HIPAA Compliance News

$2.3 Million 21st Century Oncology HIPAA Settlement Agreed with OCR

Posted by HIPAA Journal

A 21st Century Oncology HIPAA settlement has been agreed with the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to resolve potential HIPAA violations discovered during the investigation of a 2015 breach of 2.2 million patients’ PHI.

The breach in question was discovered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 2015. The FBI informed 21st Century Oncology on November 13 and December 13, 2015, that an unauthorized individual accessed and stole information from one of its patient databases.

21st Century Oncology conducted an investigation with the assistance of a third-party computer forensics company and discovered the network SQL database was potentially first accessed on October 3, 2015. The database was accessed through Remote Desktop Protocol from an Exchange Server within 21st Century Oncology’s network. The database contained the protected health information of 2,213,597 individuals.

As occurs after all data breaches that impact more than 500 individuals, OCR conducted an investigation into the 21st Century Oncology data breach. That investigation uncovered multiple potential violations of HIPAA Rules.

OCR determined that 21st Century Oncology failed to conduct a comprehensive, organization-wide risk assessment to determine the potential risks to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of electronic protected health information, as required by 45 C.F.R. § 164.308(a)(1)(ii)(A).

21st Century Oncology was also determined to have failed to implement sufficient measures to reduce risks to an appropriate and acceptable level to comply with 45 C.F.R. § 164.306(A).

21st Century Oncology also failed to implement procedures to regularly review logs of system activity, including audit logs, access reports, and security incident tracking reports, as required by 45 C.F.R. §164.308(a)(1)(ii)(D).

The breach resulted in the impermissible disclosure of the protected health information of 2,213,597 patients.

Further, protected health information of patients was disclosed to business associates without first entering into a HIPAA-compliant business associate agreement and obtaining satisfactory assurances that HIPAA requirements would be followed.

To resolve those potential HIPAA violations, 21st Century Oncology agreed to pay OCR $2.3 million. In addition to the financial settlement, 21st Century Oncology has agreed to adopt a comprehensive corrective action plan (CAP) to bring its policies and procedures up to the standards demanded by HIPAA.

Under the CAP, 21st Century Oncology must appoint a compliance officer, revise its policies and procedures with respect to system activity reviews, access establishment, modification and termination, conduct an organization-wide risk assessment, develop internal policies and procedures for reporting violations of HIPAA Rules, and train staff on new policies.

21st Century Oncology is also required to engage a qualified, objective, and independent assessor to review compliance with the CAP.

Separate $26 Million Settlement Resolves Meaningful Use, Stark Law, and False Claims Act Violations

In addition to the OCR settlement to resolve potential HIPAA violations, 21st Century Oncology has also agreed to a $26 million settlement with the Department of Justice to resolve allegations that it submitted false or inflated Meaningful Use attestations in order to receive incentive payments. 21st Century Oncology self-reported that employees falsely submitted information relating to the use of EHRs to avoid downward payment adjustments. Fabricated reports were also submitted, and the logos of EHR vendors were superimposed on reports to make them appear genuine.

The settlement also resolves allegations that the False Claims Act was violated by submitting or enabling the submission of claims that involved kickbacks for physician referrals, and also violations of the Stark Law, which covers physician self-referrals.

According to the Department of Justice, “The Stark Law prohibits an entity from submitting claims to Medicare for designated health services performed pursuant to referrals from physicians with whom the entity has a financial relationship unless certain designated exceptions apply.”

“We appreciate that 21st Century Oncology self-reported a major fraud affecting Medicare, and we are also pleased that the company has agreed to accept financial responsibility for past compliance failures,” said Middle District of Florida Acting U.S. Attorney Stephen Muldrow.

In addition to paying the settlement amount, 21st Century Oncology has entered into a 5-year Corporate Integrity Agreement with the HHS’ Office of Inspector General (OIG).

The post $2.3 Million 21st Century Oncology HIPAA Settlement Agreed with OCR appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

Noncompliance with HIPAA Costs Healthcare Organizations Dearly

Posted by HIPAA Journal

Noncompliance with HIPAA can carry a significant cost for healthcare organizations, yet even though the penalties for HIPAA violations can be considerable, many healthcare organizations have substandard compliance programs and are violating multiple aspects of HIPAA Rules.

The Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (OCR) commenced the much delayed second phase of HIPAA compliance audits last year with a round of desk audits, first on healthcare organizations and secondly on business associates of covered entities.

Those desk audits revealed many healthcare organizations are either struggling with HIPAA compliance, or are simply not doing enough to ensure HIPAA Rules are followed.

The preliminary results of the desk audits, released by OCR in September, showed healthcare organizations’ compliance efforts were largely inadequate. 94% of organizations had inadequate risk management plans, 89% were rated as inadequate on patients’ right to access their PHI, and 83% had performed inadequate risk analyses. It would appear that for many healthcare organizations, little has changed since the first phase of compliance audits were conducted in 2011/2012. Noncompliance with HIPAA is still widespread.

A few years ago, the risk of the discovery of a HIPAA violation was relatively low. Even when HIPAA violations were discovered, OCR rarely issued financial penalties. Similarly, even though the HITECH Act permits state attorneys general to issue fines for HIPAA violations, relatively few have exercised that right.

Today, the risk of HIPAA violations being discovered is significantly higher. Patients are now much more knowledgeable about their rights under HIPAA, and OCR has made it easy for them to file complaints about suspected HIPAA violations. HIPAA complaints are investigated by OCR.

The rise in cyberattacks on healthcare organizations mean data breaches are now far more likely to occur. A recent study by HIMSS Analytics/Mimecast showed 78% of healthcare organizations have experienced a ransomware or malware attack in the past 12 months, while an Accenture/AMA report showed 83% of physicians have experienced a cyberattack.

OCR investigates all breaches of more than 500 records to determine whether HIPAA Rules are being followed. When a breach occurs, organizations’ HIPAA compliance programs will be scrutinized.

OCR has also stepped up enforcement of HIPAA Rules and financial penalties are far more common. Since January 1, 2016, there have been 20 settlements reached between OCR and HIPAA covered entities and their business associates, and two civil monetary penalties issued.

OCR has yet to state whether financial penalties will be pursued as a result of the HIPAA audits, but OCR is not expected to turn a blind eye to major HIPAA failures. Multiple violations of HIPAA Rules could well see financial penalties pursued.

The higher likelihood of a data breach occurring or a complaint being filed means noncompliance with HIPAA is likely to be discovered. But what are the costs of noncompliance with HIPAA? What are the incentives for ensuring all HIPAA Rules are followed?

The Cost of Noncompliance with HIPAA

The high cost of HIPAA noncompliance has been summarized in the infographic below:

 

The Cost of Noncompliance with HIPAA

The post Noncompliance with HIPAA Costs Healthcare Organizations Dearly appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

AMA Study Reveals 83% of Physicians Have Experienced a Cyberattack

Posted by HIPAA Journal

Following the HIMSS Analytics/Mimecast survey that revealed 78% of healthcare organizations have experienced a ransomware or malware attack in the past 12 months, comes a new report on healthcare cybersecurity from the American Medical Association (AMA) and Accenture.

The Accenture/AMA survey was conducted on 1,300 physicians across the United States and aimed to take the ‘physician’s pulse on cybersecurity.’ The survey confirmed that it is no longer a case of whether a cyberattack will be experienced, it is just a matter of when cyberattacks will occur and how frequently.

83% of physicians who took part in the survey said they had previously experienced a cyberattack. When asked about the nature of the cyberattacks, the most common type was phishing. 55% of physicians who had experienced a cyberattack said the incident involved phishing – A similar finding to the HIMSS Analytics survey which revealed email was the top attack vector in healthcare.

48% of physicians who experienced a cyberattack said computer viruses such as malware and ransomware were involved. Physicians at medium to large practices were twice as likely to experience those types of cyberattacks than those at small practices.

When cyberattacks occur, they can result in considerable downtime. 64% of physicians said they experienced up to 4 hours of downtime following an attack, while 29% of physicians at medium-sized practices experienced downtime of up to one day.

