Allscripts Proposes $145 Million Settlement to Resolve DOJ HIPAA and HITECH Act Case

A preliminary settlement has been proposed by Allscripts Healthcare Solutions to resolve alleged violations of HIPAA, the HITECH Act’s electronic health record (EHR) incentive program, and the Anti-Kickback Statute related to the electronic health record (EHR) company Practice Fusion, which was acquired by Allscripts in 2018.

Prior to the acquisition, Practice Fusion has been investigated by the Attorney’s Office for the District of Vermont in March 2017 and had provided documentation and information. Between April 2018 and January 2019, the company received further requests for documents and information through civil investigative demands and HIPAA subpoenas.

Then in March 2019, the company received a grand jury subpoena over a Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation into the business practices of Practice Fusion, potential violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute, HIPAA, and the payments received under the HHS EHR incentive program. Scant information has been released about the nature of the alleged violations by Practice Fusion.

The proposed settlement will see Allscripts pay $145 million to the DOJ to resolve the company and Practice Fusion of all civil and criminal liability related to the investigation. Allscripts President Rick Poulton hopes the settlement will be sufficient to resolve the case. Since Practice Fusion was acquired, Allscripts has had to devote an increasing amount of resources the investigation. Poulton wants to reach an agreement as soon as possible so the company can move on.

“While the amount we have agreed to pay of $145 million is not insignificant, it is in line with other settlements in the industry, and we are happy to have reached the agreement in principle,” said Poulton. “We will work with the DOJ to finalize the details of the settlement over the coming months”.

Last year, the HHS agreed a settlement with EHR vendor eClinicalWorks over alleged false claims related to the HITECH Act EHR incentive program. eClinicalWorks paid $155 million to resolve the case.

The post Allscripts Proposes $145 Million Settlement to Resolve DOJ HIPAA and HITECH Act Case appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

HHS Declares Limited Waiver of HIPAA Sanctions and Penalties in Louisiana

The Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has issued a limited waiver of HIPAA sanctions and penalties in Louisiana due to the devastation likely to be caused by Tropical Storm Barry as it made landfall on July 13 as a hurricane. The HHS announced the public health emergency in Louisiana on Friday July 12, 2019.

The waiver only applies to healthcare organizations in the emergency area and only for the length of time stated in the declaration. The waiver only applies to specific provisions of the HIPAA Privacy Rule and only for a maximum period of 72 hours after the hospital has implemented its emergency protocol.

Once the time period for the waiver ends, healthcare providers will be required once again to comply with all aspects of the HIPAA Privacy Rule, even for patients still under their at the time the declaration ends, even if the 72-hour time window has not expired.

While a waiver has been issued, the Privacy Rule does not prohibit the sharing of protected health information during disasters to assist patients and make sure they get the care they require. That includes sharing some health information with friends, family members and other individuals directly involved in a patient’s care.

The HIPAA Privacy Rule allows the sharing of PHI for public health activities and to prevent or reduce a serious and imminent threat to health or safety. HIPAA-covered entities are also permitted to share information with disaster relief organizations that have been authorized by law to assist with disaster relief efforts without first obtaining permission from patients.

During natural disasters the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules remain in effect, although following the secretarial declaration, sanctions and penalties against HIPAA covered entities are waived for the following aspects of the HIPAA Privacy Rule:

  • The requirements to obtain a patient’s agreement to speak with family members or friends involved in the patient’s care. See 45 CFR 164.510(b).
  • The requirement to honor a request to opt out of the facility directory. See 45 CFR164.510(a).
  • The requirement to distribute a notice of privacy practices. See 45 CFR 164.520.
  • The patient’s right to request privacy restrictions. See 45 CFR 164.522(a).
  • The patient’s right to request confidential communications. See 45 CFR 164.522(b).

“We are working closely with state health and emergency management officials to anticipate the communities’ healthcare needs and be ready to meet them,” said Secretary Azar. The HHS emergency declaration and limited HIPAA waiver can be viewed on this link (PDF).

The post HHS Declares Limited Waiver of HIPAA Sanctions and Penalties in Louisiana appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

Webinar: Ransomware, Malware, Phishing, and HIPAA Compliance

Compliancy Group is offering healthcare professionals an opportunity to take part in a webinar covering the main threats facing the healthcare industry.

Threats such as ransomware, malware, and phishing will be discussed by compliance experts in relation to HIPAA and the privacy and security of patient data.

Cybersecurity has become more important than ever in healthcare. The industry is seen as a weak target by hackers, large volumes of data are stored, and patient information carries a high value on the black market.

April 2019 saw the highest number of healthcare data breaches in a single month and more healthcare data breaches were reported in 2018 than in any other year to date. The increased frequency of attacks on organizations of all sizes highlights just how important cybersecurity has become.

Cyberattacks are not only negatively affecting businesses in the healthcare sector, but also place the privacy of patient’s health information at risk. While it was once sufficient to implement standard security tools, the sophisticated nature of attacks today mean new solutions are required to protect against cyberattacks.

Protecting against cyberattacks while ensuring compliance with HIPAA can be a challenge and oversights could easily lead to a costly breach or regulatory fine.

In the latest Compliancy Group webinar, compliancy experts will walk you through the inns and outs of the regulations and you can find out more about cybersecurity with respect to the requirements of HIPAA and HITECH.


Ransomware, Malware, Phishing, Oh My!

Wednesday, July 10th

2:00 ET/11:00 PT

Advance Registration

The post Webinar: Ransomware, Malware, Phishing, and HIPAA Compliance appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

May 2019 Healthcare Data Breach Report

In April, more healthcare data breaches were reported than in any other month to date. The high level of data breaches has continued in May, with 44 data breaches reported. Those breaches resulted in the exposure of almost 2 million individuals’ protected health information.

Healthcare data breaches by month 2014-2019

On average, 2018 saw 29.5 healthcare data breaches reported to the HHS’ Office for Civil Rights each month – a rate of more than one a day.

From January 2019 to May 2019, an average of 37.2 breaches have been reported each month. Up until May 31, 2019, 186 healthcare data breaches had been reported to OCR, which is more than half (52%) the number of breaches reported last year.

It remains to be seen whether the increase in data breaches is just a temporary blip or whether 40+ healthcare data breaches a month will become the new norm.

Healthcare records exposed by month 2017-2019

May saw a 186% increase in the number of exposed records compared to April. Across the 44 breaches, 1,988,376 healthcare records were exposed or compromised in May. So far this year, more than 6 million healthcare records have been exposed, which is more than half of the number of records exposed in 2018.

Healthcare records exposed by year 2014-2019

In terms of the number of records exposed, May would have been similar to April were it not for a massive data breach at the healthcare clearinghouse Inmediata Health Group. The breach was the largest of the year to date and resulted in the exposure of 1,565,338 records.

A web page which was supposed to only be accessible internally had been misconfigured and the page could be accessed by anyone over the internet.


Rank Name of Covered Entity Covered Entity Type Individuals Affected Type of Breach
1 Inmediata Health Group, Corp. Healthcare Clearing House 1,565,338 Unauthorized Access/Disclosure
2 Talley Medical Surgical Eyecare Associates, PC Healthcare Provider 106,000 Unauthorized Access/Disclosure
3 The Union Labor Life Insurance Company Health Plan 87,400 Hacking/IT Incident
4 Encompass Family and internal medicine group Healthcare Provider 26,000 Unauthorized Access/Disclosure
5 The Southeastern Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence Healthcare Provider 25,148 Hacking/IT Incident
6 Cancer Treatment Centers of America® (CTCA) at Southeastern Regional Medical Center Healthcare Provider 16,819 Hacking/IT Incident
7 Takai, Hoover, and Hsu, P.A. Healthcare Provider 16,542 Unauthorized Access/Disclosure
8 Hematology Oncology Associates, PC Healthcare Provider 16,073 Hacking/IT Incident
9 Acadia Montana Treatment Center Healthcare Provider 14,794 Hacking/IT Incident
10 American Baptist Homes of the Midwest Healthcare Provider 10,993 Hacking/IT Incident

Causes of May 2019 Healthcare Data Breaches

Hacking/IT incidents were the most numerous in May with 22 reported incidents. In total, 225,671 records were compromised in those breaches. The average breach size was 10,258 records with a median of 4,375 records.

There were 18 unauthorized access/disclosure incidents in May, which resulted in the exposure of 1,752,188 healthcare records. The average breach size was 97,344 records and the median size was 2,418 records.

