HIPAA | | Page 2

OCR Gives Health Care Providers, Other Covered Entities Post-Las Vegas Shooting HIPAA Medical Privacy Guidance On Disclosures To Family, Media & Others For Notification & Other Purposes

October 9, 2017

Widespread media coverage of this week’s Las Vegas, Nevada mass shooting (Las Vegas Shooting), and recent Hurricanes in Texas, Florida and Puerto Rico shows the barrage of requests for patient information from emergency and disaster response personnel, concerned family and friends, the media or others about the identity, status and other circumstances of patients and other individuals that health care providers caring for patients following a mass disaster or other emergency.

The tight restrictions and potentially stiff penalties authorized under the Health Insurance Portability And Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy and Security Rule (Privacy Rule) on health care providers, health plans, and health care clearinghouses (Covered Entities) for improperly disclosing information about identifiable patients under the Privacy Rule necessitate that health care providers and other Covered Persons exercise great care to ensure that statements and other disclosures of identifiable patient information either are authorized in writing in accordance with HIPAA or otherwise specifically allowed under the Privacy Rule. See, e.g., $2.4M HIPAA Settlement Warns Providers About Media Disclosures Of PHI; $2.4M HIPAA Settlement Message Warns Health Plans & Providers Against Sharing Medical Info With Media, Others; $2 Million+ HIPAA Settlement, FAQ Warn Providers Protect PHI From Media, Other Recording Or Use.

Following the Las Vegas Shooting, the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) on October 3, 2017 issued an announcement on “Disclosures to Family, Friends, and Others Involved in an Individual’s Care and for Notification” (Announcement) intended to clarify certain limited situations when OCR interprets the Privacy Rule as allowing Covered Entities to disclose PHI to individuals involved in the patient’s care, the media or other parties not involved in the patient’s care for notification purposes without prior patient authorization. Health care providers and other Covered Entities should review and update their existing Privacy Rule policies, practices and training in response to this and other evolving guidance to help prepare their teams appropriately to respond to family, media and other inquiries about patients in emergency and other circumstances.

Privacy Rule Generally

While mass shooting events like the Las Vegas Shooting, recent hurricanes, Ebola or other contagious disease outbreak and other mass injury or illness events garner widespread media and public attention, health care providers and other Covered Entities also regularly field requests for PHI about current or former patients from family and others involved in patients’ care or treatment, law enforcement, law enforcement, and the media or other members of the general public not involved in patient care.

The Privacy Rule generally requires Covered Entities to keep confidential, and prohibits Covered Entities from disclosing individually identifiable health care information about a patient that qualifies as “protected health information” or “PHI” without first obtaining a HIPAA-compliant authorization unless the disclosure meets all the requirements to fall under an exception defined in the Privacy Rule.

Since HIPAA’s broad definition of PHI encompasses even the name, identity and even existence of a patient, as well as more specific information about the current or past health condition and treatment of a patient, health care providers and other Covered Entities must prepare and train their staff to be prepared appropriately to comply with the Privacy Rules even when considering disclosing PHI to identify an incapacitated patient, notify or respond to inquiries of family or others involved in caring for patient during an emergency or disaster.

As OCR guidance consistently reaffirms, the Privacy Rule’s general prohibition against PHI without prior patient authorization and other requirements generally still apply during public health or other emergencies.[1] While Social Security Act § 1135(b)(7) allows HHS temporarily to waive sanctions and penalties for violations of some, but not all Privacy Rule requirements by a covered hospitals operating under disaster protocols during periods the President declares an emergency or disaster and the HHS Secretary declares a public health emergency as in response to Hurricanes Katrina,[2]Harvey,[3] Irma,[4] and Maria,[5] this relief is rarely applicable, and limited in scope, applicability and duration.[6] Consequently, Covered Entities still need to ensure that any contemplated disclosure is either authorized or meets all requirements the Privacy Rule requires to fall under an exemption to its general prohibition against unauthorized disclosure to avoid becoming subject to civil or even criminal sanctions under the Privacy Rule even when responding to inquiries during mass disaster, public health emergency or other exigent circumstances.

As discussed in November 2016 OCR Bulletin On HIPAA Privacy in Emergency Situations, the Privacy Rule includes various exceptions that may allow a health care provider or other Covered Entity to disclose the PHI of a patient involved in a public health or other emergency without patient authorization including:

PHI about the patient necessary to treat the patient or to treat a different patient including the coordination or management of health care and related services by one or more health care providers and others, consultation between providers, and the referral of patients for treatment. See 45 CFR §§ 164.502(a)(1)(ii), 164.506(c), and the definition of “treatment” at 164.501;
To a public health authority, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or a state or local health department, authorized by law to collect or receive such information for the purpose of preventing or controlling disease, injury or disability. See 45 CFR §§ 164.501 and 164.512(b)(1)(i);
As necessary to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the health and safety of a person or the public when consistent with applicable law (such as state statutes, regulations, or case law) and the provider’s standards of ethical conduct. See 45 CFR 164.512(j);
To a patient’s family members, relatives, friends, or other persons identified by the patient as involved in the patient’s care or as necessary to identify, locate, and notify family members, guardians, or anyone else responsible for the patient’s care, of the patient’s location, general condition, or death provided that the Covered Entity gets at least verbal permission from individuals or otherwise be able to reasonably infer that the patient does not object, when possible; or if the individual is incapacitated or not available, in the Covered Entity’s professional judgment, doing so is in the patient’s best interest. See 45 CFR 164.510(b);
With disaster relief organizations that, like the American Red Cross, are authorized by law or by their charters to assist in disaster relief efforts, for the purpose of coordinating the notification of family members or other persons involved in the patient’s care, of the patient’s location, general condition, or death without authorization if doing so would interfere with the organization’s ability to respond to the emergency; or
Limited facility directory information to acknowledge an individual is a patient at the facility and provide basic information about the patient’s condition in general terms (e.g., critical or stable, deceased, or treated and released) to the media or others not involved in the care of the patient upon request for information about a particular patient by name, if the patient has not objected to or restricted the release of such information or, if the patient is incapacitated, if the disclosure is believed to be in the best interest of the patient and is consistent with any prior expressed preferences of the patient. See 45 CFR 164.510(a).

Announcement Clarifies Privacy Rules For Disclosures To Individuals Involved In Patient’s Care; For Notification; And To Media Or Others Not Involved In Patient Care

The new OCR Announcement provides clarification of the applicability of the Privacy Rule exemptions regarding disclosures of PHI by health care providers or other Covered Entities:

To individuals involved in the patient’s care or for notification purposes; or
To media or other individuals not involved in the patient’s care.

In addition, the Announcement also reminds Covered Entities:

Of their responsibility to limit disclosures made without HIPAA-compliant patient authorization other than for treatment purposes to the minimum necessary,
That the Privacy Rule allows Covered Entities to rely upon certifications that information requested by public health authorities or officials that the information requested is the minimum necessary; and
To continue to enforce role-based restrictions on PHI.
Disclosures to Family, Friends, Disaster Relief Responders and Others Involved in an Individual’s Care and for Notification

Privacy Rule §164.510(b) permits a Covered Entity to share PHI:

With a patient’s family members, relatives, friends, or other persons identified by the patient as involved in the patient’s care.
About a patient as necessary to identify, locate, and notify family members, guardians, or anyone else responsible for the patient’s care, of the patient’s location, general condition, or death. This may include, where necessary to notify family members and others, the police, the press, or the public at large. See Privacy Rule § 164.510(b).

When making such disclosures, the Announcement states a Covered Entity should get verbal permission from individuals or otherwise be able to reasonably infer that the patient does not object, when possible.

Concerning patients who are unconscious or incapacitated, the OCR guidance also states that a health care provider may share relevant information about the patient with family, friends, or others involved in the patient’s care or payment for care, if the health care provider in its professional judgement determines that doing so is in the best interests of the patient.

In addition, OCR says Covered Entities also may share PHI with disaster relief organizations that, like the American Red Cross, are authorized by law or by their charters to assist in disaster relief efforts, for the purpose of coordinating the notification of family members or other persons involved in the patient’s care, of the patient’s location, general condition, or death. When disclosing PHI to disaster relief organizations, the Announcement states it is unnecessary to obtain a patient’s permission to share the information in this situation if doing so would interfere with the organization’s ability to respond to the emergency.

Disclosures to the Media or Others Not Involved in the Care of the Patient/Notification

As the Las Vegas Shooting illustrates, health care providers and other Covered Entities caring for patients during public health or other emergency situations often must deal with news or other media crews on or around treatment or other health care facilities and media and inquiries from the media or others about the identity, status or other PHI of patients. OCR’s past imposition of stiff penalties against other Covered Entities for improperly disclosing patient PHI to the media or the public without authorization alert Covered Entities of HIPAA risks of failing to properly control access and disclosures of PHI to the media or other general public without obtaining prior written authorization from patients or their personal representatives. See e.g., $2.4M HIPAA Settlement Warns Providers About Media Disclosures Of PHI. See also HIPAA Sanctions Triggered From Covered Entity Statements To Media, Workforce.

Previously issued OCR guidance makes clear that health care providers and other Covered Entities risk sanction both from allowing media or other members of the public inappropriate access to patient treatment or other areas with unsecured PHI as well as media statements and other disclosures of PHI to the media or public without first obtaining a HIPAA-compliant authorization except under narrow circumstances specified in the Privacy Rule.. See 45 CFR 164.510(a). OCR FAQ on Disclosures to the Media, for instance, states:

“the HIPAA Privacy Rule does not permit health care providers to disclose PHI to media personnel, including film crews, without having previously obtained a HIPAA-compliant authorization signed by the patient or his or her personal representative. In other words, health care providers may not allow members of the media, including film crews, into treatment areas of their facilities or other areas where PHI will be accessible in written, electronic, oral or other visual or audio form, without prior authorization from the patients who are or will be in the area or whose PHI will be accessible to the media. It is not sufficient for a health care provider to request or require media personnel to mask the identities of patients (using techniques such as blurring, pixilation, or voice alteration software) for whom an authorization was not obtained, because the HIPAA Privacy Rule does not allow media access to the patients’ PHI, absent an authorization, in the first place.