Given the frequency of cyberattacks and the difficulty physician practices have at preventing those attacks, it is not surprising that the threat of attack is a major cause of concern. 55% of physicians were very or extremely worried about further cyberattacks at their practice. 74% said they were most concerned that future attacks would disrupt clinical practices and the same percentage were concerned that cyberattacks would result in breaches of patients’ protected health information. 53% were concerned that cyberattacks would have an impact on patient safety.

Physicians are aware that HIPAA compliance is important for cybersecurity, but simply doing the minimum and ensuring HIPAA requirements are met is not sufficient to prevent attacks. 83% of physicians said a more holistic approach to prioritizing risks is required than simply complying with HIPAA.

Kaveh Safavi, head of Accenture’s global practice said “Physician practices should not rely on compliance alone to enhance their security profile. Keeping pace with the sophistication of cyberattacks demands that physicians strengthen their capabilities, build resilience and invest in new technologies to support a foundation of digital trust with patients.”

Interestingly, while 87% of physicians believed their practice was compliant with HIPAA Rules, two thirds of physicians still have basic questions about HIPAA, suggesting their compliance programs may not be quite as comprehensive as they believe.

While the sharing of ePHI can introduce new risks, 85% believed PHI sharing was important, and 2 in 3 physicians thought that more access to patient data could improve the care provided to patients.

“New research shows that most physicians think that securely exchanging electronic data is important to improve health care. More support from the government, technology and medical sectors would help physicians with a proactive cybersecurity defense to better ensure the availability, confidentially and integrity of health care data,” said AMA President David. O. Barbe.

The post AMA Study Reveals 83% of Physicians Have Experienced a Cyberattack appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

City of Portland Apologizes for Sharing PHI of HIV Positive Patients Without Prior Consent

Posted by HIPAA Journal

information with third parties without first obtaining consent from patients. That has led some patients and healthcare officials to believe the City of Portland violated HIPAA by sharing information on HIV-positive patients with the University of Southern Maine without first obtaining consent.

Portland runs a HIV-positive health program, and individuals enrolled in that program were not informed that some of their information – their name, address, phone number and HIV positive status – would be shared with USM’s Muskie School of Public Service (MSPS).

The information was shared in order for MSPS to conduct a survey on behalf of the city.  When that survey was conducted, it became clear to patients that some of their PHI had been shared without their knowledge. Two patients complained that their privacy had been violated.  Following receipt of the complaints, the city suspended its survey and conducted an investigation into the alleged privacy violation.

While the HIPAA Privacy Rule does restrict the sharing of PHI with third parties, there are exceptions. Officials at the City of Portland maintain that HIPAA Rules were not violated. HIPAA does permit healthcare organizations to share PHI with third parties for research programs, and in such cases, consent from patients is not a requirement, provided certain conditions are met.

While HIPAA Rules may not have been violated, the City of Portland will be issuing a written apology to all affected patients – which number more than 200 – about the privacy violation. The letter, written by Portland’s public health director, Dr. Kolawole Bankole, said, “We have learned important lessons from this experience and are implementing new and updated policies and procedures for ensuring that our health care entities and programs better communicate with patients regarding uses and disclosures of their patient’s [PHI] for these types of research, program evaluation and business associate-related purposes going forward.”

While some city officials do not believe HIPAA Rules have been violated, that view is not shared by all. Dr. Ann Lemire, a former director of Portland’s India Street clinic had previously warned the city not to share the list of patients with USM researchers as doing so would be a violation of HIPAA. Lemire told the Press Herald, “I feel our patients have been violated and continue to be treated poorly and without respect.”

While HIPAA Rules may allow Portland to share PHI in this instance, information appears to have been shared before both parties entered into a business associate agreement. According to USM’s assistant provost for research, Ross Hickey, the list of patients was shared before a business associate agreement was obtained. After receiving the list, USM requested a BAA. That BAA was subsequently provided, in which the responsibilities USM had with respect to PHI were detailed.

In this case, the BAA made no difference to how USM secured the list and restricted access to the shared PHI, as strict privacy and security policies were already in place. However, the sharing of the list before entering into a BAA is something the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights may choose to investigate, in addition to determining whether consent should have been obtained from patients before the information was shared.

