My partner Bill Maruca was quoted in Jeff Overley’s article “Historic HIPAA Fine Will Push Feds To Get Tougher” published in Law360 on Friday, February 20, 2014. The article reports on the nearly $7 million fine imposed by the Puerto Rico Health Insurance Administration on a contractor, health plan Triple-S Salud Inc. (“Triple-S”). Bill’s quote sums it… Continue Reading
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.
Here are ten HIPAA resolutions worth making for 2013 for anyone who has contact with protected health information in their job, even without the benefit of the long-awaited Mega Rule.
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.
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.
Employers should limit PHI that they provide with respect to medical examinations of employees and job applicants and in other contexts to the least amount of medical information necessary for evaluation in order to avoid potential violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Genetic Information Nondisclosure Act, State workers’ compensation laws and other statutes.
The settlement in the Accretive Health, Inc. PHI breach case provides a good example of how the blurring of the covered entity and business associate roles can backfire on parties that fail to sufficiently analyze and define such roles, not only at the outset of a relationship but throughout its duration and evolution.
The federal Office of Civil Rights deems it necessary for a covered entity (CE) to verify whether a business associate (BA) is also a covered entity with respect to the CE’s protected health information; in turn such CE and BA and their respective counsel should use the verification process to develop provisions in the business associate agreement.
Many people who have been in the unfortunate situation where they believe that their protected health information (PHI) has been compromised inappropriately, are often surprised and deeply disappointed to learn that the HIPAA law does not provide a “private right of action.”
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.
The recent Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) resolution with Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, the state Medicaid agency (“Alaska Medicaid”), which includes the payment by Alaska Medicaid to HHS of $1.7 million respecting possible violations of HIPAA, raises questions as to the exacting of payments by HHS from a state agency that funds medical care for the Alaska indigent from taxpayers.
The Department of Health and Human Services list of breaches of unsecured PHI affecting 500 or more individuals includes focused guidance for covered entities and business associates in the form of brief summaries of the cases that the federal Office of Civil Rights has investigated and closed.
To avoid becoming marchers in the Breach Parade, covered entities and business associates should be aware of tools being used by the federal Office of Civil Rights and State Attorneys General to deter and catch HIPAA privacy and security breaches that may be similar to the red light cameras designed to deter and catch traffic violations.