In addition, the health care provider must ensure that reasonable safeguards are in place to protect against impermissible disclosures or to limit incidental disclosures of other PHI that may be in the area but for which an authorization has not been obtained.

While emphasizing the Privacy Rule’s general requirement to secure advance authorization, OCR FAQ on Disclosures to the Media also recognizes the following “very limited situations” that the Privacy Rule permits a Covered Entity to disclose limited PHI to the media without obtaining a HIPAA authorization:

A Covered Entity may disclose limited PHI about an unidentified incapacitated patient to the media seek to have the media help identify or locate the family of an unidentified and incapacitated patient in its care if, in the hospital’s professional judgment, doing so is in the patient’s best interest. See 45 C.F.R. 164.510(b)(1)(ii);
A Covered Entity may disclose a patient’s location in the facility and condition in general terms that do not communicate specific medical information about the individual to any person, including the media, without obtaining a HIPAA authorization where the individual has not objected to his information being included in the facility directory, and the media representative or other person asks for the individual by name. See 45 C.F.R. 164.510(a);
The HIPAA Privacy Rule does not require health care providers to prevent members of the media from entering areas of their facilities that are otherwise generally accessible to the public, which may include public waiting areas or areas where the public enters or exits the facility;
A health care provider may utilize the services of a contract film crew to produce training videos or public relations materials on the provider’s behalf if certain protections are in place. If patients are to be identified by the provider and interviewed by a film crew, or if PHI might be accessible during filming or otherwise disclosed, the provider must enter into a HIPAA business associate agreement with the film crew acting as a business associate. Among other requirements, the business associate agreement must ensure that the film crew will safeguard the PHI it obtains, only use or disclose the PHI for the purposes provided in the agreement, and return or destroy any PHI after the work for the health care provider has been completed. See 45 C.F.R. 164.504(e)(2). As a business associate, the film crew must comply with the HIPAA Security Rule and a number of provisions in the Privacy Rule, including the Rule’s restrictions on the use and disclosure of PHI. In addition, authorizations from patients whose PHI is included in any materials would be required before such materials are posted online, printed in brochures for the public, or otherwise publicly disseminated; and
Covered Entities can continue to inform the media of their treatment services and programs so that the media can better inform the public, provided that, in doing so, the Covered Entity does not share PHI with the media without the prior authorization of the individuals who are the subject of the PHI.

The Announcement reaffirms the general principles stated in this and other prior guidance concerning Covered Entities dealings with the media and public and clarifies its interpretation about what PHI, if any, the Privacy Rule allows hospitals and other health care providers about PHI may share in response to requests from the media or other individuals not involved in the care of a patient without first obtaining an authorization.

The Announcement reaffirms that affirmative reporting to the media or the public at large about an identifiable patient, or the disclosure to the public or media of specific information about treatment of an identifiable patient, such as specific tests, test results or details of a patient’s illness, may not be done without the patient’s written authorization (or the written authorization of a personal representative who is a person legally authorized to make health care decisions for the patient) that complies with HIPAA’s authorization requirements. See 45 CFR 164.508.

The Announcement also clarifies, however, that Covered Entities that are hospitals or health care facilities that receive a request for information about a particular patient by name may release limited facility directory information to acknowledge an individual is a patient at the facility and provide basic information about the patient’s condition in general terms (e.g., critical or stable, deceased, or treated and released) if the patient has not objected to or restricted the release of such information or, if the patient is incapacitated, if the disclosure is believed to be in the best interest of the patient and is consistent with any prior expressed preferences of the patient.

Minimum Necessary Requirements & Other Privacy Rule Responsibility Reminders

The Announcement also cautions Covered Entities of the need to ensure beyond ensuring that a disclosure falls under a Privacy Rule exception, Covered Entities also need to ensure that other requirements of the Privacy Rule applicable to the disclosure also are met. In this respect, the Announcement cautions Covered Entities that the Privacy Rule requires they limit any otherwise permitted disclosure of PHI other than for treatment purposes made without obtaining a HIPAA-compliant patient authorization to the minimum necessary to achieve the allowed purpose, while also reminding Covered Entities that when making disclosures otherwise permitted to public health authorities or public officials, the Privacy Rule allows the Covered Entity to rely on representations from a public health authority or other public official that the requested information is the minimum necessary for the purpose.

Furthermore, the Announcement also warns Covered Entity that they should continue to apply their role-based access policies to limit access to PHI to only those workforce members who need it to carry out their duties. See Privacy Rules §§ 164.502(b), 164.514(d).

In addition to keeping in mind these Privacy Rule conditions, Covered Entities also need to take steps to ensure that their organizations and workforce also continue to follow all necessary procedures to ensure that their organizations can demonstrate continued compliance with other Privacy Rule requirements on verification, documentation and recordkeeping, accounting for disclosure, business associates and the like. In this regard, it is important that Covered Entities and their business associates take appropriate steps to ensure that their workforce carefully creates and retains the documentation and records needed to defend their actions as well as to respond to HHS requests and/or requests for accounting or disclosure that might arise in the future.

Required Action: Review & Update Emergency & Other Practices, Training In Response To Evolving Guidance

The Privacy Rules and other OCR guidance make clear that health care providers and other Covered Entities and their business associates are expected both to implement and maintain their practices, policies, workforce training and safeguards appropriately to control use, access and disclosure in emergency and other situations as well as to implement the necessary systems and safeguards to protect sensitive PHI, electronic PHI and associated records and system from improper access from the media or others and damage or destruction from disaster or other events.

In recognition that maintaining Privacy and Security Rule Compliance can prove challenging for Covered Entities and their business associates during emergency or other exigent events, OCR has published various other guidance it hopes will help Covered Entities and business associates prepare for and respond to these challenges including its Disclosure For Emergency Preparedness Decision Tool; and Public Health Authority Disclosure Request Checklist.

Covered Entities and their business associates should act promptly to review and update their policies, practices, safeguards and workforce training as needed in response to the new Announcement and other OCR guidance promptly.

About The Author

Repeatedly recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Council, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation and board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney, management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for health and managed care, employee benefits, insurance and financial services, data and technology and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications. Nationally recognized for her work, experience, leadership and publications on HIPAA and other medical privacy and data use and security, FACTA, GLB, trade secrets and other privacy and data security concerns, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with clients and the government on cybersecurity, technology and processes and other issues involved in the use and management of medical, insurance and other financial, workforce, trade secrets and other sensitive data and information throughout her career. Scribe or co-scribe of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Agency meeting with OCR since 2011, Ms. Stamer extensive experience, advising, representing, training and coaching health care providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses, business associates, their information technology and other solutions providers and vendors, and others on HIPAA and other privacy, data security and cybersecurity design, documentation, administration, audit and oversight, business associate and other data and technology contracting, breach investigation and response, and other related concerns including extensive involvement representing clients in dealings with OCR and other Health & Human Services, Federal Trade Commission, Department of Labor, Department of Treasury, state health, insurance and attorneys’ general, Congress and state legislators and other federal officials.

Ms. Stamer also has an extensive contributes her leadership and insights with other professionals, industry leaders and lawmakers. Her insights on HIPAA risk management and compliance often appear in medical privacy related publications of a broad range of health care, health plan and other industry publications Among others, she has conducted privacy training for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans (ASTHO), the Los Angeles Health Department, SHRM, HIMMS, the American Bar Association, the Health Care Compliance Association, a multitude of health plan, insurance and financial services, education, employer employee benefit and other clients, trade and professional associations and others. You can get more information about her HIPAA and other experience here. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see here, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (214) 452-8297.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources here.
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.

©2017 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ For information about republication, please contact the author directly. All other rights reserved.

[1] See e.g. OCR Bulletin: HIPAA Privacy in Emergency Situations (November 2014).

[2] Disclosing PHI in Emergency Situations; Compliance Guidance and Enforcement Statement.

[3] August 2017 Hurricane Harvey Bulletin.

[4] September 2017 Hurricane Irma Bulletin.

[5] September 2017 Hurricane Maria Bulletin

[6] The HIPAA Privacy Rule is not suspended during a public health or other emergency; however, Section 1135(b)(7) of the Social Security Act allows HHS to waive sanctions and penalties against a covered hospital that does not comply with the following provisions of the Privacy Rule events if the President declares an emergency or disaster and the Secretary declares a public health emergency:

the requirements to obtain a patient’s agreement to speak with family members or friends involved in the patient’s care. See 45 CFR 164.510(b).
the requirement to honor a request to opt out of the facility directory. See 45 CFR 164.510(a).
the requirement to distribute a notice of privacy practices. See 45 CFR 164.520.
the patient’s right to request privacy restrictions. See 45 CFR 164.522(a).
the patient’s right to request confidential communications. See 45 CFR 164.522(b).

If the Secretary issues such a waiver, it only applies: (1) in the emergency area and for the emergency

period identified in the public health emergency declaration; (2) to hospitals that have instituted a disaster protocol; and (3) for up to 72 hours from the time the hospital implements its disaster protocol.

When the Presidential or Secretarial declaration terminates, a hospital must then comply with all the requirements of the Privacy Rule for any patient still under its care, even if 72 hours has not elapsed since implementation of its disaster protocol. See also Social Security Act 1135(b)(7); Frequently Asked Question: HIPAA waiver during a national or public health emergency; OCR Bulletin: HIPAA Privacy in Emergency Situations (November 2014).