8,624 records were stolen in three theft incidents. The average breach size 2,875 records and the median size was 3,578 records. There was one loss incident involving 1,893 records.

causes of May 2019 healthcare data breaches

Location of Breached PHI

Email continues to be the most common location of breached PHI. 50% of the month’s breaches involved at least some PHI stored in email accounts. The main cause of these types of breaches is phishing attacks.

Network servers were the second most common location of PHI. They were involved in 11 breaches, which included hacks, malware infections and ransomware attacks.  Electronic medical records were involved in 7 breaches, most of which were unauthorized access/disclosure breaches.

Location of breached PHi (may 2019)

May 2019 Healthcare Data Breaches by Covered Entity Type

Healthcare providers were the worst affected covered entity type in May with 34 breaches. 5 breaches were reported by health plans and 4 breaches were reported by business associates of HIPAA-covered entities. A further two breaches had some business associate involvement. One breach involved a healthcare clearinghouse.

May 2019 healthcare data breaches by covered entity type

May 2019 Healthcare Data Breaches by State

May saw healthcare data breaches reported by entities in 17 states.  Texas was the worst affected state in May with 7 reported breaches. There were 4 breaches reported by covered entities and business associates in California and 3 breaches were reported in each of Indiana and New York.

2 breaches were reported by entities base in Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Washington, and Puerto Rico. One breach was reported in each of Colorado, Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, and Pennsylvania.

HIPAA Enforcement Actions in May 2019

OCR agreed two settlements with HIPAA covered entities in May and closed the month with fines totaling $3,100,000.

Touchstone Medical Imaging agreed to settle its HIPAA violation case for $3,000,000. The Franklin, TN-based diagnostic medical imaging services company was investigated after it was discovered that an FTP server was accessible over the internet in 2014.

The settlement resolves 8 alleged HIPAA violations including the lack of a BAA, insufficient access rights, a risk analysis failure, the failure to respond to a security incident, a breach notification failure, a media notification failure, and the impermissible disclosure of the PHI of 307,839 individuals.

Medical Informatics Engineering settled its case with OCR and agreed to pay a financial penalty of $100,000 to resolve alleged HIPAA violations uncovered during the investigation of its 2015 breach of 3.5 million patient records. Hackers had gained access to MIE servers for 19 days in May 2015.

OCR determined there had been a failure to conduct a comprehensive risk analysis and, as a result of that failure, there was an impermissible disclosure of 3.5 million individuals’ PHI.

It did not end there for MIE. MIE also settled a multi-state lawsuit filed by 16 state attorneys general. A multi-state investigation uncovered several HIPAA violations. MIE agreed to pay a penalty of $900,000 to resolve the case.

The post May 2019 Healthcare Data Breach Report appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

House Overturns Ban on HHS Funding HIPAA National Patient Identifier Development

One of the requirements of the HIPAA Administrative Simplification Rules was the development of a national identifier for all patients. Such an identifier would be used by all healthcare organizations to match patients with health records from multiple sources and would improve the reliability of health information and ensure it could be shared quickly and efficiently.

That national patient identifier has failed to materialize. For the past two decades, the Department of Health and Human Services has been prohibited from using funds to develop or promote a unique patient identifier system out of concerns over privacy and security of patient data.

Just as was the case in 1996, the benefits of using national patient identifiers remain and the need for such a system is greater than ever. Many hospitals, healthcare and health IT groups have been urging Congress to lift the HHS ban due to the benefits that would come from using a national identifier.

They argue it would make it much easier to match medical information from multiple sources with the correct patient and the potential for errors would be greatly reduced. Together with the cost savings, adoption of a national patient identifier would improve the quality of care provided to patients and patient safety.

Now, 20 years after the ban was put in place, it is closer to being lifted. The U.S. House of Representatives recently voted on several amendments to a $99.4 billion HHS appropriations bill. The amendment calling for the lifting of the ban was proposed by Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.) and was passed on Wednesday 12, June in a 246 to 178 vote. Until now, neither chamber in Congress has ever voted to lift the ban.

“For the last 21 years, this misguided policy has been in place, and thousands of Americans have died due to getting the wrong drug to the wrong patient or due to incorrect or incomplete electronic medical records, all arising from the inability to simply and correctly merge health records from different systems,” said Rep. Foster.

The passing of the amendment is the first step toward a national identifier being developed, but there are plenty of hurdles to overcome before the ban is finally lifted. The appropriations bill must first be passed, and the senate would need to give its approval, then the president would need to sign the bill into law.

Even though the benefits of a national patient identifier are clear, many privacy advocates believe the privacy and security risks are too great and that adoption of a national identifier would result in loss of control of patient data and more frequent, larger, and more damaging healthcare data breaches.

The post House Overturns Ban on HHS Funding HIPAA National Patient Identifier Development appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

HHS To Apply New Caps on Financial Penalties for HIPAA Violations to Reflect Level of Culpability


The Department of Health and Human Services has issued a notification of enforcement discretion regarding the civil monetary penalties that are applied when violations of HIPAA Rules are discovered and will be reducing the maximum financial penalty for three of the four penalty tiers.

The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act of 2009 increased the penalties for HIPAA violations. The new penalties were based on the level of knowledge a HIPAA covered entity or business associate had about the violation and whether action was voluntarily taken to correct any violations.

The 1st penalty tier applies when a covered entity or business associate is unaware that HIPAA Rules were violated and, by exercising a reasonable level of due diligence, would not have known that HIPAA was being violated.

The 2nd tier applies when a covered entity knew about the violation or would have known had a reasonable level of due diligence been exercised, but when the violation falls short of willful neglect of HIPAA Rules.

The 3rd penalty tier applies when there was willful neglect of HIPAA Rules, but the covered entity corrected the problem within 30 days.

The 4th tier applies when there was willful neglect of HIPAA Rules and no efforts were made to correct the problem in a timely manner.

The maximum penalty across all four tiers was set at $1.5 million for violations of an identical provision in a single calendar year.

On January 25, 2013, the HHS implemented an interim final rule (IFR) and adopted the new penalty structure, but believed at the time that there were inconsistencies in the language of the HITCH Act with respect to the penalty amounts. The HHS determined at the time that the most logical reading of the law was to apply the same maximum penalty cap of $1,500,000 across all four penalty tiers.

The HHS has now reviewed the language of the HITECH Act and believes a better reading of the requirements of the HITECH Act would be for the annual penalty caps to be different in three of the four tiers to better reflect the level of culpability. The minimum and maximum amounts in each tier will remain unchanged.

New Interpretation of the HITECT ACT’s Penalties for HIPAA Violations

Penalty Tier Level of Culpability Minimum Penalty per Violation Maximum Penalty per Violation Old Maximum Annual Penalty New Maximum Annual Penalty
1 No Knowledge $100 $50,000 $1,500,000 $25,000
2 Reasonable Cause $1,000 $50,000 $1,500,000 $100,000
3 Willful Neglect – Corrective Action Taken $10,000 $50,000 $1,500,000 $250,000
4 Willful Neglect – No Corrective Action Taken $50,000 $50,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000


The HHS will publish its notification in the Federal Register on April 30, 2019. The HHS notes that its notification of enforcement discretion creates no legal obligations and no legal rights. Consequently, it is not necessary for it to be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

The new penalty caps will be adopted by the HHS until further notice and will continue to be adjusted annually to account for inflation. The HHS expects to engage in further rulemaking to review the penalty amounts to better reflect the text of the HITECH Act.

The post HHS To Apply New Caps on Financial Penalties for HIPAA Violations to Reflect Level of Culpability appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

Feature of DICOM Image Format Could Be Abused to Fuse Malware with PHI

The DICOM image format, which has been in use for around for 30 years, contains a design ‘flaw’ that could be exploited by hackers to embed malware in image files. Were that to happen, the malware would become permanently fused with protected health information.

The DICOM file format was developed to allow medical images to be easily stored and shared. It eliminated the need for physical films and solved hardware compatibility issues. DICOM is now the standard format used for MRI and CT images and is supported by most medical imaging systems. The file format can be read by a range of devices that are used to view patient image files and diagnostic information.

DICOM images contain a section at the start of the files called a Preamble. This section is used to facilitate access to the metadata within the images and ensure compatibility with image viewers which do not support the DICOM image format. By altering the Preamble section of the file, image viewers treat DICOM images as a file type that they support, such as a jpeg, allowing the file to be opened.

This design feature is part of the reason why the DICOM file format is so useful. However, this feature can also be seen as a flaw. Markel Picado Ortiz, a security researcher at Cylera, discovered the preamble section of the file does not have restrictions on what can be added.

Ortiz has a proof-of-concept exploit for the flaw which allows an arbitrary sequence of executable code to be inserted into the image. Provided that code is less than 128 bytes, it can be inserted without affecting compliance with the DICOM standard, altering the image in any other way, or changing any PHI contained in the file. Ortiz has called the attack method PE/DICOM.

By altering the Preamble of a file, a hacker could insert executable code that masquerades as a DICOM file. The DICOM image would become an executable file, yet it would not have a file extension associated with executable files. Headers could also be added that make the file appear to be another file format, such as an executable.

Any hacker that were to use this method of incorporating malicious code would also benefit from HIPAA regulations. Files containing PHI are usually ignored by anti-malware solutions for compliance reasons. Even if they did, it would be unlikely they would detect the presence of any code in the preamble section of the files.

Detecting the malware would therefore prove difficult. Malicious code could remain undetected, but worse, the infected files would be stored within the healthcare provider’s protected environment. The file may also be shared with other healthcare providers would be unaware the files had been infected with malware.

Since the malware contains executable code, it could download other malware onto the network or give an attacker a launch pad to conduct further attacks. Files could be given worm-like properties that allow malware to be propagated throughout the network.

The potential uses of this flaw are numerous. “This [flaw] enables new and existing malware to evolve into more potent variants, optimized for successful compromise of healthcare organizations, by using the infected patient data to hide, protect and spread itself – three of the primary functions that determine the effectiveness of a malware campaign,” said Ortiz.

Were the malware to be identified, healthcare organizations would have a problem with removing the malware. The hybrid file that is created could not have the malware removed without permanently deleting the file, which would result in the permanent loss of the image and patients’ PHI. Healthcare providers may have to keep the infected file due to HIPAA regulations.

“The fusion of fully-functioning executable malware with HIPAA-protected patient information adds regulatory complexities and clinical implications to automated malware protection and typical incident response processes in ways that did not previously need to be considered,” explained Ortiz.

Unfortunately, since the flaw is present in the DICOM standard itself, it is not possible to issue a patch to correct the flaw. The solution would be for the DICOM standard to be changed to place restrictions on what can be incorporated into the Preamble, but that may prove to be a challenge and would also involve altering a feature of DICOM files that makes them so useful.

Anti-malware solutions could be developed to check for the presence of malicious code inside DICOM images, but that does not solve the issue of what is done with the files if they are determined to contain malware.

While the flaw is serous, in order for it to be exploited, an attacker would first need to have permissions to access the system on which DICOM images are stored and would also need to have permissions to execute commands. Valid Active Directory credentials would therefore be required. That said, there have been many cases of credentials being compromised that have given hackers access to healthcare networks. The flaw could also be exploited by a malicious insider with access to the network.

All healthcare organizations can do to protect against the flaw in the short term is to adopt standard cybersecurity best practices to prevent access to the network being gained, such as changing default credentials, securing the perimeter, and scanning for and addressing vulnerabilities. Network segregation will help to prevent the spread of any malware and intrusion detection systems could detect an attack before DICOM images could be changed.

What is clear is that correcting the flaw and preventing abuse is going to be a major challenge and one that will not easily be solved.

The post Feature of DICOM Image Format Could Be Abused to Fuse Malware with PHI appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

Healthcare Organizations Found Not to be In Conformance with NIST CSF and HIPAA Rules

A recent study conducted by the consultancy firm CynergisTek has revealed healthcare organizations are not in conformance with NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) controls and the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules.

For the study, CynergisTek analyzed the results of assessments at almost 600 healthcare organizations against NIST CSF and the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules.

The NIST CSF is a voluntary framework, but the standards and best practices help organizations manage cyber risks. Healthcare organizations that are not in conformance with CSF controls face a higher risk of experiencing a cyberattack or data breach. On average, healthcare organizations were only in conformance with 47% of NIST CSF controls. Conformance has only increased by 2% in the past year.

Assisted living organizations had the highest level of conformance with NIST CSF (95%), followed by payers (86%), and accountable care organizations (73%). Business associates of HIPAA covered entities only had an average conformance level of 48%. Physician groups had the lowest level of conformance (36%).

Out of the five core functions of the NIST CSF – Identify, detect, protect, respond, and recover – conformance was lowest for detect.

Even though conformance with the HIPAA Security Rule has been mandatory for the past 14 years, many healthcare organizations were found to be falling short. On average, healthcare organizations were found to be in conformance with 72% of HIPAA Security Rule requirements, which was 2% lower than last year. Critical access hospitals fared the worst with an average of 67% conformance.

