Advertisement

June 19, 2013

Alaska Medicaid and OCR Reach Seven-Figure Settlement Over Stolen Device; What HIPAA Covered Entities Can Learn

The recent Office for Civil Rights (OCR) enforcement action against Alaska’s Medicaid program provides insight into OCR’s enforcement approach and timely reminders for covered entities hoping to avoid a similar fate.  In the first settlement of its kind against a state Medicaid agency, Alaska has agreed to pay the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) $1,700,000 under a Resolution Agreement to settle alleged violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Security Rule.  The settlement stems from an investigation by OCR following a breach report by DHSS as required under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act.

The breach report, submitted by DHSS in 2009, disclosed that a USB hard drive, which may have contained electronic protected health information (ePHI) of Alaska Medicaid beneficiaries, was stolen from a DHSS employee’s car.  The resulting OCR investigation uncovered evidence of inadequate DHHS policies and procedures to safeguard ePHI.  OCR found that DHHS  failed to complete a risk analysis, implement adequate risk management measures, conduct employee security training, implement device and media controls, and address device and media encryption.

What may HIPAA covered entities learn from the Alaska settlement?

  • Seven-figure settlements are becoming more the rule than the exception when OCR finds serious violations.
  • OCR continues to require corrective action plans, which add significantly to a covered entity’s costs resulting from a violation.  The Alaska corrective action plan requires DHSS to properly safeguard the ePHI of its Medicaid beneficiaries, and to designate an independent monitor to regularly report to OCR on the state’s efforts to ensure compliance.
  • OCR is not afraid to go after a state agency.  In a press release, OCR Director Leon Rodriguez stated: “This is OCR’s first HIPAA enforcement action against a state agency and we expect organizations to comply with their obligations under these rules regardless of whether they are private or public entities.”
  • The settlement also illustrates the priority that OCR is placing on enforcement of HIPAA violations involving stolen devices.  Mr. Rodriguez noted that “[c]overed entities must perform a full and comprehensive risk assessment and have in place meaningful access controls to safeguard hardware and portable devices.”
©1994-2013 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Associate

Prior to joining Mintz Levin, Kimberly was an associate at Arent Fox LLP. Her practice focused on health care and corporate matters such as mergers and acquisitions, financings, regulatory compliance, licensing, reimbursement, and privacy.

Kimberly's experience includes negotiating, reviewing, and drafting agreements, including stock and asset purchase agreements, operations transfer agreements, and loan agreements. She has also advised health care clients with respect to HIPAA, HITECH, fraud and abuse issues, Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement, food and drug laws, and state...

(212) 692-6706

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.