HIPAA Blog

[ Thursday, February 15, 2024 ]

 

Employers can be Blamed for Bad Employees: I don't know of any HIPAA covered entity or legitimate business associate that actively pursues bad data policies.  Hospitals don't intentionally violate their patients' data privacy; physician offices don't operate with the goal of stealing their patient's data and selling it to hackers.  And when hackers do gain access and steal data, they usually encrypt the data and hold it hostage, forcing the HIPAA covered entity or business associate to pay to get the data back.  Thus, the hospitals and physicians and business associates are, in fact, victims of the bad guys.

But even though you're the victim of a bad actor, HIPAA requires covered entities to have taken reasonable steps to keep those bad actors out; failing to do so is a punishable offense.  NYC's Montefiore Medical Center learned that lesson the hard way, to the tune of $4,750,000.  Montefiore first learned about their issue from the police; someone has stolen the identity of one of their patients.  Monetfiore's investigation uncovered that one of its employees stole the data of over 12,000 patients and sold it to ID thieves.  Stealing data was not the employee's job; in fact, it was against Montefiore's policies and employee handbook.

So, Montefiore was the victim of a bad employee.  However, the ensuing investigation brought into question whether Montefiore had done enough proactively to discover, deter, and prevent the thefts from occurring in the first place.  

The linked press release is actually a pretty good compendium of OCR guidance and information for entities that are subject to HIPAA to check out whether your security posture is such that you, too, could be a victim of a hacker and also have to pay a big OCR fine.  If you can't produce a hard-copy document of your most recent security risk analysis, and can't show how your organization has adopted "recognized security practices," you are much more likely to be paying OCR someday.

Jeff [3:20 PM]

 

Hospital Cyberattacks Continue to Rise: This should come as a surprise to nobody, but the biggest data risk to pretty much everyone in the healthcare industry is the risk of cyberattacks, particularly ransomware.  I have had several clients who have suffered ransomware attacks.  These always disrupt care to some extent, and fortunately my clients have not suffered any patient care problems, but others have.  However, they all have had to spend extremely large sums to fix the problems, and many have suffered the follow-on effect of the class action lawsuit by patients whose data was involved.

If you aren't focusing on this now, you need to.


Jeff [12:58 PM]

[ Wednesday, January 10, 2024 ]

 

OCR Lies.  I usually have good things to say about OCR.  For the most part, it's full of good people trying to do good things, and the investigators are probably the nicest enforcement people in the entire government: they really want to help healthcare providers get better and often give the benefit of the doubt to healthcare workers who are really trying to do the right thing but don't always get it right.

But whenever the Xavier Becerra hack-machine gets involved, you can count on things going off the rails, and yesterday brought a sterling example.

It is an indisputable fact that good people can disagree on abortion, but it's equally indisputable that people who believe abortion is murder should not be forced to participate in performing abortions.  But it happens, or at least it did prior to a 2019 rule from HHS threatening hospitals with removal of federal funding for forcing objecting employees to participate in abortions or other acts that violate their legitimate religious beliefs. 

Yesterday, HHS, through OCR, rescinded that rule.  I guess you could quibble that the rule might have given employees too much leeway to refuse to do legitimate work that shouldn't be objectionable, or that full removal of federal funding was too big a penalty, and a $100,000 or $1 million fine would do the trick.  But rescinding it entirely?

And even worse, bragging that REMOMING those conscience protections is actually INCREASING them?  Here's the header of OCR's press release:


And here's the headline and lede of an article in The Hill, which is certainly left-leaning:





Jeff [9:26 AM]

[ Monday, January 08, 2024 ]

 

 New Jersey medical practice Optum Medical Care has settled an OCR investigation regarding Optum's failure to grant patient access to medical records, agreeing to pay $160,000.  


Jeff [12:20 AM]

[ Thursday, December 28, 2023 ]

 

 ESO, CVC, HEC Disclose Data Breach: ESO, a healthcare software company serving hospitals, EMS entities, and governmental agencies, announced a ransomware-triggered data breach affecting 2.7 million individuals.  

Cardiovascular Consultants of Arizona also announced that it suffered a cyberattack that affected almost half a million patients.

Finally, New Jersey based population health management company HealthEC also announced a cybersecurity incident of 112,000 individuals.

All of these are offering credit monitoring to affected individuals.  


Jeff [8:42 AM]

[ Tuesday, December 12, 2023 ]

 

Norton Healthcare Hack Exposes Data of 2.5 Million Patients.  The hackers accessed some of the Louisville hospital system's data storage, but not the EMR or MyChart.


Jeff [7:52 AM]

[ Monday, December 11, 2023 ]

 

US health officials call for surge in funding and support for hospitals in wake of cyberattacks that diverted ambulances.  Of course, some of the "funding and support" is imposing stricter fines for providers who have lax cybersecurity.

Some amount of cybercrime is inevitable.  However, there still is a shocking lack of cybersecurity among healthcare providers.  Patching (regularly applying software patches when they are issues by the software providers), good data backups, network segmentation (keeping secure parts of your network -- which don't need internet connections -- separated from the parts of the network that do need internet connections), and phishing training can eliminate the vast majority of cybersecurity incidents.  If you're not doing that, you probably deserve stricter fines.


Jeff [10:04 AM]

[ Tuesday, November 21, 2023 ]

 

St. Joseph's Medical Center Settlement: During the height of Covid, St. Joseph Medical Center allowed a reporter and photojournalist access to its operations as part of a story about hospital overcrowding and St. Joseph's response to swelling numbers of Covid patients.  Some pictures of patients apparently made it into the newspaper, and according to OCR, some information about St. Joseph's patients.  OCR has now entered into a settlement agreement with St. Joseph's regarding the incident.

St. Joseph has admitted no liability in making the settlement.

The settlement involves an $80,000 fine, a review and possible revision of St. Joseph's HIPAA policies (to be reviewed by OCR, and a 2-year oversight plan by OCR.  That's not a big penalty; I'd be extremely surprised if St. Joseph spent less than $80,000 on attorney's fees in conducting its own investigation and response, much less what it might've spent on other consultants to address the investigation.  All HIPAA covered entities should be reviewing their policies and procedures regularly, and most would love to have OCR review them and give their blessing or offer tips for useful revisions.  The 2-year monitoring could be a bit of a pain, but it's shorter than the usual 3-year plan seen in most settlements.

