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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT