ILNews

New HIPAA rule revises breach notification process

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

Financial institutions sending letters and emails alerting customers of possible unauthorized access to their bank accounts or credit cards are more common that anyone would like. Soon, however, such notices may come from hospitals and medical insurance companies.

The change is being ushered in by the new Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 rule announced in January by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. At 563 pages, the regulation is being touted as finalizing a number of provisions in the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act and strengthening the privacy and security protections for health information provided under HIPAA.

eckhardt-chad-mug Eckhardt

When the omnibus rule was unveiled, Kathleen Sebelius, HHS secretary, pointed to the growing use of electronic medical records as part of the cause for the new rule.

“Much has changed in health care since HIPAA was enacted over 15 years ago,” Sebelius stated in a press release. “The new rule will help protect patient privacy and safeguard patients’ health information in an ever expanding digital age.”

Attorneys agreed with the government’s assessment that these are “sweeping changes.”

“It’s a significant piece of regulation enforcing a patient’s privacy rights,” said Chad Eckhardt, an associate in Frost Brown Todd LLC’s Cincinnati office. “It’s going to take a while for covered entities to get their arms around.”

The final omnibus rule addresses four regulatory areas. It provides the final modifications to the HIPAA privacy, security and enforcement rules; sets the final rule adopting the increased civil money penalty structure; issues the final standard on breach notification for unsecured protected health information; and modifies the HIPAA privacy rule that prevents most health plans from using or disclosing genetic information for underwriting purposes.

Most of the regulations have been public for some time and the language of the final rule was expected. Although few surprises were contained in the document, Eckhardt said, the change to the breach notification provision has turned many heads.

ziels-susan-mug Ziel

Namely, the standard of “significant harm” has been dropped which could lead to more people getting letters from their doctors and insurance companies that their medical records may have been compromised.

Breach notification

The push toward electronic medical records was accelerated by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Early projections that billions of dollars would be saved by moving to electronic records have been dampened, but computerized health information still has advantages. Some can alert physicians to tests a patient needs, reduce mistakes in prescriptions, and aid in research.

Yet, as with bank records and credit card information, going online brings new risks.

“Privacy is a big issue because if health records are more accessible to doctors, they’re also more accessible to everybody else,” said David Orentlicher, professor at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law.

Medical records contain a great deal of information from details of a patient’s health to financial account numbers and Social Security numbers.

With an apparent eye on the increased potential health information being lost or stolen, the HHS revised the Breach Notification Rule first published in the 2009 HITECH Act.

Under the initial provision, patients did not have to be notified of any breach if the covered entity, such as health care provider or health insurance company, determined the information improperly accessed did not pose a “significant risk of harm” to those patients.

The covered entities were required to perform a risk assessment to examine elements such as who accessed the information and what type of information was disclosed. Then, if that analysis indicated the breach did not put the patient’s financial or personal wellbeing at risk, no notification had to be sent.

Advocates supporting the significant harm standard pointed to the increased costs and burden that covered entities and their business associates would have to bear if the threshold for notification was lowered. In addition, alerting consumers when there was no risk of damage could cause unnecessary anxiety and, eventually, apathy.

However, opponents countered the significant harm provision set the standard too high.

In the final rule just released, the HHS removed the harm standard and modified the risk assessment. Now, the focus has shifted from assessing the risk to the individual to proving that the improper disclosure did not compromise the protected health information. The HHS is also providing more objective guidelines for doing the risk assessment to determine if a notification is necessary.

Penalties

Accordingly, costs for covered entities and business associates will likely rise because they will have to pay for not only the alert but also repairing the breach and offering any mitigating services like credit monitoring.

Also, since enforcement happens after the breach has occurred, the notification could become even more costly.

The financial penalties were unveiled in the HITECH Act. Fines for improper releases of protected health information have long been a part of HIPAA, but the new reparations are substantially higher.

Prior to HITECH, the fine could not be more than $100 per violation and the total penalty could not exceed $25,000 a year. Attorneys said the dollar amounts were so low that hardly anyone paid them much attention.

zoccola-christine-mug Zoccola

They are paying attention now. The civil money penalty provision divides the violations into four tiers, ranging from “Did Not Know” to “Willful Neglect – Not Corrected.” The fines for each violation go from a low $100 to a high $50,000, and the total penalty could reach $1.5 million per violation of HIPAA rules within a calendar year.

“I think that’s probably what it takes to get people’s attention sometimes, or so the government thinks,” said Susan Ziel, partner at Krieg Devault LLP’s Minneapolis office.

Moreover, the new rule expands the liability. Now, not only are covered entities liable to HIPAA violations but so are their business associates, which includes anyone who has access to medical records like lawyers, transcribers and accountants.

Enforcement activity has been increasing.

In September, the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary and Massachusetts Eye and Ear Associates Inc., reached a settlement agreement with the HHS to pay $1.5 million for potential HIPAA violations. The settlement came after the infirmary filed a breach notification, reporting the theft of an unencrypted personal laptop containing the electronic protected health information of patients and research subjects.

Getting started

The final omnibus rule was published Jan. 25 and goes into effect March 26. Compliance must be met by Sept. 23.

Many health care providers and insurance companies have not updated their HIPAA policies since the act took effect in 2003. Christine Zoccola, partner at Bose McKinney & Evans LLP in Indianapolis, noted attorneys will be working not only to educate their clients on the final rule but also to revise procedures, forms and contracts to meet the new provisions.

“It is a big change,” Zoccola said. “It is a massive overhaul.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Very upset about hippos laws
    I have tried everywhere trying to get help and all I get is the run around I should able to protect my son from people I have to work with they think they can do what they want with personal information.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT