It is noteworthy that there are often substantial delays in disclosures regarding covered entities (“CEs”) that have become marchers in the Parade of large Protected Health Information (“PHI”) security breaches under HIPAA. This is the case even though the PHI breach notification rule requires that, when a PHI breach affects 500 or more individuals (a… Continue Reading
This blog series has been following breaches of Protected Health Information (“PHI”) that have been reported on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) ever-lengthening parade list (the “HHS List”) of breaches of unsecured PHI affecting 500 or more individuals (the “List Breaches”). As reported in a previous blog post in this series,… Continue Reading
This blog series has been following breaches of Protected Health Information (“PHI”) that have been reported on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) ever-lengthening parade list (the “HHS List”) of breaches of unsecured PHI affecting 500 or more individuals (the “List Breaches”). Previous blog posts in this series discussed here and here… Continue Reading
If you are a federally-facilitated health insurance exchange (FFE), a “non-Exchange entity”, or a State Exchange, the answer is “Quick, report!” Those involved with the new health insurance exchanges (or “Marketplaces”? The name, like the rules, seems to be a moving and elusive target) should make note that privacy and security incidents and breaches are… Continue Reading
Elizabeth Litten and Michael Kline write: For the second time in less than 2 ½ years, the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration (the “FSSA”) has suffered a large breach of protected health information (“PHI”) as the result of actions of a business associate (“BA”). If I’m a resident of Indiana and a client of… Continue Reading
In January 2011 this blog series discussed here and here that the University of Rochester Medical Center (“URMC” or the “Medical Center”) became a marcher twice in 2010 in the parade of large Protected Health Information (“PHI”) security breaches. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) publishes a list (the “HHS List”), which… Continue Reading
Under HIPAA, where do we draw the line between a run-of-the-mill, ordinary garden variety “security incident” and a “presumed breach” when it comes to reporting PHI events? How do we describe these types of reporting obligations in business associate agreements?
On February 7, 2013, our partner Keith McMurdy, Esq., posted an excellent entry on the Employee Benefits Blog of Fox Rothschild LLP that merits republishing for our readers as well. The post outlined some direct effects of the new HIPAA Omnibus Rule on employers and their health plans.
While the summaries of closed investigations posted on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services list of breaches of unsecured PHI affecting 500 or more individuals continue to provide highly useful information for covered entities, business associates and subcontractors relative to confronting PHI breaches, large and small, they must be analyzed with appropriate care and attention paid to changes brought about by the recently-published Omnibus Rule.
As of January 1, 2013, there were 525 postings on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services list of breaches of unsecured PHI affecting 500 or more individuals. “Theft” constituted the majority of PHI breach types reported.
SAIC’s recent Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint filed in federal court in Florida as a putative class action highlights the gaps between an incident (like a theft) involving PHI, a determination that a breach of PHI has occurred, and the realization of harm resulting from the breach.
A New England hospital has reported the disappearance of backup tapes containing ultrasound images and personal data of 14,000 patients. How do you handle a data loss when you don’t have any way of determining where the data went or who may have seen it? Is it still a “breach” in the technical sense? These questions… Continue Reading
A thoughtful reader commented on a recent blog post in this series by highlighting the importance of evaluating the risk of harm by any covered entity that experiences a PHI security breach.
Much has been written about the circumstances surrounding the agreement of Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary (“MEEI”) to pay the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services the sum of $1.5 million to settle potential violations involving an alleged 2010 security breach of PHI under HIPAA. However, relatively little has been written that the 2010 breach was the second of what may be three significant PHI breaches experienced by MEEI within the last three years.
The recent paucity of postings of summaries on the Department of Health and Human Services list of large HIPAA privacy breaches by the federal Office of Civil Rights dampens the educational value that can be derived therefrom by covered entities and business associates.
University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center posted notice on its website of a theft of an unencrypted laptop computer containing data on more than 30,000 patients exactly 59 days after the theft took place.
Within the last week, The Boston Globe has reported that venerable Boston Children’s Hospital, the primary pediatric teaching hospital of Harvard Medical School, has notified the public media and affected individuals of a large PHI security breach that occurred in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
On March 30, 2012, a large data security breach, which has not yet been posted on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services list of breaches of unsecured PHI, was experienced by the Utah Department of Technology Services on a computer server that stores Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program claims data.
On February 24, 2012, HHS posted number 400 on its ever-lengthening list of breaches of unsecured PHI affecting 500 or more individuals. Theft of laptops is a recurrent source of such breaches, and the 400th breach was such an incident affecting Triumph, LLC in North Carolina.
On February 24, 2012, HHS posted number 400 on its ever-lengthening list of breaches of unsecured PHI affecting 500 or more individuals.
UCLA has developed a mixed record of disclosure with respect to its most recent security breach of PHI that was reported as a theft of an other portable electronic device on September 7, 2011.
Five members of Congress are co-signers of a bipartisan letter dated December 2, 2011, addressed to the Director of the TRICARE Management Authority to express the Congress members’ “deep concerns about a major breach of personally identifiable and protected health information by TRICARE contractor Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC).”
The recent MedPage Today survey results as to “third party errors” mirrors to some extent the proportion of business associate involvement reported for incidents that involved higher numbers of individuals on the HHS list of large PHI breaches as of December 2, 2011.
Given earlier assurances to the “approximately 4.9 million patients treated at military hospitals and clinics during the past 20 years” that the risk of harm was low from the SAIC PHI breach and there was no conclusive evidence that patients were at risk of identity theft, one can speculate as to whether Tricare/DoD’s abrupt about-face as to offering credit monitoring and restoration services relates to new evidence, a revised judgment as to the risk of harm to affected patients and/or simply an abundance of caution as to its own exposure to risk.