Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

On December 9, 2015, the Federal Trade Commission announced that Wyndham Worldwide Corporation (“Wyndham”) settled charges brought by the FTC stemming from allegations that the company unfairly failed to maintain reasonable data security practices. The case is FTC v. Wyndham Worldwide Corporation, et al. (2:13-CV-01887-ES-JAD) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

On November 30, 2015, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) announced that Triple-S Management Corporation ("Triple-S"), an insurance holding company based in San Juan, Puerto Rico, agreed on behalf of certain of its subsidiaries to settle potential violations of the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules with HHS’s Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”).

On August 24, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued its opinion in Federal Trade Commission v. Wyndham Worldwide Corporation (“Wyndham”), affirming a district court holding that the Federal Trade Commission has the authority to regulate companies’ data security practices.

On July 10, 2015, the United States House of Representatives passed the 21st Century Cures Act (the “Act”), which is intended to ease restrictions on the use and disclosure of protected health information (“PHI”) for research purposes.

The Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) recently announced a resolution agreement and $125,000 settlement with Cornell Prescription Pharmacy (“Cornell”) in connection with the disposal of prescription records in an unsecured dumpster on Cornell’s premises. After receiving a report from a Denver television station regarding Cornell’s disposal practices, the HHS’ Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) investigated Cornell and found several HIPAA Privacy Rule violations, including that Cornell had failed to:

On April 8, 2015, a New York Assemblyman introduced the Data Security Act in the New York State Assembly that would require New York businesses to implement and maintain information security safeguards. The requirements would apply to “private information,” which is defined as either:

• personal information consisting of any information in combination with one or more of the following data elements, when either the personal information or the data element is not encrypted: Social Security number; driver’s license number or non-driver identification card number; financial account or credit or debit card number in combination with any required security code or password; or biometric information;
• a user name or email address in combination with a password or security question and answer that would permit access to an online account; or
• unsecured protected health information (as that term is defined in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) Privacy Rule).

On February 27, 2015, the White House released a highly-anticipated draft of the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights Act of 2015 (the “Act”) that seeks to establish baseline protections for individual privacy in the commercial context and to facilitate the implementation of these protections through enforceable codes of conduct. The Federal Trade Commission is tasked with the primary responsibility for promulgating regulations and enforcing the rights and obligations set forth in the Act.

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller has prepared a new bill that, although styled a “security breach” bill, would impose substantial new privacy obligations on companies holding the personal data of Indiana residents. Introduced by Indiana Senator James Merritt (R-Indianapolis) on January 12, 2015, SB413 would make a number of changes to existing Indiana law. For example, it would amend the existing Indiana breach notification law to apply to all data users, rather than owners of data bases. The bill also would expand Indiana’s breach notification law to eliminate the requirement that the breached data be computerized for notices to be required.

The Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) recently announced a resolution agreement and $150,000 settlement with Anchorage Community Mental Health Services, Inc. (“ACHMS”) in connection with a data breach caused by malware. ACHMS, which provides nonprofit behavioral health care services in Alaska, experienced a breach in March 2012 that affected the electronic protected health information (“ePHI”) of 2,743 individuals. After ACHMS reported the breach to the HHS Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”), OCR investigated ACHMS and found several HIPAA Security Rule violations, including that ACHMS had failed to:

On November 21, 2014, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley announced that Boston hospital Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (“BIDMC”) has agreed to pay a total of $100,000 to settle charges related to a data breach that affected the personal and protected health information of nearly 4,000 patients and employees.

Hunton & Williams Labor & Employment partner Susan Wiltsie reports:

Fears of a worldwide Ebola pandemic appear to have abated, but the tension between workplace safety and employee privacy, thrown into relief by this health emergency, remains an issue relevant to all employers. Any potential health threat created by contagious illness requires employers to plan and put into effect a reasonable response, including policies governing the terms and conditions under which employees may be required to stay away from the workplace, and in which their health care information may be relevant to workplace decisions.

On July 1, 2014, Delaware Governor Jack Markell signed into law a bill that creates new safe destruction requirements for the disposal of business records containing consumer personal information. The new law requires commercial entities conducting business in Delaware to take reasonable steps to destroy their consumers’ “personal identifying information” prior to the disposal of electronic or paper records. The law will take effect on January 1, 2015.

On June 23, 2014, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) announced a resolution agreement and $800,000 settlement with Parkview Health System, Inc. (“Parkview”) following a complaint involving patient medical records that were dumped by Parkview employees and left unattended on a physician’s driveway.

On June 12, 2014, Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy signed a bill into law that may require retailers to modify their existing Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) authorizations for pharmacy reward programs. The law, which will become effective on July 1, 2014, obligates retailers to provide consumers with a “plain language summary of the terms and conditions” of their pharmacy reward programs before the consumers may enroll. It also requires retailers to include specific content in their authorization forms that are required pursuant to the HIPAA. If the consumer is required to sign a HIPAA authorization to participate in a pharmacy reward program, the authorization must include the following items “adjacent to the point where the HIPAA authorization form is to be signed:”

On May 7, 2014, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) announced that NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital (“NYP”) and Columbia University (“CU”) agreed to collectively pay $4.8 million in the largest HIPAA settlement to date, to settle charges that they potentially violated the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules.

On April 23, 2014, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) announced settlements with two health care companies stemming from allegations of inadequate information security practices in the wake of investigations involving stolen laptop computers. Concentra Health Services (“Concentra”) and QCA Health Plan Inc. (“QCA”) will collectively pay nearly $2 million to settle the claims.

On March 28, 2014, the Department of Health and Human Services’ (“HHS’”) Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) released a tool to assist covered entities in complying with the HIPAA Security Rule requirement to conduct a risk assessment. The HIPAA Security Rule obligates covered entities to accurately and thoroughly assess “the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity and availability of electronic protected health information” (“PHI”) they maintain. The tool, which is aimed at small to medium health care providers, was developed jointly by OCR and the HHS Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (“ONC”), and follows the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s development of a similar toolkit.

The Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) recently announced that it intends to survey up to 1,200 covered entities and business associates to determine their suitability for a more fulsome HIPAA compliance audit. In a notice published in the Federal Register, OCR stated that the survey will collect information such as “number of patient visits or insured lives, use of electronic information, revenue, and business locations” to assess the organizations’ “size, complexity and fitness” for an audit.

On March 7, 2014, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) announced a resolution agreement and $215,000 settlement with Skagit County, Washington, following a security breach that affected approximately 1,600 individuals.

The Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) recently released guidance about the use and disclosure of mental health information. The guidance, entitled “HIPAA Privacy Rule and Sharing Information Related to Mental Health,” contains thirteen questions and answers that address the following topics:

Triple-S Management Corporation reported in the 8-K it recently filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that its health insurance subsidiary, Triple-S Salud, Inc. (“Triple S”), which is Puerto Rico’s largest health insurer, will be fined $6.8 million for a data breach that occurred in September 2013. The civil monetary penalty, which is being levied by the Puerto Rico Health Insurance Administration, will be the largest fine ever imposed following a breach of protected health information.

On December 31, 2013, the Federal Trade Commission announced that Accretive Health, Inc. (“Accretive”) has agreed to settle charges that the company’s inadequate data security measures unfairly exposed sensitive consumer information to the risk of theft or misuse. Accretive experienced a breach in July 2011 that involved the protected health information of more than 23,000 patients.

On December 26, 2013, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) announced a resolution agreement and $150,000 settlement with Adult & Pediatric Dermatology, P.C. (“APDerm”), a private dermatology practice based in Massachusetts, following a security breach that affected approximately 2,200 individuals. In connection with the announcement, the HHS Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) Director Leon Rodriguez stated that “[c]overed entities of all sizes need to give priority to securing electronic protected health information.”

On December 2, 2013, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it will host a series of seminars to examine the privacy implications of three new areas of technology used to track, market to and analyze consumers: mobile device tracking, predictive scoring and consumer-generated health data. The seminars will address (1) businesses tracking consumers using signals from the consumers’ mobile devices, (2) the use of predictive scoring to determine consumers’ access to products and offers, and (3) consumer-generated information provided to non-HIPAA covered websites and apps. The FTC stated that the intention of the seminars is to bring attention to new trends in big data and their impact on consumer privacy.

Today, September 23, 2013, marks the deadline for compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) Omnibus Rule that was issued in January 2013. Covered entities, business associates and subcontractors that access, use or disclose protected health information (“PHI”) will need to take the following actions:

This week, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”), in conjunction with the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, released model Notices of Privacy Practices. The notices, which have been developed for use by health care providers and health plans, come in different formats:

• an 8-page booklet;
• a 5-page layered notice that summarizes key details on the first page and includes the full content of the booklet on the remaining four pages;
• a 5-page condensed version of the 8-page booklet; and
• a 6-page text-only version of the booklet.

On August 14, 2013, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) announced a resolution agreement and $1,215,780 settlement with Affinity Health Plan (“Affinity”) stemming from a security breach that affected approximately 350,000 individuals.

On July 11, 2013, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) announced a resolution agreement and $1.7 million settlement with WellPoint Inc. following a security breach that affected over 600,000 individuals.

On June 13, 2013, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) announced a resolution agreement and $275,000 settlement with Shasta Regional Medical Center (“Shasta”) that pertained to impermissible disclosures of protected health information (“PHI”) by Shasta officials to the media, as well as to Shasta’s entire workforce.

On May 21, 2013, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) announced a resolution agreement and $400,000 settlement with Idaho State University (“ISU”) for a breach that affected 17,500 individuals.

The ISU settlement relates to servers that had their firewall protections disabled, which left the electronic protected health information (“ePHI”) of patients at ISU’s Pocatello Family Medicine Clinic unsecured for at least ten months. Following the submission of a breach report to the HHS Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”), an investigation determined that ISU allegedly had not complied with HIPAA Security Rule requirements, including by conducting an incomplete and inadequate risk analysis and by failing to “adequately implement procedures to regularly review records of information system activity to determine if any ePHI was used or disclosed in an inappropriate manner.”

On April 9, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) preempted a Florida law regarding the disclosure of patient records by nursing homes. The law required nursing homes in Florida to provide the medical records of a deceased nursing home resident to the “spouse, guardian, surrogate, proxy, or attorney in fact,” including “medical and psychiatric records and any records concerning the care and treatment of the resident performed by the facility, except progress notes and consultation report sections of a psychiatric nature.”

On January 17, 2013, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a final omnibus rule modifying prior regulations enacted pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Among the key changes that will come into effect this September is the addition of a provision that dramatically increases the number of organizations directly subject to the HIPAA Privacy, Security, Breach Notification and Enforcement Rules. In an article published in the March/April issue of Storage & Destruction Business Magazine, Lisa J. Sotto, partner and head of the ...

The wait is over. On January 17, 2013, the Department of Health and Human Services’ (“HHS’”) Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) released its long-anticipated megarule (“Omnibus Rule”) amending the HIPAA Privacy, Security, Breach Notification and Enforcement Rules. These amendments implement and expand on the requirements of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (“HITECH”) Act and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008. The Omnibus Rule is effective March 26, 2013, and compliance is required with respect to most provisions no later than September 23, 2013. Coming into compliance will require significant effort and attention by covered entities and business associates alike. Below we highlight some of the more significant aspects of the Omnibus Rule and provide critical compliance tips.

In an interview with Tom Field of BankInfoSecurity, Lisa J. Sotto, partner and head of the Global Privacy and Data Security practice at Hunton & Williams LLP, discussed the top privacy trends and threats for 2013. Lisa predicts that security vulnerabilities will remain the biggest threat to privacy, particularly with the move toward mobile computing. She also talked about key issues to watch in 2013, such as online behavioral advertising, big data and evolving privacy legislation and regulation, especially in the EU and other countries around the globe.

Listen to Lisa’s ...

On January 17, 2013, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) issued a Final Omnibus Rule modifying the Privacy, Security and Enforcement Rules promulgated pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) as well as the Breach Notification Rule promulgated pursuant to the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (the “HITECH” Act) enacted in 2009. The Final Rule comes two and a half years after the proposed rule was published in July 2010.

On January 7, 2013, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley announced that several Massachusetts medical practices have agreed to a consent judgment and $140,000 payment to settle charges they improperly disposed of medical information. The defendants, which include several pathology practices and a firm that provided medical billing services to those practices, were accused of dumping hard copy medical records at the Georgetown Transfer Station, a waste management facility open to the public. The records allegedly contained the names, Social Security numbers and medical diagnoses of approximately 67,000 individuals. The illegal dumping allegations were publicized in a Boston Globe article after a photographer for the newspaper discovered medical records at the facility while he was disposing of his own trash.

