated to the HHS´ Office for Civil Rights. It is also possible to escalate reports to State Attorney Generals or through the courts by bringing a qui tam action against the Covered Entity or Business Associate.

HIPAA Violation Reporting by Patients

Most patients´ knowledge of HIPAA is limited to the information provided for them in a Notice of Privacy Practices. Consequently, patients should be aware of their HIPAA rights and how to report a violation of their rights – most often to the Covered Entity´s Privacy Officer (whose contact details should be on the Notice of Privacy Practices) or to the HHS´ Office for Civil Rights through the online complaints portal. Complaints using these channels have to made within six months of the violation.

If a patient witnesses a violation unrelated to their rights, the HIPAA violation reporting process varies slightly. Reports can be made to the organization´s Privacy Officer as before, to the HHS´ Office for Civil Rights via a different complaint portal (for Privacy Rule violations and Security Rule violations), or to State Attorney Generals via State Departments for Consumer Protection. However, federal and state agencies may require evidence of the violation before initiating an investigation.

Reporting Data Breaches to HHS´ Office for Civil Rights

Covered Entities and Business Associates are not required to report HIPAA violations unless they result in unauthorized access to – or acquisition, use, or disclosure of – unsecured PHI. Most HIPAA violations of this nature must be reported to individuals affected by the data breach and to the HSS´ Office for Civil Rights, unless it can be shown there is a low probability PHI has been compromised based on a four-point risk assessment or an exception to the reporting requirements exists.

The manner of HIPAA violation reporting to HHS´ Office for Civil Rights varies according to the number of individuals affected by the data breach. For data breaches affecting more than five hundred individuals, Covered Entities must notify HHS´ Office for Civil Rights within sixty days of the breach being identified. For breaches affecting fewer than five hundred individuals, Covered Entities can report these violations of HIPAA to HHS´ Office for Civil Rights on an annual basis.

Why You Shouldn´t Delay Reporting HIPAA Violations

There are multiple reasons why members of the workforce, patients, and Covered Entities should not delay reporting HIPAA violations. One of the most pressing reasons for members of the workforce – and supervisors, managers, and Privacy Officers – not to delay HIPAA violation reporting is that, if reports are delayed, no action will be taken to address them, and violations could develop into “cultural norms” which will be harder to reverse.

For the same reason, patients should not delay reporting HIPAA violations – notwithstanding that they only have a six month window for making a complaint – while the consequences of Covered Entities failing to report HIPAA violations in a timely manner can be substantial. In 2019, Sentara Hospitals had to pay a fine of $2.175 million as part of a settlement for failing to notify the HHS´ Office of Civil Rights of a data breach affecting 577 patients.

The post HIPAA Violation Reporting appeared first on HIPAA Journal.