At this point, I have not seen a response from St. Joseph's, nor have I seen copies of the AP story that made the press, but I suspect that there is a legitimate question about whether PHI was actually disclosed in the article.  I suspect the photos do not show patient faces, and any individual information was nearly if not entirely de-identified.  However, it is entirely possible that the reporter was exposed to at least a minimal amount of PHI when he/she was allowed access to non-public areas where patients were gathered, and likely that the hospital didn't get consent from all of those patients before allowing the access.  Still, that's pretty thin gruel.

However, the case is another reminder of the risks a health care entity takes when dealing with the press.  While St. Joseph's probably saw the reporter's request for access and information as an opportunity to tell their story and put on a good face, covered entities must be extremely careful bout what information gets out.  


Jeff [8:51 AM]

[ Wednesday, November 15, 2023 ]

 

Perry Johnson & Associates, a medical transcription service, has apparently suffered a data breach involving a hacker gaining access to its computer systems.  Not much is known at this point, but I'll update you as more information comes in.


Jeff [8:24 AM]

[ Friday, November 03, 2023 ]

 

AHA sues HHS to stop OCR guidance on web trackers.  This is super-inside-baseball HIPAA stuff, folks.  And it has a chance of taking hold.

Here's the background: many websites use some type of technology to track user behavior on the website.  There are tons of legitimate reasons why you would want to do this: If every visitor to one part of your website clicks the same link, or otherwise acts in a non-random way, you want to know it.  For example, lets say you offer weight loss services and have a page with many different choices (exercise programs, diet counseling, Ozempic, psychedelics, etc.), and you have an equal number of staffers working to provide each choice.  But you find out from tracking technology that 90% of your visitors all go to the Ozempic page, but nobody ever clicks on exercise.  If you're running your business responsibly, you'll switch the exercise employees over to the Ozempic team.  But you might never know that website visitors are behaving that way without a tracker.

One of the ways trackers work is by tracking the visitor's choices to the particular visitor, usually by the specific signature of the user's computer or other device that connected to the website (for example, the user's cell phone or iPad).  The company that provides the tracking technology also uses the information they gather to fine-tune its algorithms for their healthcare provider customer, but also uses the information for other purposes, such as the marketing services it sells to other customers. 

Here's the problem: the device ID isn't necessarily the person who owns it (multiple people could have access to and use the same iPad), and the behavior of the person doesn't necessarily tell you anything specific about the person (I could be looking at information about a particular disease not because I have it, but because I know someone who does and I'm curious).  However, it's still a pretty good proxy.  If I go to a weight-loss website, I'm probably looking to lose weight; if I go to a diabetes website, the odds are pretty good that I'm a diabetic.  And if my computer goes to the website, it's probably because it's me that's operating it.  Thus, you can deduce, not with certainty but with some high level of likelihood, that if my cell phone accesses a website for X disease, I have that disease.  HOWEVER, is data that's simply indicative of health status PHI?  How tight does the connection need to be?

And therein lies the problem -- the information derived from the tracking technology COULD be PHI, and letting the technology company have access to that information would make the vendor a business associate.  The vendors don't want to be restricted in how they use that data.

OCR has declared (in a December 2022 bulletin) that providers that use tracking technology must have BAAs with those vendors, but those vendors won't sign BAAs.  The end result is that big hospital systems are prevented from using a technology that can streamline their processes, save them money, and allow them to better serve their patients.  Hence the AHA's actions.

This will be interesting.  

(11/3/23/)

UPDATE 11/9/23: Interesting press release from AHA and other hospital associations relating to its suit against HHS relating to web trackers.  According to Bloomberg Law (subscription may be required), HHS uses the same tracking technology on its websites that HHS guidance warns hospitals about as being potentially violative of HIPAA.  Interestingly, I also learned in that article that hundreds of class-action lawsuits have already been filed against hospitals for using the technology in violation of HIPAA.

This isn't the end of the story, of course: HHS isn't a HIPAA-covered entity (although Medicare and Medicaid are), and people searching the HHS website usually aren't looking for specific medical conditions or providing the same type of information as a visitor to a hospital site might.  However, from a general privacy standpoint, it's an interesting point of hypocrisy.  


Jeff [9:40 AM]

[ Wednesday, November 01, 2023 ]

 

OCR Fines Ransomware Victim due to HIPAA breaches: Doctors' Management Services (DMS), a management company that serves as a business associate of covered entity physician practices, has been fined $100,000 by OCR for failure to do a sufficient Security Risk Analysis (SRA), lack of policies and procedures, and failure to monitor system activity (all the usual suspects).

DMS was itself a victim: a criminal hacker caused the incident.  But DMS still got hit with a big fine because they didn't take the steps needed to avoid being a victim in the first place.

Some covered entities that are ransomware victims get fined, and others don't.  Both groups suffer from the incident, but the second group (ones with good SRAs, policies and procedures, and monitoring) is much less likely to get fined.  Just ask me -- I have personal experience with this!

UPDATE: Thanks to Theresa Defino at Report on Patient Privacy, DMS has had a chance to tell their side of the story.  As I noted in my original post, DMS was a victim here.  I noted that "they didn't take the steps," based on OCR's press release.  Now, I'm thinking maybe OCR overreacted, but I haven't actually talked to DMS.

The point here, though, is that OCR's stated list of wrongdoing is the same list that's applicable to almost every other case involving a fine (other than the access cases).  You want to be able to prove that you have done your SRA, have good policies that you follow, and monitor your system activity.


Jeff [4:03 PM]

 

HHS proposed penalties for information blocking: In addition to stated penalties that can be up to $1,000,000, HHS is proposing that health systems engaging in information blocking (prohibited by the 21st Century Cures Act) be additionally punished by losing "meaningful use" funds, MIPS payments, the ability to share in MSSP payments pursuant to an ACO.  

More here and here.

Jeff [3:43 PM]

 

Did you know HHS has a YouTube channel?  Here's a recent posting explaining how your HIPAA Security Rule compliance activities will also help you avoid a cyberattack.

Obviously, if you've read anything on this site, you know that failure to do a Security Risk Analysis (which is specifically required by the Security Rule) is the number one thing that OCR cites when issuing fines. This makes sense, because (i) it's the number one thing that will help prevent you suffering a breach or other incident, (ii) a breach/incident is usually the thing that leads to an OCR investigation, and (iii) an investigation that shows failure to do a SRA will often end up with a fine and a compliance agreement.  

