Advertisement

May 18, 2013

Increase in HIPAA Enforcement Activity Continues and Spreads

Recent activity by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) signals a significant and sustained uptick in HIPAA enforcement and associated penalties.  First, the agency has pursued random audits, the results of which it intends to use to build an ongoing audit program and protocol.  That protocol will support HHS’s efforts to comply with the HITECH Act, which made such audits mandatory. The audits cover the HIPAA Privacy, Security, and Breach Notification Rules to evaluate covered entities’ compliance with their provisions.  The results of the first 20 audits have been published, and indicate that the majority of findings (65%) pertain to incomplete implementation of the Security Rule.  Eighty percent of those were attributable to health care providers, as opposed to health care clearinghouses or health plans.  The audits intentionally target covered entities of various types and sizes and this pilot phase will continue through 2012.  The initial audit protocol was recently published by HHS and is available at this link.

Around the same time, on June 26, 2012, HHS announced its most recent HIPAA enforcement settlement.  The target entity was the Alaska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), marking HHS’s first HIPAA enforcement against a state agency.  The action followed a security breach Alaska DHHS reported involving a stolen USB drive that may have contained ePHI.  HHS’s wide-ranging investigation uncovered multiple reported shortcomings, and the resultant settlement included an agreement to implement a corrective action plan and pay a settlement amount of $1.7 million.

Prior to that, on April 17, HHS announced that it settled a HIPAA violation alleged against Phoenix Cardiac Surgery, P.C.  That case was the first significant HIPAA enforcement action involving a physician practice.  The practice agreed to pay a $100,000 settlement amount and implement a corrective action plan to come into full HIPAA compliance under agency oversight.  The compliance review followed an individual complaint to HHS regarding the practice’s use of an Internet-based, publicly available calendar that revealed individually identifiable health information.  Significantly, and like the action against Alaska DHHS, many of the violations cited were not directly related to the initial complaint, signaling the type of comprehensive evaluation that has become increasingly common when HHS pursues a compliance review after a complaint or security breach.

Multiple HIPAA resolutions have been reached with HHS in recent years, including settlement payments from $865,000-$2.25 million and one civil monetary penalty of $4.3 million.  These actions provide a clear picture of the results HIPAA covered entities can expect if a security breach or an individual complaint causes the agency to investigate and uncover general failure to implement the many dozens of provisions contained in the Privacy, Security, and Breach Notification Rules.

HIPAA enforcement by states also has continued to escalate. Just a few weeks prior to releasing its own audit protocol, HHS published the materials it used to train state attorneys general on their newly-obtained right to enforce HIPAA.  That material is available here.  To date, at least four states have pursued HIPAA enforcement actions, the most recent having been settled by Minnesota for $2.5 Million.  Covered entities should anticipate the trend of increased state enforcement will continue as reported security breaches, HHS audits and individual complaints continue to uncover compliance problems signaling that pursuing such enforcement is often fruitful.

© 2013 Poyner Spruill LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Partner

Elizabeth’s practice focuses on privacy, information security, and records management. Her comprehensive, practical approach to privacy law is reflected by the diversity of her clients, which hail from a variety of industries including health care, financial services, insurance, retail, telecom, utility, technology, consumer goods and client services. Elizabeth has also worked with organizations of various size and scope, ranging from Fortune 100 companies with international reach to local charities.  She was listed among the top privacy professionals in Computerworld’s...

919.783.2971

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.