If it is discovered that HIPAA Rules were violated there is potential for a financial penalty, either from OCR or the Maine attorney general, who since the HITECH Act was passed, is also permitted to take action against organizations discovered to have violated HIPAA Rules.

The post City of Portland Apologizes for Sharing PHI of HIV Positive Patients Without Prior Consent appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

Oklahoma Health Department Re-Notifies 47,000 of 2016 Data Breach

Posted by HIPAA Journal

In April 2016, the Oklahoma Department of Human Services experienced a data breach, and while notifications were sent to affected individuals and the DHS’ Office of Inspector General shortly after the breach was detected, a breach notice was not submitted to the HHS’ Office for Civil Rights – A breach of HIPAA Rules.

Now, more than 18 months after the 60-day reporting window stipulated in the HIPAA Breach Notification Rule has passed, OCR has been notified. OCR has instructed the Oklahoma Department of Human Services to re-notify the 47,000 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families clients that were impacted by the breach to meet the requirements of HIPAA.

The breach in question occurred in April 2016 when an unauthorized individual gained access to a computer at Carl Albert State College in Poteau, Oklahoma. The computer contained records of current and former Temporary Assistance for Needy Families clients. The data on the server included names, addresses, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers.

Once the breach was identified, Carl Albert State College secured its systems to prevent further access and implemented new controls to monitor for potential breaches. In May 2016, the HHS Office of Inspector General was notified of the breach, and breach notification letters were sent to all individuals impacted by the attack in August 2016. However, no breach report was sent to the HHS’ Office for Civil Rights.

Now, not only must the Oklahoma Department of Human Services cover the cost of re-notifying 47,000 clients, overlooking the requirements of HIPAA to notify the HHS Secretary of the breach places the health department at risk of a considerable fine for non-compliance.

Earlier this year, OCR sent a message to all healthcare organizations that HIPAA Breach Notification Rule failures would not be tolerated when Presense Health was fined $475,000 for unnecessarily delaying the issuing of breach notification letters. Notifications were issued one month after the 60-day Breach Notification Rule deadline.

The post Oklahoma Health Department Re-Notifies 47,000 of 2016 Data Breach appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

Is GoToMeeting HIPAA Compliant?

Posted by HIPAA Journal

Is GoToMeeting HIPAA complaint? Can GoToMeeting be used by HIPAA-covered entities and their business associates for communicating protected health information without violating HIPAA Rules?

GoToMeeting is an online meeting and video conferencing solution offered by LogMeIn. The service is one of many conferencing and desktop sharing solutions that can improve communication and collaboration, with many benefits for healthcare organizations.

In order for collaboration tools to be used by healthcare organizations that are required to comply with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Rules, tools must a subject to a risk analysis and determined to meet the security standards demanded by HIPAA.

Fail to ensure that a particular service is HIPAA compliant and you could violate the privacy of patients, breach HIPAA Rules, and potentially have to cover a sizable financial penalty for non-compliance.

It should be pointed out that no software or communications platform can be truly HIPAA-compliant. Even if appropriate safeguards are incorporated to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of ePHI, it is still possible to use a ‘HIPAA-compliant’ service in a non-compliant manner. It is up to a HIPAA-covered entity or business associate to ensure that any software or communication platform is configured correctly, is used appropriately, that PHI is only shared or communicated to people authorized to receive the information, and that when information is disclosed, the minimum necessary standard applies.

How secure is GoToMeeting? Is GoToMeeting HIPAA compliant?

Is GoToMeeting HIPAA Compliant?

In order to consider GoToMeeting HIPAA compliant, technical safeguards would need to be incorporated to meet the requirements of the HIPAA Security Rule.

To protect data in transit, GoToMeeting employs full end-to-end data encryption. All transmitted data is protected using HMAC-SHA-1 message authentication codes, while chat, video, audio, and control data are protected in transit using AES 128-bit encryption. AES 128-bit encryption meets the current standards for encryption recommended by NIST.

Protecting data in transit is only one element of HIPAA compliance. If PHI is to be transmitted – via email, secure text messages, or conferencing solutions – there must be audit controls. An audit trail must be maintained allowing activity relating to PHI to be examined. GoToMeeting creates logs of connection and session activity, and access to reporting and management tools are available to account managers.

Controls must also be present that ensure only authorized individuals are able to gain access to the system. GoToMeeting is protected by unique meeting codes and includes the option of setting strong passwords. When meetings are set up they are not publicly listed, and meeting organizers have full control over who can join the meetings.

Each user that wishes to join a meeting must identify themselves using a unique email address and/or number along with a unique password, and users are automatically logged off after a period of inactivity, which can be set by the meeting organizer.

GoToMeeting also confirms on its website, “the technical security controls employed in the GoToMeeting service and associated host and client software meet or exceed HIPAA technical standards.”

While the technical safeguards meet HIPAA requirements, HIPAA-covered entities must also enter into a HIPAA-compliant business associate agreement with service providers prior to using a service for communicating PHI. GoToMeeting offers a business associate agreement which covers use of the service, meeting this regulatory requirement.

So, is GoToMeeting HIPAA-compliant? Provided HIPAA-covered entities and business associates enter into a BAA with GoToMeeting prior to using the service for communicating PHI, GoToMeeting can be used in a HIPAA-compliant manner.

However, as GoToMeeting explains, “Organizations should carefully review all configurable security features of GoToMeeting in the context of their specific environments, user population and policy requirements to determine which features should be enabled and how best to configure.”

The post Is GoToMeeting HIPAA Compliant? appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

How to Make Your Email HIPAA Compliant

Posted by HIPAA Journal

Many healthcare organizations would like to be able to send protected health information via email, but how do you make your email HIPAA compliant? What must be done before electronic PHI (ePHI) can be sent via email to patients and other healthcare organizations?

How to Make Your Email HIPAA Compliant

Whether you need to make your email HIPAA compliant will depend on how you plan to use email with ePHI. If you will only ever send emails internally, it may not be necessary to make your email HIPAA compliant.

If your email network is behind a firewall, it is not necessary to encrypt your emails.  Encryption is only required when your emails are sent beyond your firewall. However, access controls to email accounts are required, as it is important to ensure that only authorized individuals can access email accounts that contain ePHI.

If you want to use email to send ePHI externally – beyond your firewall – you will need to make your email HIPAA-compliant.

There are many email service providers that offer an encrypted email service, but not all are HIPAA compliant and incorporate all of the necessary safeguards to meet the requirements of the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules. To make your email HIPAA compliant there are several things to consider:

Ensure you have end-to-end encryption for email

Email is a quick and easy way to communicate electronically, but it is not necessarily secure. Even services that encrypt messages in transit may not have the required level of security to make them HIPAA compliant. To make your email HIPAA compliant you should ensure you have end-to-end encryption, which encrypts both messages in transit and stored messages. Access controls are used to ensure only the intended recipient and the sender can access the messages.

Some email service providers require individual emails to be encrypted by clicking a button or using a portal. Since it is easy to forget to turn on encryption and accidentally send an unencrypted email, it is a better choice to encrypt all emails, not only those that contain ePHI. This will reduce the potential for human error.

The type of encryption used is also important. While previously Data Encryption Standard (DES) was considered secure, that is no longer the case. You should consult NIST for advice on suitable encryption standards. Currently AES 128, 192, or 256-bit encryption is recommended.

For many HIPAA-covered entities, especially smaller healthcare providers that do not have in-house IT staff to ensure their email is HIPAA-compliant, the use of a third-party HIPAA compliant email service provider is strongly recommended.

Research potential HIPAA compliant email service providers to ensure that they provide a service that is suitable for your requirements. A search on Google will produce several potential service providers.

Enter into a HIPAA-compliant business associate agreement with your email provider

If you use a third-party email provider, you should obtain a business associate agreement prior to using the service for sending ePHI. The business associate agreement outlines the responsibilities of the service provider and establishes that administrative, physical, and technical safeguards will be used to ensure the confidentiality, integrity and availability of ePHI.

If an email service provider is not prepared to enter into a business associate agreement, you should look elsewhere. There are several email service providers who are prepared to sign a BAA to allow them to work with HIPAA-covered entities and their business associates.

Ensure your email is configured correctly

Even when a BAA is obtained, there are still risks associated with email and it is possible to fail to configure the email service correctly and violate HIPAA Rules. Simply using an email service that is covered by a BAA does not make your email HIPAA compliant.

Google’s G Suite includes email and is covered by its business associate agreement. Though G Suite, email can be made HIPAA compliant provided the service is used alongside a business domain. Even if you want to use G Suite, care must be taken configuring the service to ensure end-to-end encryption is in place.

Note that G Suite is not the same as Gmail. Gmail is not intended for business use and cannot be made HIPAA compliant. Google does not sign a BAA for its free services, only for its paid services.

Develop policies on the use of email and train your staff

Once you have implemented your HIPAA compliant email service it is important to train staff on the correct use of email with respect to ePHI. There have been several data breaches that have occurred as a result of errors made by healthcare staff – The accidental sending of ePHI via unencrypted email and the sending of ePHI to individuals unauthorized to view the information. It is important to ensure that all staff are aware of their responsibilities under HIPAA and are trained on the use of the email service.

Ensure all emails are retained for 6 years

HIPAA requires covered entities and business associates to retain past email communications containing ePHI. The retention period is six years. Even for small to medium-sized healthcare organizations, storing 6 years of emails, including attachments, for all members of staff requires considerable storage space. Consider using a secure, encrypted email archiving service rather than email backups. Not only will this free up storage space, since an email archive is indexed, searching for emails in an archive is a quick and easy process. If emails need to be produced for legal discovery or for a compliance audit, they can be quickly and easily retrieved.

As with an email service provider, any provider of an email archiving service will also be subject to HIPAA Rules as they will be classed as a business associate. A BAA would need to be entered into with that service provider and reasonable assurances obtained that they will abide by HIPAA Rules.

Obtain consent from patients before communicating with them via email

HIPAA-covered entities should note that while it may be convenient to send emails containing ePHI to patients, consent to use email as a communication method must be obtained from the patient in writing before any ePHI is sent via email, even if a HIPAA compliant email provider is used. Patients must be advised that there are risks to the confidentiality of information sent via email. If they are prepared to accept the risks, emails containing ePHI can be sent without violating HIPAA Rules.

Seek legal advice on HIPAA compliance and email

If you are unsure of the requirements of HIPAA with respect to email, it is strongly recommended that you speak with a healthcare attorney that specializes in HIPAA to advise you of your responsibilities and the requirements of HIPAA with respect to email.

The post How to Make Your Email HIPAA Compliant appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

HHS Seeks Volunteers for HIPAA Administrative Simplification Optimization Project Pilot

Posted by HIPAA Journal

The Department of Health and Human Services is running a HIPAA Administrative Simplification Optimization Project Pilot and is currently seeking volunteers to have compliance reviews. The aim of the pilot is to streamline HIPAA compliance reviews for health plans and healthcare clearinghouses.

Currently, a variety of different data formats are used for conducting electronic transitions. That variety can cause problems when transferring and sharing data. If communications about billing and insurance related matters are streamlined and healthcare organizations comply with the HIPAA Administrative Simplification transaction standards, providers and health plans can devote fewer resources to these tasks. Compliance with the Administrative Simplification transaction standards will also reduce the burden on compliant entities having to exchange healthcare data with trading partners that are not compliant.

According to the 2016 CAQH Index, industry-wide compliance with the HIPAA Administrative Simplification transaction standards could result in savings of almost $9 billion each year for the healthcare industry. However, for those savings to be made, there must be industry-wide compliance.

One of the ways that the HHS can help to make these savings is by conducting proactive compliance reviews. The purpose of the reviews is to help health plans and other healthcare organizations take action to ensure compliance.

The reviews are not intended to identify noncompliance in order to punish healthcare organizations, instead the aim is to help covered entities comply with the Administrative Simplification transaction standards. According to a recent email communication from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), there will be “a progressive penalty process with the goal of remediation, not punishment.”