On January 2, 2013, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) announced a resolution agreement and $50,000 settlement with Hospice of North Idaho (“HONI”) for a breach that affected 441 individuals. This action is notable because prior HHS enforcement actions relating to breaches have involved a greater number of affected individuals (for example, the first breach-related enforcement action in March 2012 affected more than 1 million). The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (“HITECH”) Breach Notification Rule sets 500 as a threshold number of affected individuals triggering certain notification requirements such as the obligation to notify HHS within 60 days of discovery of the breach.

In an interview with Marianne Kolbasuk McGee of HealthcareInfoSecurity, Lisa J. Sotto, partner and head of the Global Privacy and Data Security practice at Hunton & Williams LLP, discusses the measures health care organizations should take to prepare for the issuance of the upcoming HIPAA Omnibus Rule. In March 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) sent its final Omnibus Rule modifying the HIPAA Privacy, Security and Enforcement Rules to the White House Office of Management and Budget. In the interview, Sotto outlines her predictions of the content of the Omnibus Rule, including “modifications to the HIPAA privacy, security and enforcement rules” and “a final version of the HIPAA breach notification rule.”

On November 26, 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) published guidance on the two methods for de-identifying protected health information (“PHI”) in accordance with the HIPAA Privacy Rule. The guidance, which was required by the Health Information Technology for Clinical and Economic Health (“HITECH”) Act, has been developed over several years by OCR in collaboration with healthcare entities and other industry experts and builds upon the discussions from a workshop on de-identification that took place in March 2010.

On September 17, 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) announced a $1.5 million settlement with the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary and Massachusetts Eye and Ear Associates Inc. (“MEEI”) for potential violations of the HIPAA Security Rule. In connection with the announcement, the HHS Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) Director Leon Rodriguez stated that organizations should pay special attention to safeguarding information “stored and transported on portable devices such as laptops, tablets, and mobile phones” and that “compliance with the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules must be prioritized by management and implemented throughout an organization, from top to bottom.”

On July 31, 2012, Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson announced a $2.5 million settlement with Accretive Health, Inc. (“Accretive”) for violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) and its implementing regulations, and various Minnesota debt collection and consumer protection laws. As we previously reported in January 2012, Accretive, which acted as a business associate to two Minnesota hospital systems, experienced a breach in July 2011 that involved the protected health information of more than 23,000 patients.

The Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) has posted an audit protocol on its website to provide information about the procedures currently being used by OCR as part of its new audit program.

The protocol is presented in a sortable table format listing the applicable sections of the relevant rules and the established performance criteria, key activities and audit procedures associated with each section. The audit protocol for the HIPAA Security Rule also lists whether the implementation specification is required or addressable pursuant to that Rule.

On June 26, 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) announced a resolution agreement and $1.7 million settlement with the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services (“DHSS”) for violations of the HIPAA Security Rule. This is the first HIPAA enforcement action taken by HHS against a state agency. In connection with the announcement, the HHS Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) Director Leon Rodriguez stated that OCR “expect[s] organizations to comply with their obligations under [the HIPAA Security and Privacy Rules] regardless of whether they are private or public entities.”

On May 24, 2012, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley announced that South Shore Hospital agreed to a consent judgment and $750,000 payment to settle a lawsuit stemming from a data breach that occurred in February 2010. At that time, South Shore Hospital shipped several boxes of unencrypted back-up tapes to a service provider in Texas to erase them. The tapes contained the personal and protected health information of approximately 800,000 individuals, including names, Social Security numbers, financial account numbers and medical diagnoses. Several of the boxes went missing and have yet to be recovered, though there is no evidence that the information on the missing tapes has been misused.

On June 7, 2012, at the annual Safeguarding Health Information: Building Assurance through HIPAA Security Conference hosted in Washington, D.C. by the Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”), OCR Director Leon Rodriguez said that, given HIPAA’s 15-year history and the substantial technical assistance OCR and NIST have provided covered entities, tolerance for HIPAA non-compliance is “much, much lower” than it has been in the past.

In the past month, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) sent its final omnibus rule modifying the HIPAA Privacy, Security and Enforcement Rules to the White House Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) and announced a $100,000 settlement with Phoenix Cardiac Surgery, P.C. for violations of the HIPAA Rules.

On March 13, 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) announced that it had settled the first case related to the HITECH Act Breach Notification Rule. BlueCross Blue Shield of Tennessee (“BCBS Tennessee”) agreed to pay $1.5 million to settle potential HIPAA violations related to the October 2009 theft of 57 unencrypted hard drives containing protected health information (“PHI”) from a network data closet at a leased facility leased in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

On January 19, 2012, Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson announced a lawsuit against Accretive Health, Inc., (“Accretive”) for violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) and its implementing regulations, the Minnesota Health Records Act, Minnesota’s debt collection statutes and Minnesota’s consumer protection laws. The suit, which was filed in Federal District Court in Minnesota, alleges that Accretive failed to adequately safeguard patients’ protected health information (“PHI”). This failure contributed to a July 2011 information security breach when an Accretive employee left an unencrypted laptop containing information of approximately 23,500 patients in a rental car. The laptop was stolen and has not yet been recovered.

On August 31, 2011, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law amendments to that state’s security breach notification statute.  The revisions establish new content requirements for breach notification letters to California residents, and mandate notification to the state Attorney General when a breach affects more than 500 Californians.  Senate Bill 24 was the third effort by State Senator Joe Simitian to build on the landmark California breach notification law he authored in 2002.  The two previous bills he proposed were passed by the California legislature, but vetoed by former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Several health care industry groups requested that the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) either remove or significantly revise a proposed “access report” requirement in its recent notice of proposed rulemaking (the “Proposed Rule”) for the accounting of disclosures of protected health information (“PHI”).  As we reported in May, HHS issued the Proposed Rule that revises existing HIPAA Privacy Rule provisions regarding accounting of disclosures and gives individuals a new right to obtain an “access report” that would list the specific persons who have accessed a patient’s PHI, and describe any actions taken by those persons with respect to the PHI (e.g., create, modify, access or delete).

On July 28, 2011, the International Association of Privacy Professionals (“IAPP”) hosted a webinar that addressed the upcoming audit program of the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”).  Susan McAndrew, the Deputy Director for Health Information Privacy at OCR, provided an overview of the audit program, noting that it stemmed from Section 13411 of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (“HITECH”) Act.  That section of the HITECH Act authorized the Secretary of the Health and Human Services to “provide for periodic audits to ensure that covered entities and business associates” comply with the requirements of the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules.

On July 14, 2011, the U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee convened a joint hearing of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade (chaired by Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-CA)), and the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology (chaired by Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR)), to launch a comprehensive review of Internet privacy.  The series of hearings began with testimony from officials representing three agencies with jurisdiction over consumer privacy issues: FTC Commissioner Edith Ramirez, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, and Department of Commerce Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information Lawrence Strickling.

Last month, Texas Governor Rick Perry signed a health privacy bill into law that imposes new obligations exceeding the requirements in the HIPAA Privacy Rule.  The law, which will become effective on September 1, 2012, incorporates the expanded definition of the term “covered entity” in Texas’s existing health privacy law and could have a broad impact on many non-HIPAA covered entities.

On June 7, 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) announced a resolution agreement and $865,500 settlement with the University of California at Los Angeles Health System (“UCLA Health System”) for violations of the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules.  UCLA Health System employees were accused of violating the Privacy Rule by improperly accessing the protected health information (“PHI”) of patients, including several high-profile celebrities who filed complaints with HHS.  A subsequent investigation by HHS’s Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) revealed that in addition to neglecting to sanction the employees who had improperly accessed patient PHI, UCLA Health System had failed to train its employees on the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules or implement security measures to “reduce the risks of impermissible access to electronic protected health information by unauthorized users to a reasonable and appropriate level.”

On June 13, 2011, Representative Mary Bono Mack (R-CA) released a discussion draft of the Secure and Fortify Data Act (the “SAFE Data Act”), which is designed to “protect consumers by requiring reasonable security policies and procedures to protect data containing personal information, and to provide for nationwide notice in the event of a security breach.”  Representative Bono Mack is Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade.  In a press release, Representative Bono Mack remarked that “E-commerce is a vital and growing part of our economy.  We should take steps to embrace and protect it – and that starts with robust cyber security.”  She added that “consumers have a right to know when their personal information has been compromised, and companies and other organizations have an overriding responsibility to promptly alert them.”

On May 27, 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding the HIPAA Privacy Rule provision that requires covered entities to provide an accounting of disclosures of protected health information (“PHI”) to individuals upon request.  The proposed rule revises existing HIPAA Privacy Rule provisions regarding an accounting of disclosures and also gives individuals a new right to obtain an “access report” about which specific individuals have accessed electronic PHI in a designated record set.  The proposed rule also requires covered entities to modify their privacy notices to include that individuals have the right to obtain an access report from the covered entities.

On March 7, 2011, Arthur Steinberg and the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund sued CVS Caremark Corporation (“CVS”), alleging that its unauthorized disclosure of protected health information (“PHI”) constituted an unfair trade practice. The complaint claims that CVS, one of the nation’s largest pharmacies, sent letters to physicians that listed their patients’ names, dates of birth and prescribed medications. The letters encouraged the physicians to prescribe drugs made by pharmaceutical manufacturers, who paid CVS to send ...

On February 24, 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) announced a $1,000,000 Resolution Agreement with the General Hospital Corporation and Massachusetts General Physicians Organization Inc. (“Mass General”) that stemmed from the loss of protected health information (“PHI”) of 192 patients.  A Mass General employee had left hard-copy records containing PHI on the subway in March 2009.  The records originated from Mass General’s Infectious Disease Associates outpatient practice and included sensitive records discussing patients’ treatments for HIV/AIDS.  After receiving a complaint from an affected patient, OCR conducted an investigation that demonstrated that Mass General had “failed to implement reasonable, appropriate safeguards to protect the privacy of PHI when removed from Mass General’s premises and impermissibly disclosed PHI potentially violating provisions of the HIPAA Privacy Rule.”

On February 22, 2011, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) imposed its first civil money penalty for an entity’s violation of HIPAA’s Privacy Rule.  In its Notice of Final Determination, OCR concluded that Cignet Health withheld patient records despite requests for their disclosure.  Of the $4.3 million penalty, $1.3 million was levied for denying patients access to their own medical records, while an additional $3 million was imposed due to Cignet’s failure to cooperate with OCR’s investigation as required by the Privacy Rule.  Increased penalty amounts were authorized by Section 13410(d) of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (the “HITECH” Act).

While much of the attention of the privacy policy community in Washington, D.C. has been focused on the two reports issued in December 2010 by the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Commerce, a third government report has received far less press attention, but may have a greater impact on U.S. business and consumers.  The work of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (“PCAST”) and its Health Information Technology Working Group, the report, “Realizing the Full Potential of Health Information Technology to Improve Healthcare for Americans: The Path Forward,” was released by the White House on December 8, 2010.

The Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) received numerous comments on its proposed modifications to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy, Security and Enforcement Rules, which were issued on July 8, 2010.  Some highlights from the comments are outlined below.

Enforcement Rule

The American Hospital Association (“AHA”) suggested that HHS should continue to require the Secretary of HHS to attempt to resolve a complaint or compliance review through informal means, instead of making the informal resolution process optional.  According to the AHA, making “resolution via informal means optional, regardless of the perceived level of culpability of a particular entity” would not be appropriate or effective.  The Coalition for Patient Privacy, on the other hand, recommended stricter enforcement so that “the only category of violators that should not be penalized with fines are those who despite due diligence could not discover the violation, who reported the violation immediately when discovered, and fully corrected the problems within 30 days of discovery.”

Rite Aid has agreed to pay $1 million and implement remedial measures to resolve Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) and Federal Trade Commission allegations that it failed to protect customers’ sensitive health information.  The FTC began its investigation following news reports about Rite Aid pharmacies using open dumpsters to discard trash that contained consumers’ personal information such as pharmacy labels and job applications.  The FTC took issue with this practice in light of the pharmacy’s alleged claims that “Rite Aid takes its responsibility for maintaining your protected health information in confidence very seriously . . . Although you have the right not to disclose your medical history, Rite Aid would like to assure you that we respect and protect your privacy.”  At the same time, HHS began investigating the pharmacies’ disposal of health information protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

On July 8, 2010, the Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to modify the Privacy, Security and Enforcement Rules promulgated pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.  The modifications implement changes made by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (the “HITECH” Act) enacted in 2009.

The Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) within the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) has announced that it will more closely examine covered entities’ breach notification and risk mitigation plans.  OCR noted that small and medium sized covered entities have been particularly vulnerable to data breaches.  The National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) will publish a guide for covered entities that “outlines the steps to mitigate risks for data breaches, training for how to respond to breaches, and overall preparation in the event of a ...

David Holtzman, a health information privacy specialist at the Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) within the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), stated at a health privacy conference on May 11, 2010, that OCR has been “vigorously” enforcing the Security Rule, which was promulgated pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”).  Prior to 2009, HHS divided civil enforcement responsibility for HIPAA between OCR, which enforced the HIPAA Privacy Rule, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”), which enforced the HIPAA Security Rule.  In July 2009, the Secretary of HHS delegated authority to enforce the HIPAA Security Rule to OCR to “facilitate improvements by eliminating duplication and increasing efficiency.”

Rejecting a defense based on compliance with the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), a federal court in Ohio denied a medical clinic’s motion to dismiss invasion of privacy claims following the clinic’s disclosure of medical records to a grand jury.  In Turk v. Oiler, No. 09-CV-381 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 1, 2010), plaintiff Turk had been under investigation for illegally carrying a concealed weapon and for having a weapon while under disability in violation of an Ohio law which provides that “no person shall knowingly acquire, have, carry, or use any firearm” if “[t]he person is drug dependent, in danger of drug dependence, or a chronic alcoholic.”  Defendant Cleveland Clinic, where Turk was a patient, received a grand jury subpoena requesting “medical records to include but not be limited to drug and alcohol counseling and mental issues regarding James G. Turk.”  When the Cleveland Clinic disclosed Turk’s medical records in response to this subpoena, Turk sued the clinic for violating his privacy rights.

The Attorney General of Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, is investigating an alleged breach of medical records at Griffin Hospital in Derby, Connecticut.  The hospital believes that a formerly affiliated radiologist gained unauthorized access to its digital Picture Archiving and Communications System (“PACS”), which stores patient information, including names, exam descriptions and medical record numbers.  In February, the hospital began receiving inquiries from patients who had been contacted by the radiologist to promote professional services offered at another medical facility.  In response to patient inquiries, the hospital conducted an internal investigation that revealed several instances of unauthorized access to the PACS system.  The hospital subsequently notified Attorney General Blumenthal.

We understand that yesterday Adam H. Greene (Office of the General Counsel, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services), speaking at the ABA’s 11th Annual Conference on Emerging Issues in Healthcare Law, indicated that enforcement of the business associate provisions of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (the “HITECH Act”), which became effective on February 17, 2010, will be delayed until final rules addressing those provisions are published.  The HITECH Act’s business associate provisions require business associates to implement the information security safeguards specified by the HIPAA Security Rule, and comply with certain requirements of the HIPAA Privacy Rule.  Similarly, the HITECH Act requires covered entities to provide in their business associate agreements that all of the HITECH Act’s security requirements applicable to covered entities are also applicable to business associates.

Cloud computing raises complex legal issues related to privacy and information security.  As legislators and regulators around the world grapple with the privacy and data security implications of cloud computing, companies seeking to implement cloud-based solutions should closely monitor this rapidly evolving legal landscape for developments.  In an article published on February 3, 2010, Lisa Sotto, Bridget Treacy and Melinda McLellan explore U.S. and EU legal requirements applicable to data stored by cloud providers, and highlight some of the risks associated with the use ...

In a lawsuit he described as “[s]adly . . . historic,” Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal sued Health Net of Connecticut, Inc. for allegedly failing to secure private patient medical records and financial information involving hundreds of thousands of Connecticut enrollees and promptly notify consumers endangered by the security breach.  The case marks the first action by a state attorney general under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (“HITECH”) Act to enforce provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”).  The suit also alleges a violation of Connecticut’s breach notification statute.

The Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) released an interim final rule to incorporate the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (“HITECH Act”) categories of violations and tiered civil penalty amounts.  The interim final rule is expected to be published in the Federal Register on October 30, 2009 and takes effect on November 30, 2009.  The rule applies to violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 2003 (“HIPAA”) that occur on or after February 18, 2009.

In a move that portends increased enforcement of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) Privacy Rule, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) has created two new positions on its health information privacy enforcement team.  According to the job listings, the new Health Information Privacy Specialists at the HHS Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) will be responsible for “reviewing, analyzing, implementing, promoting, or improving proposed or existing programs or policies needed to implement OCR’s authority for ensuring ...