Even when organizations were complying with HIPAA Rules, significant security gaps were identified, which clearly demonstrated compliance does not necessarily equate to security.

Compliance with the requirements of the HIPAA Privacy Rule was better, but there is still significant room for improvement. On average, healthcare organizations were complying with 77% of HIPAA Privacy Rule provisions. Many organizations had missing policies and procedures and improper postings. More than 60% of assessments revealed gaps in the maintenance of written policies and procedures related to the use and release of protected health information.

Conformance with the HIPAA Privacy Rule increased year over year for payers and physician groups, but declined for hospitals and health systems, falling from 94% in 2017 to 72% in 2018. CynergisTek explained this fall as most likely being due to higher numbers of assessments being performed on hospitals and health systems in 2018.

CynergisTek also found that insider breaches continue to be a major challenge for healthcare organizations. Insiders were responsible for 28% of healthcare data breaches in 2018 and, on average, those breaches took 255 days to detect. 74% of cases involved employees accessing the health records of household members, 10% involved accessing the records of VIPs that were treated at the hospital. 8% of cases involved accessing the health records of co-workers and 8% involved accessing neighbors’ health records.

Business associates were found to be a major security risk. They were involved in 20% of healthcare data breaches in 2018. CynergisTek found that in many cases, healthcare organizations were not proactively assessing their vendors, even those that are medium to high risk. The most common business associate failures were related to risk assessments, governance, and access management.

The post Healthcare Organizations Found Not to be In Conformance with NIST CSF and HIPAA Rules appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

CMS Launches Review Program to Assess Compliance with the HIPAA Administrative Simplification Rules

The HHS’ Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has launched a compliance review program to assess whether HIPAA covered entities are complying with the HIPAA Administrative Simplification Rules for electronic healthcare transactions. The compliance reviews will commence in April 2019.

The HIPAA Administrative Simplification Rules

The HIPAA Administrative Simplification Rules were introduced to improve efficiency and the effectiveness of the health system in the United States. They require healthcare organizations to adopt national standards for healthcare transactions that are conducted electronically, including the use of standard code sets and unique health identifiers, in addition to complying with the requirements of the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules.

The HHS’ Office for Civil Rights is responsible for enforcing the HIPAA Privacy, Security, and Breach Notification Rules. The CMS is responsible for administering and enforcing the rules covering transaction and code sets standards, the employer identifier standard, and the national provider identifier standard, as detailed in 45 CFR Parts 160, 162, and 164. The CMS-administered standards are required to be adopted whenever there is an exchange of health information. If the standards are not adopted, healthcare information cannot be exchanged efficiently.

The CMS Compliance Review Program

Starting in April 2019, the CMS will conduct compliance reviews on 9 randomly selected health plans and healthcare clearinghouses, including those that deal with Medicare and Medicaid and those that do not.

The compliance reviews will assess whether HIPAA -covered entities are in compliance with the standards set for:

  • Transaction formats;
  • Code sets; and
  • Unique identifiers

If covered entities selected for a review are found not to be in compliance with the HIPAA Administrative Simplification Rules, they will be provided with a corrective action plan to address any violations and will be given the opportunity to make changes and achieve compliance.

Any covered entity that fails to make the necessary changes and achieve compliance with the HIPAA Administrative Simplification standards will be subjected to “escalating enforcement actions”, which could include civil monetary penalties.

The 2019 CMS Compliance Review Program follows on from a pilot review program conducted in 2018 on three health plans and three healthcare clearinghouses that volunteered to participate. A separate program will take place in 2019 in which providers will also be able to volunteer for compliance reviews.

After the latest round of 9 compulsory compliance reviews have been completed, the CMS will conduct an ongoing campaign involving periodic reviews of randomly selected covered entities to assess compliance with the HIPAA Administrative Simplification Rules.

These will be in addition to the normal procedure for enforcing compliance, which currently operates on a complaint basis.

Organizations can use the web-based Administrative Simplification Enforcement and Testing Tool (ASETT) to test transactions to determine whether they are compliant and to submit complaints about HIPAA Administrative Simplification Rules violations.

The post CMS Launches Review Program to Assess Compliance with the HIPAA Administrative Simplification Rules appeared first on HIPAA Journal.