Leave a Comment » | 1335 Waiver, Academic medicine, ARRA, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Corporate Compliance, Cyber crime, data breach, data security, Disaster Relief, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employer, ERISA, FACTA, Federal Health Center, Fiduciary Responsibility, GINA, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, Health Policy, healthcare, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Joint Commission, Laws, managed care, Meaningful Use, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Mental Health, Pharmaceudical, Pharmacy, Privacy, Psychiatric, Skilled Nursing Facility, Technology, Telemedicine, Uncategorized, Veterans Health Administration | Tagged: Crisis preparedness, Cybercrime, Disaster, dta breach, Emergency, Health Care, HIPAA, Hurricane, Hurricane Harvey, Hurricane Irma, Hurricane Maria, Las Vegas Shooting, Mass Shooting, Medical Privacy, OCR, Privacy, public health, Terrorism | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Oklahoma Nursing Home Settles HHS HIV Discrimination Charges

September 8, 2017

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has entered into a Voluntary Resolution Agreement with Heritage Hills Living & Rehabilitation Center, LLC (Heritage Hills) that resolves a HHS complaint alleging that Heritage Hills discharged a seriously ill patient from its facility upon learning that she was HIV positive and in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act. Part of HHS’ expanding civil rights enforcement emphasis, the resolution agreement reminds health care providers and others receiving or providing services funded by programs managed by HHS of their growing exposure to civil rights prosecutions and liability for failing to comply with federal civil rights law nondiscrimination rules.

Heritage Hills is a for-profit, 81-bed, certified skilled nursing facility located in the City of McAlester, in Pittsburg County, Oklahoma. Because Heritage Hills receives Federal financial assistance through its participation in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, it is subject to the requirements of Section 504 and Section 1557.

Heritage Hills agreed to resolve the complaint after OCR initiated an investigation into whether Heritage Hills discriminated against the complainant’s daughter on the basis of the daughter’s disability (HIV/AIDS) in violation of Section 504 and Section 1557.

Under the Resolution Agreement, Heritage Hills agrees to:

Ensure compliance with Section 504 and Section 1557;
Report admissions and discharge data to OCR for a 12 month period;
Appoint a Civil Rights Coordinator;
Publish and post a new non-discrimination policy;
Iimplement a new patient grievance procedure and inform patients of their right to file complaints with OCR;
Rrequire its staff to receive training on HIV/AIDS and Federal non-discrimination obligations; and
Rrevise its admissions policy to ensure that all individuals with disabilities, including but not limited to HIV/AIDS, are provided equal access to and an equal opportunity to participate in all programs, benefits and services offered by the facility.

The HHS enforcement action reminds health care providers about the importance of properly managing their civil rights compliance. During the last five years, OCR has engaged in more than 200 enforcement and outreach efforts involving HIV/AIDS, including public education campaigns, HIV-related civil rights complaint investigations, HIV-related health information privacy investigations and 12 joint civil rights/health information privacy compliance reviews, which were the subject of OCR’s report, Protecting the Civil Rights and Health Information Privacy of People Living with HIV/AIDS. The report is available here.

Of particular note, OCR has launched an Information is Powerful Medicine public education campaign, which encourages those living with HIV to be proactive in their health care. The campaign explains individuals’ health information privacy rights, including how individuals can monitor and access a copy of their medical records.

OCR’s enforcement in this and other HIV discrimination actions is part a broader nondiscrimination and civil rights enforcement initiative under Section 1551 and other federal laws which has resulted in a growing list of multi-million dollar settlements from health care providers, state and local government agencies and others receiving federal funding from programs managed by the Department of Health & Human Services. See here. Health care providers should verify their policies and operations comply with these civil rights nondiscrimination rules.

About the Author

Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: Erisa & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 30+ years of health industry and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications. Ms. Stamer works with health industry and related businesses and their management, employee benefit plans, governments and other organizations deal with all aspects of human resources and workforce, internal controls and regulatory compliance, change management and other performance and operations management and compliance. Her experienced includes more than 20 years of experience advising and defending health industry and other organizations about disability and other civil rights discrimination law compliance and risk management. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see here, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (214) 452-8297.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Leave a Comment » | ADA, Corporate Compliance, Cultural diversity, Disability Discrimination, Discrimination, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, HIPAA, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Medicaid, Medical Privacy, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, OCR, Pharmacy, Rehabilitation Act, Skilled Nursing Facility, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

HHS Issues Hurricane Irma Relief For Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands & Florida

September 8, 2017

In preparation for anticipated disruptions and damage from Hurricane Irma, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Tom Price, M.D. declared a Public Health Emergency in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands on Wednesday, September 6, 2017 and in Florida on Thursday, September 7, 2017.

By declaring the disaster and before the Hurricane makes landfall, HHS seeks to maximize the flexibility of healthcare providers to respond to the anticipated deluge of health care needs anticipated to occur around the Hurricane by using its authority under Social Security Act 1135 to waive and modify certain health care rules under Medicare, Medicaid and certain other federal programs. See here.

Beyond modification of these requirements, the declaration also triggers limited relief for covered health care providers from certain otherwise applicable requirements of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rules. See here for OCR’s latest guidance on the limited waiver of HIPAA Sanctions and penalties during a declared emergency.

About the Author

Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: Erisa & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 30+ years of health industry and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications. Ms. Stamer works with health industry and related businesses and their management, employee benefit plans, governments and other organizations deal with all aspects of human resources and workforce, internal controls and regulatory compliance, change management, disaster and other crisis preparedness and response, and other performance and operations management and compliance. Her experienced includes career long involvement in advising and defending health industry and other organizations about disaster and other crisis preparation, response and mitigation arising from natural and man-made disasters, government enforcement, financial distress, workplace emergencies and accidents, data breach and other cybersecurity and other events. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see here, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (214) 452-8297.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Leave a Comment » | 1335 Waiver, Academic medicine, Ambulatory care, Border Health, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Conditions of Participation, Disaster Relief, DME, Doctor, EMTALA, Federal Health Center, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, health care reimbursement, Health Plan, healthcare, HIPAA, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Medicare Fee Schedule, OCR, Physician, Physician Licensing, public health, Public Policy, Reimbursement | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Stamer Speaks, Moderates On Medical Cyber Security At LA Medical Privacy Summit

May 12, 2017

Solutions Law Press, Inc. editor and attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will speak and moderate two key panel programs on health care privacy and data security scheduled at the Healthcare Privacy & Security Form hosted on May 19, 2017 by the Information Security Systems Association of Los Angeles County (ISSA-LA) as a component of its 9th Annual ISSA-LA Information Security Summit. The presentations of Ms. Stamer and others at the conference are particularly timely coming on the heels of the May 12 Cyber alerts to U.S. health industry and other businesses about the urgent need to defend against the spread of an epidemic international malware threat targeting U.S. healthcare and other businesses. See Health Care, Health Plan & Other Health IT Systems Warned of E-Mail Cyber Attack; Urgent WannaCry Ransomware Cyber Warning Issued; Alert: Guard Health E-Mail, Other IT Against WannaCry Malware Attack.

The Medical Privacy & Security Summit is part of the 9th Annual ISSA-LA Information Security Summit scheduled for May 18-19, 2017 at the Universal City Hilton in Los Angeles. Recognized as a premier information security education and networking event, the Summit is expected to bring together 1000 or more health industry and other IT and InfoSec executives, leaders, analysts, and practitioners to learn from the experts, exchange ideas with their peers, and enjoy conversations with the community.

The Healthcare Privacy & Security Forum offered for the 5^th year as a component of the annual Summit on May 19 specifically focuses on leading challenges, issues and opportunities confronted by health industry privacy and security professionals and their organizations. Ms. Stamer has served on the steering committee, moderator and popular faculty member for the 2017 Forum for the 5^th consecutive year. During the 2017 Forum, she will moderate and speak on two panels:

“Finding & Negotiating The Mine Fields: CISO, CIO & Privacy Officer’s Playbook for Promoting Compliance & Security Without Getting Fired,” a luncheon interactive panel discussion with the audience exploring the challenging mission CISOs, CIOs and Privacy Officers face to ensure their healthcare, financial and other critical information, data and systems continue to support the patient care and operating functions of their organizations, while at the same time defending these systems, operations and their sensitive, but mission critical data against malicious or innocent misappropriation, use, access or destruction; and
The closing panel on “What Initiatives Are on the Horizon in Healthcare, and How Can We Secure Them?”, which will explore likely future emerging privacy and security threats and technologies, regulatory challenges and enforcement, and other trends that Privacy and Security professionals are likely to face and tips and strategies for preparing to leverage these likely new opportunities and manage new challenges.

Register or get the full schedule of programs and other events scheduled at the Healthcare Privacy & Security Forum specifically along with the overall Information Security Summit here.

About Ms. Stamer

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent (Top 1%) rated practicing attorney and management consultant, health industry public policy advocate, widely published author and lecturer, recognized for her nearly 30 years’ of work on health industry and other privacy and data security and other health care, health benefit, health policy and regulatory affairs and other health industry legal and operational as a LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® “LEGAL LEADER™ and “Top Rated Lawyer,” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; a D Magazine “Best Lawyers In Dallas” in the fields of “Health Care,” “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: Erisa & Employee Benefits” and “Business and Commercial Law,” a Fellow in the American Bar Foundation, the Texas Bar Foundation and the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel.

Scribe for ABA JCEB annual agency meeting with OCR for many years, Ms. Stamer is well-known for her extensive work and leadership throughout her career on HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, IRC and other tax, Social Security, GLB, trade secret, physician and other medical confidentiality and privacy, federal and state data security and data breach and other information privacy and data security rules and concerns. Ms. Stamer has worked extensively throughout her career with health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers and other plan sponsors, banks, insurers and other financial institutions, and others on trade secret confidentiality, privacy, data security and other risk management and compliance including design, establishment, documentation, implementation, audit and enforcement of policies, procedures, systems and safeguards, drafting and negotiation of business associate, chain of custody, confidentiality, and other contracting; risk assessments, audits and other risk prevention and mitigation; investigation, reporting, mitigation and resolution of known or suspected breaches, violations or other incidents; and defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR, FTC, state attorneys’ general and other federal or state agencies, other business partners, patients and others; reporting known or suspected violations; commenting or obtaining other clarification of guidance and other regulatory affairs, training and enforcement, and a host of other related concerns.