The reviews will commence with a pilot, for which the HHS is now seeking volunteers. In total, the HSS requires six volunteer organizations for the HIPAA Administrative Simplification Optimization Project pilot – three health plans and three healthcare clearinghouses. Organizations that participate in the pilot will be subjected to a review of their transactions to assess compliance with the HIPAA Administrative Simplification standards, and will cover code sets, adopted standards, unique identifiers, and operating rules.

Health plans and clearinghouse that join the HIPAA Administrative Simplification Optimization Project pilot will be able to verify compliance or identify noncompliance issues.  The compliance reviews will start in January 2018 and will inform the rollout of the Administrative Simplification Optimization Program.

The reviews will require volunteer organizations to submit electronic transaction files, which will be reviewed and tested by the HHS. The HHS suggests the process of submitting electronic files for review should take no longer than 10 hours. Further details of the pilot reviews will be supplied to participants that are selected to take part in the pilot.

Once the reviews have been conducted, all participants that have successfully passed a review will be provided with a certificate by the HHS, which volunteers will be able to share with their partners and business associates.

If non-compliance is discovered, the HHS will provide guidance on areas for optimization and a corrective action plan will need to be developed by the volunteers to address compliance issues.

Any organization that takes part in the pilot will not be selected for a further review for one year following the launch of the HHS Administrative Simplification Optimization Program.

The HHS is accepting applications for the HIPAA Administrative Simplification Optimization Project pilot by email – HIPAAcompliant@cms.hhs.gov – with volunteers chosen from the pool of applicants that have applied by December 13, 2017. All organizations that apply will be notified whether they have been selected or not by December 27, 2017.

The post HHS Seeks Volunteers for HIPAA Administrative Simplification Optimization Project Pilot appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

Effective Identity and Access Management Policies Help Prevent Insider Data Breaches

Posted by HIPAA Journal

The HIPAA Security Rule administrative safeguards require information access to be effectively managed. Only employees that require access to protected health information to conduct their work duties should be granted access to PHI.

When employees voluntarily or involuntarily leave the organization, PHI access privileges must be terminated. The failure to implement procedures to terminate access to PHI immediately could all too easily result in a data breach. Each year there are many examples of organizations that fail to terminate access promptly, only to discover former employees have continued to login to systems remotely after their employment has come to an end.

If HIPAA-covered entities and business associates do not have effective identity and access management policies and controls, there is a significant risk of PHI being accessed by former employees after employment has terminated. Data could be copied and taken to a new employer, or used for malicious purposes. The Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights’ breach portal includes many examples of both.

In its November cybersecurity newsletter, OCR has drawn attention to the risk of these types of insider threats and explains the importance of implementing effective identity and access management policies.

When an employee is terminated or quits, access to PHI must be terminated immediately, preferably before the individual has left the building. There are several ways that access to PHI can be terminated, although most commonly this is achieved by deleting user accounts.

While the employee’s account must be terminated, covered entities must also ensure that other accounts that the employee had access to are secured. Passwords for administrative or privileged accounts should also be changed.

In addition to terminating user accounts to prevent unauthorized accessing of electronic protected health information, OCR reminds covered entities and business associates of the need to also terminate physical access to facilities and health records. Keys and keycards must be returned, users should be removed from access lists, security codes should be changed, and ID cards returned.

If an employee has been issued with a laptop, mobile phone, or other electronic device, they must be recovered. If there is a BYOD policy and employees have been allowed to use their own devices to access or store ePHI, personal devices must be purged.

Since employees may have access to multiple accounts, logs should be created whenever access to PHI or systems is granted, privileges are increased, or equipment is issued. The logs can be used to make sure all accounts are secured and all equipment can be retrieved.

OCR suggests developing a set of standard procedures that can be applied and followed whenever an employee or other workforce member quits or is terminated. A checklist is a good way to ensure that nothing is missed.

Identity and access management policies will only be effective if they are followed 100% of the time. To ensure that is the case, covered entities and business associates should consider conducting audits to confirm procedures are being followed. Audits should also include checking user logs to ensure former employees are not continuing to access systems and data after their employment has been terminated.

Further tips to prevent unauthorized accessing of PHI and ePHI by former employees can be found on this link.

The post Effective Identity and Access Management Policies Help Prevent Insider Data Breaches appeared first on HIPAA Journal.