Kaiser Permanente Bellflower Hospital has again been penalized for failing to prevent unauthorized access to confidential patient information.  On July 16, 2009, the California Department of Public Health announced that it had levied administrative penalties totaling $187,500 on the hospital after it was determined that eight Kaiser employees had compromised the privacy of four patients' medical information.  On May 14, 2009, the same facility was fined $250,000 -- the maximum allowable penalty under the new state health privacy provisions that came into effect on January 1st -- for violations related to unauthorized employee access to the medical records of Nadya Suleman.  The latest fine included a $25,000 penalty for each of four patients whose medical records allegedly were breached, plus $17,500 per incident for five subsequent alleged breaches of those medical records after the first.

On May 14, 2009, the California Department of Public Health issued an Administrative Penalty Notice to the Kaiser Foundation Hospital — Bellflower for patient medical information privacy violations. Although the state did not identify the affected patient by name, the facts and circumstances described in the Notice correspond to the case of Nadya Suleman, the single mother of six who gave birth to octuplets at Bellflower in January 2009. The hospital was fined $250,000 for failure to prevent unlawful or unauthorized access to, or use or disclosure of, a patient’s medical ...

Last week, the Federal Trade Commission published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding notification for security breaches involving electronic health information. The FTC issued the proposal pursuant to certain health information technology provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, signed into law on February 17th, 2009. The Commission's proposal includes a requirement that vendors of personal health records notify U.S. citizens and residents if their personal health information is subject to a security breach. In addition, vendors must notify the FTC no later than five business days following the discovery of a breach that affects 500 or more individuals, or, for breaches affecting fewer than 500 individuals, maintain a log to be submitted annually to the Commission.

On April 17, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") issued proposed information security guidance, as required by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (the "HITECH Act") passed as part of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 on February 17.  The HITECH Act requires covered entities and business associates, as well as vendors of personal health records, to provide notice of information security breaches affecting “unsecured protected health information” or “unsecured personal health record information,” respectively.  The HITECH Act further requires the Secretary of HHS to specify technologies and methodologies that would render protected health information ("PHI") unusable, unreadable, or indecipherable to unauthorized individuals.  If covered entities, business associates and vendors of personal health records apply the technologies and methodologies specified in the guidance to protected health information, they will not be required to provide notice to affected individuals, HHS or the media, as otherwise required by the HITECH Act, in the event the information is breached.

CVS Pharmacy (“CVS”), reportedly the largest retail pharmacy chain, has agreed to pay the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) $2.25 million and submit a Corrective Action Plan (“CAP”) to HHS after an extensive nationwide investigation by the HHS Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) and the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) which revealed that CVS employees disposed of protected health information (“PHI”) in violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act’s (“HIPAA”) Privacy Rule.  In addition, CVS Caremark, the parent company of CVS, simultaneously entered into a Consent Order with the FTC to resolve claims that CVS had engaged in unfair or deceptive trade practices in violation of the FTC Act by failing to use reasonable and appropriate measures to prevent unauthorized access to PHI and by disseminating a false or misleading privacy notice about CVS’s protection of PHI.  In the Consent Order, the FTC specifically highlighted CVS’s failure to render PHI unreadable before disposal as well as its claim in its privacy notice that maintaining the privacy of its customers’ PHI was central to its operations as examples of unfair or deceptive trade practices.  The CVS settlement is noteworthy for two reasons: (1) it is the first joint enforcement action between OCR and the FTC and (2) although it is the second substantial monetary settlement for alleged HIPAA violations, the $2.25 million resolution amount dwarfs the first settlement for $100,000 between HHS and Providence Health in July 2008.

Provisions of the economic stimulus legislation (known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (“ARRA”)), recently passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, require certain entities to notify affected individuals, government agencies and the media of breaches of “unsecured protected health information.” Additional provisions substantially revise regulations promulgated pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”). While these provisions are specifically limited to the context of health data, they have ...

Two California medical privacy laws became effective on January 1, 2009.  The laws, A.B. 211 and S.B. 541, create new obligations for health care providers and facilities in California to protect against unlawful or unauthorized access to patient medical information.  In contrast, other medical privacy regulations, including the Privacy Rule promulgated under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), focus only on the unauthorized use or disclosure of protected health information.