Just as importantly, a cyberattack can ruin your business, and it's never good for your patients.  Best to take the appropriate steps to avoid them.  


Jeff [3:35 PM]

[ Sunday, October 29, 2023 ]

 

 Cybersecurity Toolkit for Healthcare: HHS and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) have joined forces to publish a toolkit to assist healthcare industry work with governmental agencies to "close gaps in resources and cyber capabilities."  The toolkit is here; I haven't reviewed it, but it promises to "contain remedies for health care organizations of all sizes."  


Jeff [4:04 PM]

 

Spooky: OCR is hosting a Halloween webinar on the HIPAA Security Rule's risk analysis requirement.   At 3:00 Eastern time (the invite says EST, but I think it's EDT) on Tuesday, October 31, an OCR panel will discuss how to conduct a risk analysis.  Trust me, you want to be doing what OCR thinks you should be doing; it makes it so much less painful to explain how the breach you suffered wasn't your fault.  And there's no better way to find out what OCR thinks you should be doing than listening to them explain what you should be doing.

You can register for the webinar here: Webinar Registration - Zoom


Jeff [3:10 PM]

 

 Ransomware: the Biggest Threat.  According to research by NCC Group, ransomware attacks were up dramatically in September 2023, both from the preceding year (153%) and, within the healthcare sector, from the preceding month (89%).  It's relatively easy to do, and many victims have no option but to pay.

Patching, MFA, and training can prevent ransomware attacks, and good backups can make the ones that get through a lot less painful.  Those are all easy things to do. . . .


Jeff [3:02 PM]

[ Tuesday, September 12, 2023 ]

 

LA Care Breach and Incident net $1.3M fine: Yesterday, HHS announced a settlement with LA Care, the public health plan run by Los Angeles County, relating to two prior incidents: A 2019 data breach involving 1500 patients whose membership cards were sent to the wrong member, and a 2013 incident involving about 500 people whose information was loaded onto a different patient's page on LA Care's online patient portal.  

Hmm.  Nothingburger breaches, both of them.  The only data exposed was demographic, the provider is a comprehensive service provider so the fact the individual received care from LA Care isn't particularly sensitive (contra: it shows that the individual is likely poor; but the recipient is also poor, so still a minor problem), the lots exposed were small, and the actual problem (misdirected mail or computer data sorting) is pretty common.  So why the big fine?

It's a tale as old as time, or at least as old as HIPAA investigations: it's not the incident that brings the heat, it's what the investigation exposes: LA Care didn't have sufficient data security, certainly not for an organization of its size.  Lack of risk analyses and lack of safeguards were the underlying cause of the 2 minor breaches, and those problems are big enough to warrant an eye-opening fine.

Jeff [9:16 AM]

[ Monday, September 04, 2023 ]

 

 iHealth/Advantum settles HIPAA FTP server breach for $75,000.  I was going through some old emails and came across a HIPAA settlement that I don't think I mentioned earlier.  And it's not an access settlement.  It involves a business associate and an unsecured storage server (likely an FTP server).  Interestingly, the breach was not a "wall of shame" breach.


Jeff [12:51 PM]

[ Friday, August 25, 2023 ]

 

UHC Takes a Hit for Denying Access to PHI: The ongoing effort of OCR to bring actions against HIPAA covered entities has tallied its 45th fine, this time with insurer United Healthcare paying the price.  As with the other 44 instances, the fine is small by comparison to other non-access related HIPAA enforcement actions: $80,000, which roughly equates to UHC's revenue every 8 seconds.  The complainant in this case actually filed 3 separate complaints against UHC, so it's likely there was at least a little fire behind that smoke.

The key takeaway: OCR is going to keep going after covered entities who don't give access to individuals who request their records.  Access is a right, so give it.


Jeff [6:39 AM]

[ Monday, August 14, 2023 ]

 

 No surprise: Data breaches in the healthcare sector are the most expensive.


Jeff [8:40 AM]

[ Tuesday, July 25, 2023 ]

 

Average Cost of a Healthcare Data Breach Continues to Rise: The average cost of a healthcare data breach is now $11 million, according to IBM and the Ponemon Institute.  This is up $1 million since last year.  Heathcare data breaches are also about 2.5 times as costly as in other industries.


Jeff [8:44 AM]

[ Tuesday, July 18, 2023 ]

 

 HC3 issues brief on cyber risks of AI and ML: HHS' Health Sector Cybersecurity Coordination Center (HC3) has issued a brief outlining the cybersecurity risks of artificial intelligence and machine learning.  If you don't know much about AI and ML, that's fine; most of the brief is background information, explaining how AI and machine learning work. 


Jeff [8:02 AM]

[ Friday, June 16, 2023 ]

 

 Snooping Results in Quarter Million Dollar Fine: Breach threats can be external (hackers and stolen data) or internal (lazy or ill-intentioned employees who lose or steal data).  One of the more common types of insider breach incidents is snooping -- staff look at medical records they shouldn't, often records or a friend, family member, or celebrity, and usually out of curiosity.  I often advise clients to be on the lookout for snooping, by flagging celebrity files so that any access is immediately reviewed and training medical records staff to pay particular attention to the records of known family members of staff.  Warnings against snooping should be a regular part of HIPAA training, if the facility is such that family members of staff or celebrities are likely to be patients.  And when snooping is detected, punishment should be relatively harsh, pour le encourager des autres.

Yesterday, OCR announced it had levied a $240,000 fine against Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital for a snooping violation.  According to OCR's report, 23 members of the hospital's ER security staff accessed records of 419 individuals when they had no legitimate reason to do so.  

The case is interesting in that at 419 affected individuals, it's likely that the incident was reported as part of Yakima Valley's annual reporting, and not reported when it occurred.  It is unusual for OCR to issue fines for breaches this small, particularly with regard to a type of incident that is so common.  


Jeff [12:48 PM]

[ Wednesday, June 07, 2023 ]

 

HHS fines NJ psychiatric provider for disclosing PHI when responding to a negative review.  Manasa Health Center was fined $30,000 and required to enter into a corrective action plan with new training of employees and revised policies and procedures.  Apparently, a patient complained about the practice in an online forum, and the psychiatric practice responded and defended itself, but in doing so, it exposed PHI of the patient.  

I've previously posted on this subject, and on similar issues with covered entities inadvertently disclosing PHI while trying to defend themselves (some of the links have died from link rot, but you get the idea).  You don't have to sit silently while a patient posts an unfair or false bad review; however, your response cannot include the patient's PHI (simply confirming that the patient is in fact your patient is PHI).  There's no "he said it first" exception, nor does the fact that the PHI already been made public mean that the provider can disclose it again.  

For example, if a patient states that he had an 8:00am appointment in November but wasn't seen by the doctor until 2:00pm, you could respond with a statement such as, "While we can neither confirm nor deny whether this individual is a patient, we time stamp all patient sign-ins and the start of all patient-provider encounters.  We have reviewed all patient encounters during November and have not found any instance where the length of time between a patient's sign-in and the start of his/her physician visit was longer than 45 minutes."  That response refutes the patient's claim without disclosing PHI.


Jeff [12:41 PM]

[ Friday, April 14, 2023 ]

 

End of the Public Health Emergency means end of HIPAA Enforcement Discretion.  Been on Zoom or Teams lately?  Worked from home?  Telecommuted?  The Covid Pandemic changed a lot of things about the way we work, including a dramatic increase in telehealth services.  In healthcare (primary care particularly), there was firehose-level adoption of Zoom, FaceTime, and similar technology at the very early stages of the pandemic, as providers tried to find ways to keep their patients healthy without having them come to the office.  

However, these new technologies raised potential HIPAA issues: were they safe enough?  Had the adopting practices done sufficient due diligence understand the risks they posed to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the PHI that would be transmitted?  OCR wasn't about to simply say "Zoom is HIPAA-compliant" (as any reader of this blog knows, that's not how that works); however, at the same time, OCR wasn't about to stand in the way of Covid-safe healthcare delivery.

As is usually the case*, OCR took a balanced, reasonable approach: if providers agree to take reasonable steps to layer on the best privacy and security safeguards they can, OCR will agree not to prosecute you for a HIPAA violation if you use one of these video technologies. They called it "enforcement discretion:" OCR will exercise the discretion granted to it to not prosecute Zoom and FaceTime users for HIPAA violations. Now, OCR didn't say Zoom or FaceTime were otherwise improper under HIPAA; keeping a neutral stance, they simply said that, for the time being, we won't hold it against a covered entity that they chose to use such a technology.

OCR made clear that this was a pandemic-related decision, and subject to the circumstances. That meant that, when the pandemic ends, so does the enforcement discretion.  And lo, it came to pass, that the pandemic will officially end (as far as the federal government is concerned) on May 11, when the Public Health Emergency declaration ends. OCR will give covered entities and business associates 90 additional days (from May 12 through August 9) to become compliant.  OCR's declaration is here.

Bottom line: if you are a covered entity and adopted Zoom or some other telehealth technology, now is a good time to take a look at how you're using it, and make sure it fits within your HIPAA policies and procedures.  It would be a good idea to have a specific policy/procedure to address use of telehealth technologies (ask me if you need a form).  Make sure you cover ALL instances where you use Zoom, especially if you use it for non-patient-care purposes -- for example, staff meetings where PHI is discussed.

It might also be a good idea to leverage off of that review to freshen up your overall HIPAA risk analysis.  Are there other practices you adopted during the pandemic that might have HIPAA risk?  It doesn't mean you have to actually change anything, and in fact you might be doing everything as safely as possible.  But it's a good idea to look, because technology changes, as to threats.  


* I've been accused of being a cheerleader or fanboy for OCR, but that's not true.  I think the civil rights arm of OCR has been pretty lousy, with a heavy thumb on the scale for leftist woke claptrap and a clear bias against traditional religious rights.  But the HIPAA enforcement part of OCR has really been a partner to the healthcare industry it regulates from the beginning of HIPAA in 1999-2000.  I give credit where due, and when the government does something right, it deserves mention.


Jeff [8:39 AM]

 

 Did you know that I have a blog?  Good, because it seems I keep forgetting.

There's been a lot going on in HIPAA (comparatively) in the last few weeks, but I've not been very good at posting about it.  I'll try to be better.


Jeff [8:08 AM]

[ Monday, March 13, 2023 ]

 

New HIPAA Standards for attachments and electronic signatures: I saw this in December and tagged it for blogging, but lost it in my overcrowded email folders.  This is one of those super-insider-HIPAA deals, but CMS is proposing a new HIPAA standard transaction for attachments and e-signatures. As you may know (or not), one of the original purposes of HIPAA was to standardize (and thus simplify) many of the mundane daily transactions that providers and payors engage in when providing and paying for medical care. Originally, 9 separate transaction standards were adopted: 


The new proposal relates to several of these, particularly 276-278 and 837.  Attachments have always been a non-standard add-on to standard transactions, which in many ways defeats the purpose of the standardization.  The new rule won't completely fix the non-standardized attachments problem, but will streamline a portion of the process.  It'll take awhile for providers and payors to get the new processes rolled out, but once they're done, it should result in some cost-savings.

CMS' fact sheet is here, and the Federal Register posting is here



Jeff [9:12 AM]

[ Thursday, March 09, 2023 ]

 

Anniversary:  I meant to post something yesterday, but got a little distracted.  As of yesterday, this blog is now old enough to drink in all 50 states.  Yes, I started this blog on March 8, 2002.  Hard to imagine.


Jeff [11:24 AM]

[ Tuesday, February 28, 2023 ]

 

 HHS issues advisory on "Clop" strain of ransomware.  Spring is in the air, and as regularly as the seasons changing, there's a new varietal of ransomware.  This one is from a Russian group calling itself "Clop," which exploits a flaw in GoAnywhere.  HHS and HSCCC have issued an alert.  One thing that sets Clop apart is that it specifically targets the healthcare sector.

The usual defensive tactics apply: train your staff to avoid phishing, patch your software, manage your fenceline, backup your data, have your system mapped, use DLP, and put alarms on traffic flows.


Jeff [10:37 AM]

 

 HHS is committed to reduce the backlog of HIPAA investigations.  Complaints to OCR are now over 50,000 a year (2/3 of which are HIPAA-related), and OCR just isn't designed to meet that level of demand.  So HHS s going to reorganize OCR, with specific divisions addressing policy, strategic planning, and enforcement.  I don't think that's particularly useful.

Seems to me like OCR should be split into civil rights (discrimination and the like) and HIPAA/health data privacy and security.  The HIPAA side should also be split, with policy, planning, and guidance on one side, and breach/complaint on another branch, and enforcement as a third division.  The breach/complaint side should also be split into breach issues and non-breach issues (such as access).

At least that's how I'd do it.


Jeff [10:26 AM]

[ Wednesday, February 22, 2023 ]

 

The Lesson of Good Rx: Don't forget the FTC.  Obviously, I tend to focus on HIPAA here, as do many HIPAA-covered entities (and HIPAA-adjacent but non-CE industry players).  But the FTC's recent settlement with Good Rx over patient data handling practices should be a lesson.  Good Rx used tracking pixels to glean data from patients, and allowed Meta and Google to access the data; that resulted in Good Rx users getting targeted ads based on the information they had given Good Rx (which Good Rx had stated in its privacy policies would be kept confidential).

According to recent guidance from HHS, the use of tracking pixels can result in a HIPAA violation, if (i) the pixel use results in disclosure of PHI and (ii) the recipient isn't a rightful recipient or there's no BAA in place.  Tracking pixels are ubiquitous on webpages everywhere, since they are useful to the webpage owner to know what's working on their webpage and what isn't.  And there's normally no problem with the webpage owner having that data; the problem is if the webpage owner shares that data with others, without warning the customer first.  

Bad pixel use could easily result in a HIPAA enforcement action. But even if HIPAA isn't applicable, there's always the FTC.


Jeff [9:27 AM]

[ Friday, February 03, 2023 ]

 

 Banner Health Settlement: It appears that Banner Health has reached a settlement with OCR over its 2016 hacking incident that potentially exposed PHI of almost 3 million people.  


Jeff [3:25 PM]

[ Thursday, December 15, 2022 ]

 

New Vision Dental HIPAA violation:  Thanks to Jamie Sorley for tipping me off to this at the Dallas Bar Association Health Law Section's holiday party last night (sponsored by Bradley -- thanks for the excellent tequila!), HHS has issued a settlement with a dental practice that doesn't involve access. The practice disclosed PHI on social media when responding to patient complaints and bad reviews.  The good news for the practice, the fine was only $23,000.

It's tough when a patient posts a false negative review.  But a provider has to be very careful that any response does not involve any disclosure of PHI.  The safest route is to ignore it, but if you must respond, do so with global statements, not anything that could specify any particular patient.  For example, if the patient says he/she had to wait 3 hours in the waiting room on the day before Thanksgiving, the practice could respond and say it reviewed all of its sign-in sheets and the time-stamp of every patient encounter during the month of November and the longest any patient waited between sign-in and being taken to an exam room was 45 minutes.  That response does not disclose any patient's PHI.  On the other hand, saying "Mrs. Jones says she waited 3 hours, but she signed the sign-in sheet at 1:30 and was in the chair at 2:15" would be an improper disclosure of PHI.


Jeff [2:45 PM]

 

Healthcare Industry Cybersecurity Advice: Last month, Sen. Mark Warner issued a white paper, "Cybersecurity is Patient Safety," on the current state of healthcare cybersecurity and ways to improve it.  This month, the American Hospital Association has responded with a letter to Sen. Warner, providing a section-by-section response.

Ransomware, data breaches, and other cybersecurity issues are a huge problem in the healthcare industry.  While care-denying ransomware attacks are relatively rare, healthcare is a critical data-driven industry that suffers much more than others when hit with an attack.  A strong governmental and industry focus on cybersecurity is welcome.

But much of the advice relates to ways the government can spend more money, which is a premise that it's wise to question.  The money wasted on the Covid response (not just the huge amounts of fraud, but the crippling effects of long-term unemployment insurance and deficit-ballooning cash grants to just about every business and government entity in sight -- many of which are now being spent on wasteful and unnecessary "infrastructure" and other pet projects that have only the most tangential connection to healthcare, much less the coronavirus) has put a huge weight on the US economy that it will take at least a generation to overcome.  Virtually all our current economic woes (inflation, supply chain disruptions, business failures, historically low labor participation rates) are directly attributable not to Covid, but to the Covid response.

What we need is more clear and specific guidance from OCR, ONC, and HHS generally on what to do.  The 405(d) program is great, but should be more specifically tied to what constitutes "reasonable safeguards" under the Security Rule.  OCR need not abandon the flexibility granted in 45 CFR 164.306(b), but could provide a "safe harbor" reference to a concise and current list of specific security practices.  Subpart C of 45 CFR Part 164 (the core Security Rule provisions, 164.302 et seq.), is clear and concise, and a fraction of the size of Subpart E (the Privacy Rule provisions), but finding your way to the specific technical guidance in the 405(d) program (or wading through the dozens of overly-wordy HHS data security resources) can take a lifetime.

Most of us who practice regularly in healthcare cybersecurity are aware of the 405(b) program and the technical guidance for small, medium, and large healthcare organizations, but very few providers are aware of it.  Turning the technical volume attachments into a safe harbor would go a long way toward alleviating some of the health industry's ransmoware exposure and risk. 


Jeff [9:17 AM]

[ Wednesday, December 07, 2022 ]

 

Business Associates Get Hacked, are Threat Vectors: Half of the most recent 10 big HIPAA breaches involved business associates.  As a covered entity, your first task is to make sure you have BAAs in place with your vendors.  But the second task is to make sure your business associates aren't risky.  They may be your weakest link, and your patients won't be happy with your excuse that "it wasn't my fault, it was the guys I hired and gave your data to."  


Jeff [1:25 PM]

[ Monday, December 05, 2022 ]

 

Tracking Technologies: HHS has issued guidance to HIPAA covered entities and business associates regarding the risks of using tracking technologies to understand patient activities and behaviors, including when pixel use (such as with Facebook Pixel/Meta Pixel advertising tools).  I haven't fully digested the guidance but will update this post when I do.


Jeff [8:52 AM]

[ Wednesday, November 30, 2022 ]

 

Part 2: OCR announced earlier this week that they want to revise "Part 2" to more closely align with HIPAA.  For those who don't know, 42 CFR Part 2 is a federal regulation that prohibits the disclosure of information regarding patients at federally-supported substance abuse treatment facilities.  It's a remnant of an era when the government was concerned that drug addicts would not seek treatment due to fear that their presence at a drug treatment facility would be used as proof of drug crimes.  Part 2 serves as sort of a super-HIPAA: with few exceptions, no data can be released about a patient without the patient's consent.

I haven't yet read what OCR's proposing, but I'll let you know what I think when I do.


Jeff [6:15 PM]

[ Tuesday, November 08, 2022 ]

 

8 Common-Sense Ideas for Defending Against Cyberattacks: This is focused on hospitals, which are seeing a rash of attacks, but these steps will work for every organization.  


Jeff [8:12 AM]

[ Thursday, October 27, 2022 ]

 

 Data minimization and the Drizly case.  News hit earlier this week when a proposed settlement between the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Uber alcohol-delivery subsidiary Drizly was disclosed.  The consent order is remarkable on its face because it applies to the CEO of the company both while at Drizly and at any other company where he takes a management role.  While that is very unusual, of greater importance is probably the focus of the FTC on data minimization.

Drizly suffered a data breach when a hacker got the credentials of an employee and was able to log on and access a lot of information about Drizly's customers.  And Drizly collected a lot of customer and employee information -- much more information than Drizly needed to deliver drinks to thirsty customers.  The proposed consent order will require Drizly to limit the data it collects and keeps and requires James Cory Rellas to implement similar restrictions at any future employer.

The FTC's goal is data minimization.  Often companies will collect more information than they need to do the job at hand, because it might otherwise be valuable at some point in the future for basic or new purposes.  This is particularly true at initial customer sign-in, or with start-up companies, since they don't know what data them might find useful in the future, and they might not be able to collect it later. 

However, while that data may or may not be valuable to the company, there's a truism in data privacy that pushes in the opposite direction: you cannot lose what you don't have.  A data breach can only get the data that is in the database, so the less data you retain, the less you have to protect.

Expect to see not only the FTC, but other privacy enforcement agencies focus more often on data minimization as a breach mitigation strategy.


Jeff [2:01 PM]

[ Tuesday, September 20, 2022 ]

 

OCR Settles Three More Right-to-Access Complaints: All 3 cases involve dentists, in Chicago, Las Vegas, and Georgia.  Settlement amounts range from $25,000 to $80,000.  

If anyone hasn't learned the lesson yet: when patients ask for their PHI, give it to them.  No matter how terrible they are, no matter how much they owe you, it's not worth it to try to withhold their records.  

Jeff [7:42 PM]

[ Thursday, September 15, 2022 ]

 

FBI Warns About Unpatched and Legacy Devices: Virtually all data storage and usage systems have vulnerabilities to hackers; it's just a matter of time and effort before some hacker finds a way to hack in.  Software designers address this by issuing patches whenever vulnerabilities are discovered; however, once a device or system is obsolete (usually when there are a few iterations of replacement versions), the designers stop pushing out patches, and instead encourage users to replace the old systems.  Software-laden medical devices and legacy data systems used by healthcare providers are no different.

Failure to patch or replace means those known vulnerabilities are there, ready for a hacker to exploit.  The FBI recently issued a notice to healthcare facilities and systems to keep up patching and/or replace old systems to avoid risks to the data held by such devices and systems.  In some cases, providers can't afford to replace old, unsupported devices, or replacement devices aren't even available; in those cases, facilities should take other steps to protect the devices or data: disconnecting the devices from the internet, clearing data regularly, resetting the device to original settings (or a current specific update), etc.  


Jeff [8:24 AM]

[ Friday, September 09, 2022 ]

 

 Cyberattacks are costly in many ways: This shouldn't be news to anyone whose been paying attention, but two recent articles point out recent studies into the effects cyberattacks have on healthcare organizations.  A recent Modern Healthcare article points out that almost 9 in 10 healthcare organizations suffered at least one cyberattack within the past year, with the average organization suffering almost one attempted attack per week.  Successful attacks average $4.4 million in costs.

Dollar costs aren't the only damage cyberattacks cause.  A HealthIT Security article illustrates that cyberattacks also impact patient safety, causing increase in hospital stays and increased mortality.  

Cyberattacks cost money and health, if not lives.  Treat them seriously; defend your organization and your patients.


Jeff [8:20 AM]

[ Thursday, September 08, 2022 ]

 

 I received the following yesterday in an email from the OCR HIPAA listserv:

Is your organization using the SRA Tool to help conduct a security risk assessment (SRA)? The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) and the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services are hosting a webinar in September about the Security Risk Assessment Tool. In this webinar, we will focus on how to review and update an assessment from a previous session. We will also cover a basic overview of the tool and highlight some new enhancements in version 3.3. There will be an opportunity for participants to ask questions and give feedback during the session.

 

There are two dates available for this webinar. Registration is limited to 3,000 participants for each presentation. The presentation will be the same for both sessions. A recording will be made available after the final webinar session.

 

Register for a session:

September 14, 2:00-3:00pm ET

September 15, 11:00-12pm ET

 

Download the SRA Tool here →

As you probably know, the existence of a good security risk assessment is a major item for review when OCR investigates a covered entity for a potential HIPAA violation.  And OCR definitely gives covered entities a lot of credit for using their own version of the security risk analysis.  It's pretty clunky and takes a lot of time to get through, but risk analysis is in fact pretty hard to do with a one-size-fits-all tool, so the difficulty of the tool is a little bit understandable.  

I'd highly recommend attending the webinar if you can.  It's always good to know what the regulators are thinking


Jeff [7:05 AM]

[ Tuesday, September 06, 2022 ]

 

 Chapter 11: Documenting HIPAA: the Notice of Privacy Practices

This is a continuation of my series of 20 posts celebrating the 20th anniversary of the HIPAA Privacy Rule and the 20th anniversary of the beginning of this blog.

As discussed above, the first and greatest (the “paladium,” if you will) right granted  (or recognized as belonging) to individuals under HIPAA is the right to know the “rules of the road.”  Prior to HIPAA, most healthcare providers required patients to sign a consent document, upon becoming a patient, that clearly gave the patient’s consent to the provider using and disclosing the patient’s information to the patient’s insurer, for example.  Providers knew (i) they were subject to patient confidentiality requirements (either statutory or common law), (ii) they’d be using the information that way, and (iii) it was easy enough to do at patient onboarding.  As originally drafted in the Clinton Administration, HIPAA also required covered entities to obtain a specific consent from patients prior even for uses such as treatment, payment, and healthcare operations (TPO). 

The Bush Administration removed the consent requirement, since it was unwieldy: a specialist physician would not even be able to look at the medical records of a patient referred to him for a consult until the patient arrived and signed a consent; a pharmacy would not be able to pre-fill your prescription until you showed up and signed a form.  This would result in unnecessary delays to patient care.  The fix would be to allow the expected and otherwise permitted types of disclosures without specific consent, as long as the covered entity properly disclosed the general types of uses that were to be expected.  Thus, HIPAA allows covered entities to use and disclose PHI without the authorization or consent of the patient for PTO, as required by law, or for certain other purposes; however, the covered entity must provide the patient, upon first contact, with a document outlining what those permitted uses and disclosures are, and which ones the covered entity is going to be engaging in.  It’s only fair: we remove the burden of pre-consent for those standard “ordinary course of business” uses and disclosures, but add the burden of fair disclosure when it becomes feasible.

The Notice of Privacy Practices (sometimes referred to as the NPP, although I prefer NoPP – adds one letter when you’re writing it, but eliminates 2 syllables when you’re saying it) has 3 main required elements, the first being a discussion of the types of uses and disclosures to be expected.  This fulfills the “fair warning” of the “rules of the road” concept inherent in the Bush Administration’s removal of the consent requirement.  In order to meet the requirements, the NoPP should provide a list of each general type of expected use and disclosure, with a more detailed description or example of the major types.  For example, legally-required disclosures for law enforcement or public health purposes could be described in just so many words, but treatment or payment disclosures should include an example.

The second required element is a description of the individual’s rights with respect to their information.  There is a “fair notice” element at play here, but it as much serves as a governor on covered entities that might otherwise want to run roughshod over their patients, by forcing them to acknowledge what they must do for their patients, and arming the patients with that information.

As noted above, the right to receive the NoPP is the first right of individuals, but there are 5 others: the right to access your PHI, the right to request amendments, the right to an accounting of disclosures, the right to request communications in a different format or at a chosen location, and the right to request specific privacy protections.  These rights must be discussed in the NoPP.

Finally, the NoPP must provide a description of how a patient can file a complaint and seek his/her PHI.  The complaint instructions should include a description of how to complain to the provider itself, as well as how to skip straight to the enforcement agency and file a complaint with the Office for Civil Rights.

The NoPP must also be written in plain language, and must be available in other languages if the covered entity has a large enough population of non-English speakers.  Given the amount of information that must be conveyed (for example, if a covered entity does not specifically include a particular permitted use or disclosure in the NoPP, it cannot so use or disclose the patient’s PHI without an authorization), there is pressure to make the NoPP as long and legalistic as possible.  The plain language requirement is intended to prevent this.  These competing goals of generality and granularity means that covered entities must seek the “Goldilocks” level of sophistication and earthiness for their NoPPs; good luck with that.

Currently, the covered entity must attempt to obtain a “receipt” signature of the individual upon delivery of the NoPP; if the individual cannot or refuses to sign, the covered entity should simply note the failure or refusal, but cannot condition care or services upon receipt of the signature.  So why go to the trouble?  Conceptually, this requirement is a sort of “good faith” enhancer to (i) ensure the covered entity delivers the NoPP and (ii) ensure the patient/beneficiary understands the importance of the NoPP and the need to review (or at least understand) the information in it (most people pay more attention to the contents of a document they must sign than they do to one simply handed to them).  Recent proposed revisions to the HIPAA regulations have indicated that the signature requirement may go away, but hold your tickets, that might not make it through to the final rules.


Jeff [11:48 AM]

[ Thursday, August 25, 2022 ]

 

OCR fines New England Dermatology for Bad Data Disposal: The dermatology practice must pay $300,640 for putting specimen containers with a patient PHI printed on labels in the regular trash bin.  Not the first fine for bad trash disposal methods; there have even been actions against pharmacies that threw out pill containers with patient names on them.  It's a reminder: if there are patient identifiers on anything, whether it's paper or not, you need to make sure you dispose of it in a secure manner.

Also, why the extra $640?


Jeff [2:25 PM]

[ Wednesday, August 17, 2022 ]

 

 Zeppelin: Healthcare IT News reports that that the FBI and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) branch of the Department of Homeland Security have issued an advisory warning the healthcare industry in particular of the dangers of the newest ransomware variant, known as Zeppelin. 


Jeff [7:59 AM]

[ Tuesday, August 16, 2022 ]

 

 This is totally off-topic: a family beach story.


It seems now that we went as a family to the beach every Sunday after church during the summer, but I know it mustn’t have been that often.  After mass at St. Hyacinth, we would change into our “beach clothes” and load up the station wagon with beach chairs, a tarp with all of its attendant paraphernalia (poles, stakes, cords), a shovel, charcoal and lighter fluid, a hammer, suntan lotion, towels and more towels, a conch shell with the small end sawed off to be blown like a trumpet when it was time to come in, and a radio (one that looked like it had enough bands to pick up Russian radio broadcasts, short wave, and marine channels but that never seemed to be able to pick up anything on any band other than AM and FM).

There were ice chests full of food, beer for the adults in cans without pull tabs that required a church key to punch little triangular holes, and sodas for us kids.  The beer was always Falstaff or Texas Pride or some other off brand, and the soft drinks were never Cokes or Pepsis (although we called all soft drinks “Cokes,” like some people call all tissue “Kleenex”), but Cragmont or Shasta or some other store brand.  We never knew we were missing anything.

Sometimes we’d take the Interstate down to the island, and sometimes we would take old Highway 146 through the industrial wasteland of Texas City, past the smelly Union Carbide plant that was so rusted it appeared to be rotting.  The risk of taking 146 was the drawbridge, but the bridge normally wasn’t up except for the trip back home.  Watching the sailboats go past -- when we got caught by the bridge but were close enough to be on the bridge’s incline -- was an added treat that made the wait more bearable, but we were beach people, not boat people.

Once we got to the beach, we operated with the efficiency of a military advance team parachuting in behind enemy lines.  The first thing to do was select the site for the tarp.  This took some careful strategy, based on wind, the location of other bathers, and the position of the car.  Once the tarp was up (raised like a circus tent, the older kids and adults playing roustabouts), the lawn chairs and coolers were placed in the shade of the tarp, and the serious beach business could get under way.  As fair skinned children (all except Greg, who took after Dad’s coloring), we were lathered with suntan lotion as soon as the tarp was up.

While we kids were playing in the surf, the adults would sit under the tarp and enjoy the day at the beach, drinking beer and listening to the radio.  Dad would dig the pit for the charcoal fire on which lunch would be cooked, the exercise a combination of archaeology and engineering.  After lunch, we weren’t allowed to go back into the water for an hour (so we wouldn’t get cramps and drown), and we all had to put our shirts back on so that we didn’t get too much sun.

When it was time to go, the remnants of lunch that didn’t burn off the grill were washed away in the salt water and scrubbed away in the sand at the waterline.  Dad would get a bucket of water from the Gulf and put it by the car door, and each of us would dip our feet in the bucket as we got in the car, in a marginally successful effort to avoid tracking sand all over the car.  We would drive back home, tired and happy and glowing with the sunlight that we had captured in our skin that afternoon, sunlight that we would release in little doses over the next few days until our suntans and sunburns faded or peeled.  We were happy and contented then, before college entrance exams, midterms and finals, before the Law School Admissions Test, criminal law, torts and civil procedure, before the State Bar exam, billable hours, and the partnership track.  Before the general public had concerns about skin cancer, and before the family had to deal with metastasized breast cancer, heart bypasses, high blood sugar, and kidney failure.

The last time I saw my mother alive was in the summer of 1982 at the University of Texas Medical Branch hospital in Galveston, very near to that beach we had played on so often.  Several days before, her doctor told my father, his sister, and me (I was there to drive Dad and Aunt Mary back home from the hospital) that she had a very short time left.  She came home for a few days, one of which was great because she was up and about, full of her usual spirit.  People dropped by the house, the great extended family that included us six kids and all our friends, and she was entertained and entertaining.  But the next day, she couldn’t get out of bed, and by late in the day, she asked Dad to put her back into the hospital.

She had had breast cancer, underwent a mastectomy, followed by chemotherapy and radiation that cost her her hair and her strength.  The treatments normally left her sick, and once I drove her down to Galveston for her treatment because she didn’t want to have to drive back afterward.  It was the summer of 1981, between my freshman and sophomore years in college, and I didn’t have to work that day, so I agreed.  After the treatment, she thanked me for taking her.  I shrugged it off, saying that I didn’t mind at all, and that just being near the beach and smelling the salt air was my reward.  “Let’s drive down to the beach,” she suggested.  “It’s a shame to come this close and not go down there.”

I agreed, and off we went to East Beach, the beach I had favored in high school after the family’s beach trips trailed off, after West Beach was closed to traffic, and after I began to frequent the beach with my friends rather than my family, more interested in surfing and watching girls than in sand castles, the buddy system and Shasta grape soda.  I parked the car on the beach, outside the area of the beach where you have to pay to get on.  Mom just wanted to sit in the car and enjoy the breeze and the fresh salty smells in the air that only exist at the beach.  I got out and took a short stroll down the beach.  After we left the beach, we didn’t talk for a long time.  We were probably off the island before I thanked her for suggesting we go to the beach.  We weren’t there long, and while we were there I didn’t even think about all of those family trips to the beach as a kid, but I remember it now as clearly as if it was last week.

That last night in the hospital, I was among the earlier group to go down to Galveston to see her.  I wanted to be sure that not everyone in the family was down there at once.  I had read or heard that, when a sick person realizes that everyone has come to see them, when people who normally wouldn’t be there arrive to visit, they know that the end is near and they let go.  I wasn’t ready for her to let go, so I was really angry when I got there and found out that all my siblings were on their way down as well.  But they had been called, since the doctor said she had very little time left.  We were all assembled in her room when she said she just wanted to go home.  “We’re all here now, Mom,” Shawn said.  “This is home.”  I was in the hallway when she slipped away, telling Colleen how I wanted to go to the beach right then, to walk in the sand and try to figure out what was happening and why.  I wanted to hear the sounds of the waves that threw the first forms of life onto the earth, to smell the unmistakable smell of the beach, fresh and rancid at once, the odor of the beginning and the ending of life.

The worst part about losing a loved one is that your memory of that person slips away from you from that moment on.  You try to remember all you can, and some things will stay in your memory like a movie you’ve seen too many times, but the other things, the little things, disappear.  Each time you gather together your memories of her, there are a few more missing.  You don’t really notice them gone; it just seems as though there used to be so much more.  Those memories are like a sand castle on the beach.  You can construct it as well as you’re capable, embed it with seashells to protect it from the wind, build a berm to prevent the tide from reaching it, but try though you may, each passing minute will see the loss of a parapet, the softening and rounding of a once-square corner, the erosion of a tower.  There’s nothing, ultimately, that you can do to protect it, and despite your best diligence, the finely constructed castle just becomes a lump of sand on the beach.

Sometimes, however, something will spark an old memory that you thought you’d lost, the way the smell of dust on old books always reminds me of the books from the top shelf of our old living room, the books that got neglected and forlorn waiting to be rediscovered.  It is in knowing that these triggers exist that I can live with the fact that ever since I was 29 my direct ancestors live only in my faulty, leaky memory, and that even though my memories may only amount to a lump in the sand, every time I see a shell-encrusted sand castle or a well-carved tower, old memories will float to the surface like the turning of the tide.  I’ll take my children to the beach and tell them stories about the ancestors they never knew, and hand my memories over to them so that the collective consciousness of who I am and, ultimately, who they are can instill in them a sense of belonging and an understanding of life, infinity, and the sea.



Jeff [1:25 PM]

[ Wednesday, July 20, 2022 ]

 

 337:  That's how many large (over 500) breaches were reported to OCR for "wall of shame" purposes.  This is a slight drop from last year; however, more were "malicious" (usually a hacker, and often ransomware-related) this year, which isn't really surprising.


Jeff [8:11 AM]

[ Monday, July 18, 2022 ]

 

OCR Announces 11 More Access Enforcement Actions: OCR has adopted a special enforcement focus on covered entities that fail to provide patients with access to their PHI.  These cases often involve lower fines than we usually see for breaches and larger/more systemic failures to comply with HIPAA obligations.  Last week, OCR announced 11 new access enforcement actions.

The fines range from $3,500 to $240,000, and 9 of the 11 matters have fines of $65,000 or less.  


Jeff [12:07 PM]

[ Friday, July 15, 2022 ]

 

Oklahoma State University: OSU got hacked, and the hacker was able to access a server where staff stored some PHI.  End result: a fine of $875,000.


Jeff [10:27 AM]

http://www.blogger.com/template-edit.g?blogID=3380636 Blogger: HIPAA Blog - Edit your Template