Her clients include public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, employers, payroll, staffing, recruitment, insurance and financial services, health and other technology and other vendors, and others.

Author of a multitude of highly-regarded works and training programs on HIPAA and other data security, privacy and use published by BNA, the ABA and other premier legal industry publishers In addition to representing and advising these organizations, she also speaks extensively and conducts training on health care and other privacy and data security and many other matters Privacy & The Pandemic for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans, as well as HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, medical confidentiality, insurance confidentiality and other privacy and data security compliance and risk management for Los Angeles County Health Department, ISSA, HIMMS, the ABA, SHRM, schools, medical societies, government and private health care and health plan organizations, their business associates, trade associations and others.

Beyond these involvements, Ms. Stamer also is active in the leadership of a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. Through these and other involvements, she helps develop and build solutions, build consensus, garner funding and other resources, manage compliance and other operations, and take other actions to identify promote tangible improvements in health care and other policy and operational areas.

For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly by e-mail here or by telephone at (469) 767-8872. ©2017 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Limited, non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc. All other rights reserved.

Leave a Comment » | Corporate Compliance, Cyber crime, data breach, data security, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, drug treatment, Durable Medical Equipment, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employer, ERISA, FDA, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Fiduciary Responsibility, Genetic Information, GINA, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, healthcare, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Indian Health, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, managed care, Meaningful Use, Medical Malpractice, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Mental Heatlh, OCR, OIG, Pharmaceudical, Pharmacy, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Privacy, Psychiatric, quality reporting, Rural Health Care, Skilled Nursing Facility, substance abuse treatment, Technology, Telemarketing, Telemedicine, Uncategorized | Tagged: Cyber Security, Cybercrime, HIPAA, Malware, Medical Privacy, Medical Security, Technology, WannaCry | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Health Care, Health Plan & Other Health IT Systems Warned of E-Mail Cyber Attack

May 12, 2017

Health care providers, health plans, health insurers, healthcare clearinghouses, their business associates and others involved in health information technology or related activities should raise their cyber security defenses and use cyber security best practices to defend their information systems and data against ongoing cyber security attacks targeting health industry information systems in the United States and abroad in a cyber security alert issued by Department of Health and Human Service (HHS) Laura Wolf Critical Infrastructure Protection Lead.

The cyber security alert states that there is evidence that cyber attacks affecting hospitals and healthcare information systems in the UK and other international locations” now are “occurring inside the United States.”

HHS states it is “working with our partners across government and in the private sector to develop a better understanding of the threat and to provide additional information on measures to protect your systems.

Meanwhile,HHS advises U.S. health industry organizations and information systems to exercise cyber security best practices – particularly with respect to email including HHS Ransomware Guidance available here and other information on ransomware in the following HHS Cyber Newsletters:

https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/hippa-cyber-awareness-monthly-issue1.pdf

https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/hipaa-cyber-awareness-monthly-issue3.pdf

https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/february-2017-ocr-cyber-awareness-newsletter.pdf

About The Author

Recognized by LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as a “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%/ the highest) and “Top Rated Lawyer,” with special recognition as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Health Care,” “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: Erisa & Employee Benefits” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, the author of this update is widely known for her 29 plus years’ of work in health care, health benefit, health policy and regulatory affairs and other health industry concerns as a practicing attorney and management consultant, thought leader, author, public policy advocate and lecturer.

Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer supports these organizations and their leaders on both a real-time, “on demand” basis as well as outsourced operations or special counsel on an interim, special project, or ongoing basis with strategic planning and product and services development and innovation; workforce and operations management, crisis preparedness and response as well as to prevent, stabilize and cleanup legal and operational crises large and small that arise in the course of operations.

A core focus of this work includes work to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; comply with requirements, investigate and respond to Board of Medicine, Health, Nursing, Pharmacy, Chiropractic, and other licensing agencies, Department of Aging & Disability, FDA, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC and other public health, Department of Justice and state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies; dealings with JCHO and other accreditation and quality organizations; investigation and defense of private litigation and other federal and state health care industry investigations and enforcement; insurance or other liability management and allocation; process and product development; managed care, physician and other staffing, business associate and other contracting; evaluation, commenting or seeking modification of regulatory guidance, and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; and a host of other related concerns for public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, employers, and others.
Author of leading works on HIPAA and other privacy and data security works and the scribe leading the American Bar Association Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Annual Agency Meeting with OCR, her experience includes extensive compliance, risk management and data breach and other crisis event investigation, response and remediation under HIPAA and other data security, privacy and breach laws.

In connection with this work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers and other plan sponsors, banks and other financial institutions, and others on risk management and compliance with HIPAA, FACTA, trade secret and other information privacy and data security rules, including the establishment, documentation, implementation, audit and enforcement of policies, procedures, systems and safeguards, investigating and responding to known or suspected breaches, defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR and other federal or state agencies, reporting known or suspected violations, business associate and other contracting, commenting or obtaining other clarification of guidance, training and enforcement, and a host of other related concerns. Her clients include public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, and others.

Her work includes both regulatory and public policy advocacy and thought leadership, as well as advising and representing a broad range of health industry and other clients about policy design, drafting, administration, business associate and other contracting, risk assessments, audits and other risk prevention and mitigation, investigation, reporting, mitigation and resolution of known or suspected violations or other incidents and responding to and defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, DOJ, OCR, FTC, state attorneys’ general and other federal or state agencies, other business partners, patients and others.
In addition to representing and advising these organizations, she also has conducted training on Privacy & The Pandemic for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans, as well as HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, medical confidentiality, insurance confidentiality and other privacy and data security compliance and risk management for Los Angeles County Health Department, MGMA, ISSA, HIMMS, the ABA, SHRM, schools, medical societies, government and private health care and health plan organizations, their business associates, trade associations and others.
A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Pension Privatization Project with extensive domestic and international public policy concerns in Pensions, healthcare, workforce, immigration, tax, education and other areas.

Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also has extensive health care reimbursement and insurance experience advising and defending health plans, health care providers, payers, and others about Medicare, Medicaid, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, Tri-Care, self-insured group, association, individual and group and other health benefit programs and coverages including but not limited to advising public and private payers about coverage and program design and documentation, advising and defending providers, payers and systems and billing services entities about systems and process design, audits, and other processes; provider credentialing, and contracting; providers and payer billing, reimbursement, claims audits, denials and appeals, coverage coordination, reporting, direct contracting, False Claims Act, Medicare & Medicaid, ERISA, state Prompt Pay, out-of-network and other “nonpar,” insured, and other health care claims, prepayment, post-payment and other coverage, claims denials, appeals, billing and fraud investigations and actions and other reimbursement and payment related investigation, enforcement, litigation and actions.

A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, privacy and data security, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns.
A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other related concerns by her service in the leadership of the Solutions Law Press, Inc. Coalition for Responsible Health Policy, its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment, and a broad range of other professional and civic organizations including North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children (now Warren Center For Children); current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, past Representative and chair of various committees of ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits; an ABA Health Law Coordinating Council representative, former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, a former member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

Ms. Stamer also is a highly popular lecturer, symposium and chair, faculty member and author, who publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry, human resources, employment and other privacy, data security and other technology, regulatory and operational risk management. Examples of her many highly regarded publications on these matters include “Protecting & Using Patient Data In Disease Management: Opportunities, Liabilities And Prescriptions,” “Privacy Invasions of Medical Care-An Emerging Perspective,” “Cybercrime and Identity Theft: Health Information Security: Beyond HIPAA,” as well as thousands of other publications, programs and workshops these and other concerns for the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, American Health Lawyers, Society of Human Resources Professionals, the Southwest Benefits Association, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, Lexis-Nexis, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, the HCCA, ISSA, HIMSS, Modern Healthcare, Managed Healthcare, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society of CPAs, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other symposia and publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, Insurance Thought Leadership and many other prominent publications and speaks and conducts training for a broad range of professional organizations.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

©2017 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ All other rights reserved. For information about republication or other use, please contact Ms. Stamer here.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Ambulatory care, CDC, Controlled Substances, Corporate Compliance, data breach, data security, DME, Doctor, drug treatment, Durable Medical Equipment, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employer, FDA, Federal Health Center, Genetic Information, GINA, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, health care reimbursement, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plans, healthcare, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Indian Health, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Laws, managed care, Meaningful Use, Medicaid, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, Mental Heatlh, OCR, Pharmaceudical, Pharmacy, Physician, Privacy, Psychiatric, Telemarketing, Uncategorized | Tagged: Cyber Security, Cybercrime, Data Security, E-mail, Health Care, HIPAA, Malware | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

$2.4M HIPAA Settlement Warns Providers About Media Disclosures Of PHI

May 11, 2017

Healthcare providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses and their business associates (Covered Entities) can’t disclose the name or other protected health care information about a patient in press releases or other announcements without prior authorization from the patient. That’s the clear lesson Covered Entities should learn from the $2.4 million payment to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that the largest not-for-profit health system in Southeast Texas, Memorial Hermann Health System (MHHS) is paying to settle charges it violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule by issuing a press release with the name and other protected health information (PHI) about a patient without the patient’s prior HIPAA-compliant authorization under a Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan (Resolution Agreement) announced May 10, 2017 by HHS Office of Civil Rights (OCR).

The Resolution Agreement resolves OCR charges the operator of 13 hospitals, eight Cancer Centers, three Heart & Vascular Institutes, and 27 sports medicine and rehabilitation centers violated the Privacy Rule that resulted from an OCR compliance review of MHHS triggered by multiple media reports suggesting that MHHS improperly disclosed the name and other details about a patient arrested and charged with presenting an allegedly fraudulent identification card to office staff at an MHHS’s clinic after MHHS clinic staff alerted law enforcement of suspicions the patient was presenting false identification to the clinic. According to OCR, after law enforcement investigated and arrested the patient, MHHS published a press release concerning the incident in which MHHS senior management approved the impermissible disclosure of the patient’s PHI by adding the patient’s name in the title of the press release without securing prior authorization of the patient.

While OCR concluded the report to law enforcement allowable under the Privacy Rule, OCR found MHHS violated the Privacy Rule by issuing the press release disclosing the patient’s name and other PHI without authorization from the patient and also by failing to timely document the sanctioning of its workforce members for impermissibly disclosing the patient’s information.

To resolve and avoid the potential Civil Monetary Penalties that HIPAA could authorize OCR to impose for the alleged Privacy Rule violation, MHHS agrees in the Resolution Agreement to pay OCR a $2.4 million monetary settlement and implement a corrective action plan that obligates MHHS to update and train its workforce on its policies and procedures on safeguarding PHI from impermissible uses and disclosures including specific instructions and procedures to:

Address (a) Uses and disclosures for which an authorization is required, including to the media, to public officials, and on the internet; (b) Disclosures for law enforcement purposes; and (c) Uses and disclosures for health oversight activities;
Identify MHHS personnel or representatives whom workforce members, agents, or business associates may contact in the event of any inquiry or concern regarding compliance with HIPAA in relation to these activities;
Internal reporting procedures requiring all workforce members to report to the designated person or office at the earliest possible time any potential violations of the Privacy, Security or Breach Notification Rules or of MHHS’ privacy and security policies and procedures and MHHS promptly to investigate and address all received reports in a timely manner; and
Application and documentation of appropriate sanctions (which may include retraining or other instructive corrective action, depending on the circumstances) against members of MHHS’ workforce, including senior level management, who fail to comply with the Privacy, Security or Breach Notification Rules or MHHS’ privacy and security policies and procedures, including a description of the sanctions; a timeframe in which MHHS will apply and document sanctions for violations of the HIPAA Rules or of MHHS’ privacy, security or breach policies or procedures; the manner in which MHHS will document the sanctions; and where MHHS will store or retain such documentation (e.g., personnel file).

The corrective action plan in the Resolution Agreement also requires all MHHS facilities to attest to their understanding of permissible uses and disclosures of PHI, including disclosures to the media and others.

Covered entities should keep in mind the MHHS Resolution Agreement is the latest in a series of OCR enforcement actions and resolution agreements highlighting the need for Covered Entities to adopt and use appropriate policies and procedures to prevent wrongful disclosures of PHI to the media or public. For instance, in June, 2013, OCR required Shasta Regional Medical Center (SRMC) to pay a $275,000 settlement payment and implement a comprehensive corrective action plan to resolve OCR charges stemming from SRMC’s disclosure of PHI about a patient to members of the media and its workforce in an effort to respond to accusations the patient made that SRMC engaged in fraud and other misconduct. See HIPAA Sanctions Triggered From Covered Entity Statements To Media, Workforce. In contrast, the $2.2 million resolution agreement that OCR required New York Presbyterian Hospital for improperly allowing a film crew to film hospital patients in violation of HIPAA was almost 10 times greater than the SRMC penalty and was accompanied by OCR’s publication OCR of specific additional guidance warning Covered Entities against improper disclosures to the media. See $2 Million+ HIPAA Settlement, FAQ Warn Providers Protect PHI From Media, Other Recording Or Use.

Following on the heels of this previous guidance and prior enforcement actions warning Covered Entities against wrongful disclosure to the media, the MHHS Resolution Agreement sends a strong message to Covered Entities that they should expect little sympathy if their organizations improperly share PHI with the media. OCR’s announcement of the MHHS Resolution Agreement, for instance quotes OCR Director Roger Severino with stating that “Senior management should have known that disclosing a patient’s name on the title of a press release was a clear HIPAA Privacy violation that would induce a swift OCR response.” The announcement goes on to quote Director Severino further as stating, “This case reminds us that organizations can readily cooperate with law enforcement without violating HIPAA, but that they must nevertheless continue to protect patient privacy when making statements to the public and elsewhere.”

Risk Assess & Control Media Relations & Other Communications For PHI Disclosures Enterprisewide

Covered entities should heed the warning by conducting a risk assessment of their organization’s susceptibility to potential improper disclosures to media or others and reviewing and implementing necessary written policies, procedures and training to prevent the improper disclosure of patient PHI to media or others unless the Covered Entity either secures prior HIPAA-compliant authorization from the patient or can prove the disclosure falls squarely under an exception to the Privacy Rule’s prohibition against disclosure of PHI without authorization except as allowed by the Privacy Rule.

Taking these and other needed steps to evaluate, and strengthen and enforce as needed, risk assessments, policies, procedures, and training to prevent wrongful use, access or disclosure of PHI to the media or others is particularly critical in light of the ongoing tightening of expectations, and rising enforcement and sanctions for HIPAA violations since Congress amended HIPAA in 2009. See OCR Audit Program Kickoff Further Heats HIPAA Privacy Risks; HIPAA Heats Up: HITECH Act Changes Take Effect & OCR Begins Posting Names, Other Details Of Unsecured PHI Breach Reports On Website.

Based on experiences reported in the MHHS and other similar resolution agreements, Covered Entities also generally will want to ensure that their policies, procedures and training extend to all potential sources of communications that could involve patient information and make clear that the Privacy Rule restrictions must be followed even if the circumstances involve allegations of misconduct, special performance by healthcare providers or others that it would benefit the organization or certain individuals to have known to the public, or other circumstances likely to be of interest to the media or other parties.
As part of this process, covered entities should ensure they look outside the four corners of their Privacy Policies to ensure that appropriate training and clarification is provided to address media, practice transition, workforce communication and other policies and practices that may be covered by pre-existing or other policies of other departments or operational elements not typically under the direct oversight and management of the Privacy Officer such as media relations. Media relations, physician and patients affairs, outside legal counsel, media relations, marketing and other internal and external departments and consultants dealing with the media, the public or other inquiries or disputes should carefully include and coordinate with the privacy officer both to ensure appropriate policies and procedures are followed and proper documentation created and retained to show authorization, account, or meet other requirements.

In conducting this analysis and risk assessment, it will be important that Covered Entities include, but also look beyond the four corners of their Privacy Policies to ensure that their review and risk assessment identifies and assesses and addresses compliance risks on an entity wide basis. This entity-wide assessment should include both communications and requests for information normally addressed to the Privacy Officer as well as requests and communications that could arise in the course of media or other public relations, practice transition, workforce communication and other operations not typically under the direct oversight and management of the Privacy Officer.

For this reason, Covered Entities also generally will not only to adopt and implement specific policies, processes and training in these other departments to prohibit and prevent inappropriate disclosures of PHI in the course of those departments operations. It also may be advisable to pre-established processes for reviewing media or other communications for potential PHI content and require prior review of any proposed public relations and other internal or external communications containing patient PHI or other information by the privacy officer, legal counsel or another suitably qualified party.

Because of the high risk that the preparation or review of media or other public communications reports will involve the use and disclosure of PHI, Covered Entities also generally should verify that all outside media or public relations, legal, or other outside service providers participating in the investigation, response or preparation or review of communications to the media or others both are covered by signed business associate agreements that fulfill the Privacy Rule and other requirements of HIPAA as well as possess detailed knowledge and understanding of the Privacy and Security Rules suitable to participate in and help safeguard the Covered Entity against violations of these and other Privacy Rules. See e.g., Latest HIPAA Resolution Agreement Drives Home Importance Of Maintaining Current, Signed Business Associate Agreements.

About The Author

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Accreditation, Ambulatory care, Clinical pathway, Consumer Driven Health Care, data breach, data security, Doctor, drug treatment, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employer, ERISA, FACTA, Federal Health Center, Fiduciary Responsibility, Genetic Information, GINA, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Hospital, Indian Health, Meaningful Use, Medicaid, Medical Malpractice, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Medicare, OCR, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Privacy, Psychiatric, Wellness | Tagged: HIPAA, medical orivacy, Privacy Rule | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

CardioNet $2.5M HIPAA Resolution Agreement Schools HIPAA Entities To Clean Up Their Acts

April 26, 2017

Remote cardiac monitoring provider CardioNet is paying $2.5 million and implementing a corrective action plan to settle potential charges of noncompliance with the Health Insurance and Portability Act (HIPAA) Privacy and Security Rules by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) based on the impermissible disclosure of unsecured electronic protected health information (ePHI).

The first OCR HIPAA settlement involving a wireless health services provider, the CardioNet Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan (Resolution Agreement) announced by OCR on April 24, 2017 clearly illustrates for all covered entities and their business associates of the substantial liability risks of failing to finalize and actually adopt, implement, administer and maintain the necessary HIPAA Privacy and Security policies and procedures required by HIPAA as well as some of the steps OCR expects to fulfill these requirements.

CardioNet Charges & Settlement

As has become increasingly common in recent years, the CardioNet settlement arose from concerns initially brought to OCR’s attention in connection with a HIPAA breach notification report. On January 10, 2012, OCR received notification from the provider of remote mobile monitoring of and rapid response to patients at risk for cardiac arrhythmias that a workforce member’s laptop with the ePHI of 1,391 individuals was stolen from a parked vehicle outside of the employee’s home. CardioNet subsequently notified OCR of a second breach of ePHI 2,219 individuals, respectively.

Likewise, the HIPAA breaches uncovered by OCR in the course of investigating these CardioNet breaches occur in the operations of many other covered entities. According to the OCR’s investigation in response to these breach reports revealed a series of continuing compliance concerns, including:

CardioNet failed to conduct an accurate and thorough risk analysis to assess the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of ePHI and failed to plan for and implement security measures sufficient to reduce those risks and vulnerabilities;
CardioNet’s policies and procedures implementing the standards of the HIPAA Security Rule were in draft form and had not been implemented;
CardioNet was unable to produce any final policies or procedures regarding the implementation of safeguards for ePHI, including those for mobile devices;
CardioNet failed to implement policies and procedures that govern the receipt and removal of hardware and electronic media that contain electronic protected health information into and out of its facilities, the encryption of such media, and the movement of these items within its facilities until March 2015; and
CardioNet failed to safeguard against the impermissible disclosure of protected health information by its employees, thereby permitting access to that information by an unauthorized individual, and failed to take sufficient steps to immediately correct the disclosure.

To resolve these OCR charges, CardioNet agrees in the Resolution Agreement to pay $2.5 million to OCR and implement a corrective action plan. Among other things, the corrective action plan requires CardioNet to complete the following actions to the satisfaction of OCR:

Prepare a current, comprehensive and thorough Risk Analysis of security risks and vulnerabilities that incorporates its current facility or facilities and the electronic equipment, data systems, and applications controlled, currently administered or owned by CardioNet, that contain, store, transmit, or receive electronic protected health information (“ePHI”) and update that Risk Analysis annually or more frequently, if appropriate in response to environmental or operational changes affecting the security of ePHI.
Assess whether its existing security measures are sufficient to protect its ePHI and revise its Risk Management Plan, Policies and Procedures, and training materials and implement additional security measures, as needed.
Develop and implement an organization-wide Risk Management Plan to address and mitigate any security risks and vulnerabilities found in the Risk Analysis as required by the Risk Management Plan.
Review and, to the extent necessary, revise, its current Security Rule Policies and Procedures (“Policies and Procedures”) based on the findings of the Risk Analysis and the implementation of the Risk Management Plan to comply with the HIPAA Security Rule.
Provide certification to OCR that all laptops, flashdrives, SD cards, and other portable media devices are encrypted, together with a description of the encryption methods used (“Certification”).
Review, revise its HIPAA Security training to include a focus on security, encryption, and handling of mobile devices and out-of-office transmissions and other policies and practices require to address the issues identified in the Risk Assessment and otherwise comply with the Risk Management Plan and HIPAA train its workforce on these policies and practices.
Investigate all potential violations of its HIPAA policies and procedures and notify OCR in writing within 30 days of any violation.
Submit annual reports to OCR, which must be signed by an owner or officer of CardioNet attesting that he or she has reviewed the annual report, has made a reasonable inquiry regarding its content and believes that, upon such inquiry, the information is accurate and truthful.
Maintain for inspection and copying, and provide to OCR, upon request, all documents and records relating to compliance with the corrective action plan for six years.

Implications For Covered Entities & Business Associates

The CardioNet Resolution Agreement contains numerous lessons for other Covered entities and their business associates, including but not limited to the following.

Like many previous resolution agreements announced by OCR, the Resolution Agreement reiterates the responsibility of covered entities and business associates to properly secure their ePHI and that as part of this process, OCR expects all laptop computers and other mobile devices containing or with access to ePHI be properly encrypted and secured.
It also reminds covered entities and their business associates to be prepared for, and expect an audit from OCR when OCR receives a report that their organization experienced a large breach of unsecured ePHI.
The Resolution Agreement’s highlighting of the draft status of CardioNet’s privacy and security policies also reflects OCR expects covered entities to actually final policies, procedures and training in place for maintaining compliance with HIPAA.
The discussion and requirements in the Corrective Action Plan relating to requirements to conduct comprehensive risk assessments at least annually and in response to other events, and to update policies and procedures in response to findings of these risk assessments also drives home the importance of conducting timely, documented risk analyses of the security of their ePHI, taking prompt action to address known risks and periodically updating the risk assessment and the associated privacy and security policies and procedures in response to the findings of the risk assessment and other changing events.
The requirement in the Resolution Agreement of leadership attestation and certification on the required annual report reflects OCR’s expectation that leadership within covered entities and business associates will make HIPAA compliance a priority and will take appropriate action to oversee compliance.
Finally, the $2.5 million settlement payment required by the Resolution Agreement and its implementation against CardiNet makes clear that OCR remains serious about HIPAA enforcement.

Of course, covered entities and business associates need to keep in mind that that actions and inactions that create HIPAA liability risks also carry many other potential legal and business risks. For instance, since PHI records and data involved in such breaches usually incorporates Social Security Numbers, credit card or other debt or payment records or other personal consumer information, and other legally sensitive data, covered entities and business associates generally also may face investigation, notification and other responsibilities and liabilities under confidentiality, privacy or data security rules of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act (FACTA), the Internal Revenue Code, the Social Security Act, state identity theft, data security, medical confidentiality, privacy and ethics, insurance, consumer privacy, common law or other state privacy claims and a host of other federal or state laws. Depending on the nature of the covered entity or its business associates, the breach or other privacy event also may trigger fiduciary liability exposures for health plan fiduciaries in the case of a health plan, professional ethics or licensing investigations or actions against health care providers, insurance companies, administrative service providers or brokers, shareholder or other investor actions, employment or vendor termination or disputes and a host of other indirect legal consequences.

Beyond, and regardless of the technical legal defensibility of its actions under these and other laws, however, the most material and often most intractable consequences of a HIPAA or other data or other privacy breach report or public accusation, investigation, admission also typically are the most inevitable:

The intangible, but critical loss of trust and reputation covered entities and business associates inevitably incur among their patients, participants, business partners, investors and the community; and
The substantial financial expenses and administrative and operational disruptions of investigating, defending the actions of the organization and implementation of post-event corrective actions following a data or other privacy breach, audit, investigation, or charge.

In light of these risks, covered entities business associates and their management should use the experiences of CardioNet and other covered entities or business associates caught violating HIPAA or other privacy and security standards to reduce their HIPAA and other privacy and data security exposures. Management of covered entities and their business associates should take steps to ensure that their organizations policies, practices and procedures currently are up-to-date, appropriately administered and monitored, and properly documented. Management should ensure that their organizations carefully evaluate and strengthen as necessary their current HIPAA risk assessments, policies, practices, record keeping and retention and training in light of these and other reports as they are announced in a well-documented manner. The focus of these activities should be both to maintain compliance and position their organizations efficiently and effectively to respond to and defend their actions against a data breach, investigation, audit or accusation of a HIPAA or other privacy or security rule violation with a minimum of liability, cost and reputational and operational damages.

As the conduct of these activities generally will involve the collection and analysis of legally sensitive matters, most covered entities and business associates will want to involve legal counsel experienced with these matters and utilize appropriate procedures to be able to use and assert attorney-client privilege and other evidentiary privileges to mitigate risks associated with these processes. To help plan for and mitigate foreseeable expenses of investigating, responding to or mitigating a known, suspected or asserted breach or other privacy event, most covered entities and business associates also will want to consider the advisability of tightening privacy and data security standards, notification, cooperation and indemnification protections in contracts between covered entities and business associates, acquiring or expanding data breach or other liability coverage, or other options for mitigating the financial costs of responding to a breach notification, investigation or enforcement action.

About The Author

Throughout her adult life and nearly 30-year legal career, Ms. Stamer’s legal, management and governmental affairs work has focused on helping health industry, health benefit and other organizations and their management use the law, performance and risk management tools and process to manage people, performance, quality, compliance, operations and risk. Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer supports these organizations and their leaders on both a real-time, “on demand” basis as well as outsourced operations or special counsel on an interim, special project, or ongoing basis with strategic planning and product and services development and innovation; workforce and operations management, crisis preparedness and response as well as to prevent, stabilize and cleanup legal and operational crises large and small that arise in the course of operations.

As a core component of her work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively throughout her career with health care providers, health plans and insurers, managed care organizations, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers, banks and other financial institutions, management services organizations, professional associations, medical staffs, accreditation agencies, auditors, technology and other vendors and service providers, and others on legal and operational compliance, risk management and compliance, public policies and regulatory affairs, contracting, payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations and matters including extensive involvement advising, representing and defending public and private hospitals and health care systems; physicians, physician organizations and medical staffs; specialty clinics and pharmacies; skilled nursing, home health, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; billing and management services organizations; consultants; investors; technology, billing and reimbursement and other services and product vendors; products and solutions consultants and developers; investors; managed care organizations, insurers, self-insured health plans and other payers; and other health industry clients to manage and defend compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing and other operations and risk management concerns. A core focus of this work includes work to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; comply with requirements, investigate and respond to Board of Medicine, Health, Nursing, Pharmacy, Chiropractic, and other licensing agencies, Department of Aging & Disability, FDA, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC and other public health, Department of Justice and state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies; dealings with JCHO and other accreditation and quality organizations; investigation and defense of private litigation and other federal and state health care industry investigations and enforcement; insurance or other liability management and allocation; process and product development; managed care, physician and other staffing, business associate and other contracting; evaluation, commenting or seeking modification of regulatory guidance, and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; and a host of other related concerns for public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, employers, and others.

In the course of this work, Ms. Stamer has accumulated extensive experience helping health industry clients manage workforce, medical staff, vendors and suppliers, medical billing, reimbursement, claims and other provider-payer relations, business partners, and their recruitment, performance, discipline, compliance, safety, compensation, benefits, and training, board, medical staff and other governance; compliance and internal controls; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; change management; assess, deter, investigate and address staffing, quality, compliance and other performance; meaningful use, EMR, HIPAA and other data security and breach and other health IT and data; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party reporting, audits, investigations and enforcement; government affairs and public policy; and other compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns.

Author of leading works on HIPAA and other privacy and data security works and the scribe leading the American Bar Association Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Annual Agency Meeting with OCR, her experience includes extensive compliance, risk management and data breach and other crisis event investigation, response and remediation under HIPAA and other data security, privacy and breach laws. Heavily involved in health care and health information technology, data and related process and systems development, policy and operations innovation and a Scribe for ABA JCEB annual agency meeting with OCR for many years who has authored numerous highly-regarded works and training programs on HIPAA and other data security, privacy and use, Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her extensive work and leadership on leading edge health care and benefit policy and operational issues including meaningful use and EMR, billing and reimbursement, quality measurement and reimbursement, HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, trade secret, physician and other medical confidentiality and privacy, federal and state data security and data breach and other information privacy and data security rules and many other concerns.

In addition to representing and advising these organizations, she also has conducted training on Privacy & The Pandemic for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans, as well as HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, medical confidentiality, insurance confidentiality and other privacy and data security compliance and risk management for Los Angeles County Health Department, MGMA, ISSA, HIMMS, the ABA, SHRM, schools, medical societies, government and private health care and health plan organizations, their business associates, trade associations and others.

A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Pension Privatization Project with extensive domestic and international public policy concerns in Pensions, healthcare, workforce, immigration, tax, education and other areas.

Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also has extensive health care reimbursement and insurance experience advising and defending health care providers, payers, and others about Medicare, Medicaid, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, Tri-Care, self-insured group, association, individual and group and other health benefit programs and coverages including but not limited to advising public and private payers about coverage and program design and documentation, advising and defending providers, payers and systems and billing services entities about systems and process design, audits, and other processes; provider credentialing, and contracting; providers and payer billing, reimbursement, claims audits, denials and appeals, coverage coordination, reporting, direct contracting, False Claims Act, Medicare & Medicaid, ERISA, state Prompt Pay, out-of-network and other “nonpar,” insured, and other health care claims, prepayment, post-payment and other coverage, claims denials, appeals, billing and fraud investigations and actions and other reimbursement and payment related investigation, enforcement, litigation and actions.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other related concerns by her service in the leadership of the Solutions Law Press, Inc. Coalition for Responsible Health Policy, its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment, and a broad range of other professional and civic organizations including North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children (now Warren Center For Children); current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, past Representative and chair of various committees of ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits; a ABA Health Law Coordinating Council representative, former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, a former member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Ambulatory care, Corporate Compliance, data breach, data security, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employer, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, healthcare, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Meaningful Use, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, OCR, Pharmaceudical, Pharmacy, Physician, Privacy, Psychiatric, Telemedicine, Uncategorized | Tagged: audit, Breach Notification, Data Breach, Data Security, healthcare, HIPAA, medical, OCR, OCR< Privacy, Privacy, Privacy Rule, Security, Security Officer, Security Rule, Technology | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Medical Clinic HIPAA Resolution Agreement Shows Need For Current Business Associate Agreements

April 24, 2017

Health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and business associates must get and keep their business associate (BA) agreements (BAAs) in place, up- to-date, and readily available for inspection in accordance with the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule, 45 C.F.R. Part 160 and Subparts A and E of Part 164 (Privacy Rule). That’s the clear message physician practices and other health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses (“covered entities”) and their business associates should learn about Privacy Rule compliance from an April 17, 2017 HIPAA Resolution Agreement just announced by the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) with the Center for Children’s Digestive Health (CCDH).

While the Resolution Agreement relates to breaches of the BAA requirements of a small pediatric practice, the Center for Children’s Digestive Health (CCDH), all health plans, health care providers and other covered entities and business associates should focus on the adequacy of their BAAs and their BAA recordkeeping. HIPAA compliance surveys reflect deficiencies with the BAA rules are common throughout the industry. These findings and the involvement of BAs in data breaches or other OCR enforcement activities suggest a high probability that many other covered entities and business associates may be sitting ducks for similar sanctions. See e.g., HIPAA Compliance Survey Churns Up Many Business Associate Problems (January 3, 2017).

The HIPAA Business Associate Agreement Requirements

OCR’s announcement of the CCDH Resolution Agreement is the latest in a growing series of HIPAA enforcement actions showing the growing risk covered entities and their business associates face for failing to take appropriate steps to comply with the BAA and other Privacy Rule requirements of HIPAA.

As compliance audits and surveys of covered entities and business associates suggest a high level of noncompliance with the business associate agreement requirements among covered entities and business associates, While the ever-growing list of Resolution Agreements and Civil Monetary Penalties announced by OCR cover a variety of categories of HIPAA violations, the CCDH Resolution Agreement highlights the importance of covered entities and their business associates ensuring that before the BA creates, accesses, receives, discloses, retains or destroys any PHI for the covered entity, a BAA meeting the Privacy Rule requirements is signed and retained for at least the six year period the Privacy Rule requires in a manner easily producible when and if OCR or another agency asks for a copy as part of an investigation or other compliance audit. See Privacy Rule §§ 164.502(e), 164.504(e), 164.532(d) and (e).

The Privacy Rule requires that covered entities and business associates enter into a written and signed business associate agreement that contains the elements specified in Privacy Rule § 164.504(e) before the business associate creates, uses, accesses or discloses PHI of the covered entity. Meanwhile, the Privacy Rule recordkeeping requirements require that covered entities and BAs maintain copies of these BAAs for a minimum of six years.

Violations of the Privacy Rule can carry stiff civil or even criminal penalties Pursuant to amendments to HIPAA enacted as part of the HITECH Act, civil penalties typically do not apply to violations punished under the criminal penalty rules of HIPAA set forth in Social Security Act , 42 U.S.C § 1320d-6 (Section 1177).

Under Section 1177, the criminal enforcement provisions of HIPAA authorize the Justice Department to prosecute a person who knowingly in violation of the Privacy Rule (1) uses or causes to be used a unique health identifier; (2) obtains individually identifiable health information relating to an individual; or (3) discloses individually identifiable health information to another person, punishable by the following criminal sanctions and penalties:

A fine of up to $50,000, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both;
If the offense is committed under false pretenses, a fine of up to $100,000, imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both; and
If the offense is committed with intent to sell, transfer, or use individually identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal gain, or malicious harm, a fine of up to $250,000, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

In contrast, as amended by the HITECH Act, the civil enforcement provisions of HIPAA empower OCR to impose Civil Monetary Penalties on both covered entities and BAs for violations of any of the requirements of the Privacy or Security Rules. The penalty ranges for civil violations depends upon the circumstances associated with the violations and are subject to upward adjustment for inflation. As most recently adjusted here effective September 6, 2016, the following currently are the progressively increasing Civil Monetary Penalty tiers:

A minimum penalty of $100 and a maximum penalty of $50,000 per violation, for violations which the CE or BA “did not know, and by exercising reasonable diligence would not have known” about using “the business care and prudence expected from a person seeking to satisfy a legal requirement under similar circumstances;”
A minimum penalty of $1,000 and a maximum penalty of $50,000 per violation, for violations for “reasonable cause” which do not rise to the level of “willful neglect” where “reasonable cause” means the “circumstances that would make it unreasonable for the covered entity, despite the exercise of ordinary business care and prudence, to comply with the violated Privacy Rule requirement;”
A minimum penalty of $10,000 and a maximum penalty of $50,000 per violation, for violations attributed to “willful neglect,” defined as “the conscious, intentional failure or reckless indifference to the obligation to comply” with the requirement or prohibition; and
A minimum penalty of $50,000 and a maximum penalty of $1.5 million per violation, for violations attributed to “willful neglect” not remedied within 30 days of the date that the covered entity or BA knew or should have known of the violation.

For continuing violations such as failing to implement a required BAA, OCR can treat each day of noncompliance as a separate violation. However, sanctions under each of these tiers generally are subject to a maximum penalty of $1,500,000 for violations of identical requirements or prohibitions during a calendar year. For violations such as the failure to implement and maintain a required BAA where more than one covered entity bears responsibility for the violation, OCR an impose Civil Monetary Penalties against each culpable party. OCR considers a variety of mitigating and aggravating facts and circumstances when arriving at the amount of the penalty within each of these applicable tiers to impose.

While criminal enforcement of HIPAA remains relatively rare, a review of the OCR enforcement record in recent years makes clear that civil enforcement of HIPAA and the sanctions imposed is growing. See e.g., $400K HIPAA Settlement Shows Need To Conduct Timely & Appropriate Risk Assessments; $5.5M Memorial HIPAA Resolution Agreement Shows Need To Audit. For more examples, also see here.

CCDH Sanctions For Violation Of HIPAA Business Associate Agreement Rules

The CCDH Resolution Agreement arises from violations of this requirement that OCR says it discovered as a result of a compliance review conducted in response to an OCR investigation of a CCDH business associate, FileFax, Inc. According to OCR, OCR found from the compliance review of CCDH triggered by OCR’s investigation of FileFax that while CCDH began disclosing PHI to Filefax in 2003 and that Filefax stored records containing protected health information (PHI) for CCDH, neither CCDH nor Filefax could produce a signed Business Associate Agreement (BAA) covering their relationship for any period before October 12, 2015.

Based on the resulting investigation, OCR concluded:

CCDH failed to obtain a BAA providing written assurances from Filefax that it would appropriately safeguard the PHI in Filefax’s possession or control satisfactory assurances as required by Privacy Rule §164.502(e); and
Because CCDH failed to secure the required BAA, it violated the Privacy Rule by impermissibly disclosing the PHI of at least 10,728 individuals to Filefax when CCDH transferred the PHI to Filefax without obtaining the requisite BAA from Filefax (Covered Conduct).

In the Resolution Agreement, CCDH agrees to pay HHS $31,000.00 (Resolution Amount) and enter into and comply with a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) in return for OCR’s release of CCDH from liability for “any actions it may have against CCDH under the HIPAA Rules” for the Covered Conduct. The Resolution Agreement only settles the civil monetary penalty and other OCR enforcement liabilities of CCDH with respect to the Covered Conduct. Its provisions expressly state the Resolution Agreement does not affect any exposures of CCDH to CCDH to OCR civil monetary penalties or other enforcement for any HIPAA violations other than the Covered Conduct.

Perhaps even more noteworthy given the HITECH Act’s provisions coordinating the civil and criminal sanctions of HIPAA, while the Resolution Agreement provides no clear indication that the Justice Department might be considering criminally prosecuting CCDH or any other party in relation to the Covered Conduct, the Resolution Agreement also expressly states that its provisions do not affect CCDH’s potential exposure, if any, to criminal prosecution by the Justice Department for a criminal violation of the Privacy Rules under Section 1177 of the Social Security Act.

Implications For Covered Entities & Business Associates

Covered entities and their business associates should heed the CCDH Resolution Agreement as a strong message from OCR to ensure their organizations are complying with HIPAA’s BAA and other requirements. The Resolution Agreement makes clear that the starting point of this compliance effort must be obtaining and maintaining the requisite BAAs for each BA relationship.

To position their organizations to withstand potential investigation by OCR, covered entities and BAs should start by conducting a well-documented audit within the scope of attorney-client privilege both to verify that an appropriate, signed BAA is in place for each BA relationship as well as adequacy of processes for identifying business associate relationships, ensuring that signed BAAs are in effect before BAs access any PHI, and for investigating, reporting and resolving any breaches of the HIPAA Privacy or Security Rules that may arise in the course of operations.

Conducting this audit as soon as possible is particularly important in light of reported findings of widespread compliance concerns. See HIPAA Compliance Survey Churns Up Many Business Associate Problems (January 3, 2017). As the audit process could identify potential violations or other legally sensitive concerns, covered entities and business associates generally will want to arrange for this audit and evaluation to be conducted under the supervision of legal counsel experienced with HIPAA within or pursuant to processes structured with the assistance of legal counsel within the scope of attorney-client privilege.

Beyond confirming all necessary BAAs are in place, covered entities and business associates also generally will want to evaluate the adequacy of BAs’ processes and procedures for maintaining compliance with the Privacy and Security Rules as well as processes and procedures for responding to audits, investigations and complaints, reporting and addressing breaches of electronic and other PHI and other possible compliance concerns under HIPAA and other related laws. In many instances, parties may n wish to revise and strengthen existing BAAs to more specifically define these policies and procedures more specifically as well as indemnification, cyber or other liability coverage requirements and other contractual provisions for allocating potential costs and liabilities arising from breaches, audits, investigations and other expenses associated with the administration of these provisions.

About The Author

Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also has extensive health care reimbursement and insurance experience advising and defending health care providers, payers, and others about Medicare, Medicaid, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, Tri-Care, self-insured group, association, individual and group and other health benefit programs and coverages including but not limited to advising public and private payers about coverage and program design and documentation, advising and defending providers, payers and systems and billing services entities about systems and process design, audits, and other processes; provider credentialing, and contracting; providers and payer billing, reimbursement, claims audits, denials and appeals, coverage coordination, reporting, direct contracting, False Claims Act, Medicare & Medicaid, ERISA, state Prompt Pay, out-of-network and other nonpar, insured, and other health care claims, prepayment, post-payment and other coverage, claims denials, appeals, billing and fraud investigations and actions and other reimbursement and payment related investigation, enforcement, litigation and actions.

In connection with this work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers and other plan sponsors, banks and other financial institutions, and others on risk management and compliance with HIPAA, FACTA, trade secret and other information privacy and data security rules, including the establishment, documentation, implementation, audit and enforcement of policies, procedures, systems and safeguards, investigating and responding to known or suspected breaches, defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR and other federal or state agencies, reporting known or suspected violations, business associate and other contracting, commenting or obtaining other clarification of guidance, training and and enforcement, and a host of other related concerns. Her clients include public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, and others.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Corporate Compliance, data breach, data security, DME, Doctor, drug treatment, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, managed care, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Mental Health, Pharmaceudical, Pharmacy, Psychiatric, Technology, Telemedicine, Uncategorized | Tagged: business associate, clinic, confidentiality, Health Care Provider, Health Plan, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Medical Privacy, Physician, Privacy, Privacy Rule | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

$400K HIPAA Settlement Shows Need To Conduct Timely & Appropriate Risk Assessments

April 12, 2017

Metro Community Provider Network (MCPN), a federally-qualified health center (FQHC), must pay $400,000 and implement a corrective action plan to resolve U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) charges it violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Security Rule by failing to implement a security management process to safeguard electronic protected health information (ePHI). The settlement is the latest reminder to health providers, payers and their business associates to conduct timely risk assessments, implement needed security and otherwise manage HIPAA compliance.

The Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan, like most others before it, resulted from an investigation opened in response to a breach report. On January 27, 2012, MCPN filed a breach report with OCR indicating that a hacker accessed employees’ email accounts and obtained 3,200 individuals’ ePHI through a phishing incident. OCR’s investigation revealed that MCPN took necessary corrective action related to the phishing incident. However, the investigation also revealed that MCPN failed to conduct a risk analysis until mid-February 2012 – well after the hacking incident reported in the breach report.

Prior to the breach incident, MCPN had not conducted a risk analysis to assess the risks and vulnerabilities in its ePHI environment, and, consequently, had not implemented any corresponding risk management plans to address the risks and vulnerabilities identified in a risk analysis.

When MCPN finally conducted a risk analysis, OCR found that risk analysis, as well as all subsequent risk analyses, were insufficient to meet the requirements of the Security Rule.

OCR made a point in announcing the Resolution Agreement of noting it considered MCPN’s status as a FQHC when balancing the significance of the violation with MCPN’s ability to maintain sufficient financial standing to ensure the provision of ongoing patient care. MCPN provides primary medical care, dental care, pharmacies, social work, and behavioral health care services throughout the greater Denver, Colorado metropolitan area to approximately 43,000 patients per year, a large majority of whom have incomes at or below the poverty level. It is likely that OCR would have imposed a much greater settlement amount had the covered entity not been a FQHC serving the poor.

About The Author

Throughout her career, she has helped health industry clients manage workforce, medical staff, vendors and suppliers, medical billing, reimbursement, claims and other provider-payer relations, business partners, and their recruitment, performance, discipline, compliance, safety, compensation, benefits, and training ;board, medical staff and other governance; compliance and internal controls; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; change management; assess, deter, investigate and address staffing, quality, compliance and other performance; meaningful use, EMR, HIPAA and other data security and breach and other health IT and data; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party reporting, audits, investigations and enforcement; government affairs and public policy; and other compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns.

The American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, a Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting, former Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, past ABA JCEB Council Representative, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has worked closely with a diverse range of physicians, hospitals and healthcare systems, DME, Pharma, clinics, health care providers, managed care, insurance and other health care payers, quality assurance, credentialing, technical, research, public and private social and community organizations, and other health industry organizations and their management deal with governance; credentialing, patient relations and care; staffing, peer review, human resources and workforce performance management; outsourcing; internal controls and regulatory compliance; billing and reimbursement; physician, employment, vendor, managed care, government and other contracting; business transactions; grants; tax-exemption and not-for-profit; licensure and accreditation; vendor selection and management; privacy and data security; training; risk and change management; regulatory affairs and public policy and other concerns.
As a core component of her work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively throughout her career with health care providers, health plans and insurers, managed care organizations, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers, banks and other financial institutions, management services organizations, professional associations, medical staffs, accreditation agencies, auditors, technology and other vendors and service providers, and others on legal and operational compliance, risk management and compliance, public policies and regulatory affairs, contracting, payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations and matters including extensive involvement advising, representing and defending public and private hospitals and health care systems; physicians, physician organizations and medical staffs; specialty clinics and pharmacies; skilled nursing, home health, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; billing and management services organizations; consultants; investors; technology, billing and reimbursement and other services and product vendors; products and solutions consultants and developers; investors; managed care organizations, insurers, self-insured health plans and other payers; and other health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; comply with requirements, investigate and respond to Board of Medicine, Health, Nursing, Pharmacy, Chiropractic, and other licensing agencies, Department of Aging & Disability, FDA, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC and other public health, Department of Justice and state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies; JCHO and other accreditation and quality organizations; private litigation and other federal and state health care industry investigation, enforcement including insurance or other liability management and allocation; process and product development, contracting, deployment and defense; evaluation, commenting or seeking modification of regulatory guidance, and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement, and a host of other related concerns for public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, employers, and others.and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns.
Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also has extensive health care reimbursement and insurance experience advising and defending health care providers, payers, and others about Medicare, Medicaid, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, Tri-Care, self-insured group, association, individual and group and other health benefit programs and coverages including but not limited to advising public and private payers about coverage and program design and documentation, advising and defending providers, payers and systems and billing services entities about systems and process design, audits, and other processes; provider credentialing, and contracting; providers and payer billing, reimbursement, claims audits, denials and appeals, coverage coordination, reporting, direct contracting, False Claims Act, Medicare & Medicaid, ERISA, state Prompt Pay, out-of-network and other nonpar insured, and other health care claims, prepayment, post-payment and other coverage, claims denials, appeals, billing and fraud investigations and actions and other reimbursement and payment related investigation, enforcement, litigation and actions.

Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers and other plan sponsors, banks and other financial institutions, and others on risk management and compliance with HIPAA, FACTA, trade secret and other information privacy and data security rules, including the establishment, documentation, implementation, audit and enforcement of policies, procedures, systems and safeguards, investigating and responding to known or suspected breaches, defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR and other federal or state agencies, reporting known or suspected violations, business associate and other contracting, commenting or obtaining other clarification of guidance, training and and enforcement, and a host of other related concerns. Her clients include public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, and others. In addition to representing and advising these organizations, she also has conducted training on Privacy & The Pandemic for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans, as well as HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, medical confidentiality, insurance confidentiality and other privacy and data security compliance and risk management for Los Angeles County Health Department, MGMA, ISSA, HIMMS, the ABA, SHRM, schools, medical societies, government and private health care and health plan organizations, their business associates, trade associations and others.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Ambulatory care, ASC, Border Health, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Civil Rights, Conditions of Participation, Consumer Driven Health Care, Corporate Compliance, data breach, data security, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, drug treatment, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employment, ERISA, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plans, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, managed care, Meaningful Use, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Medicare Advantage, Mental Health, Mental Heatlh, OCR, Patient Empowerment, Peer Review, Pharmaceudical, Pharmacy, Physician, Physician Licensing, Prescription Drugs, Privacy, Psychiatric, public health, Rural Health Care, Technology, Telemedicine, Veterans Health, Veterans Health Administration, Veterans Health Care, Wellness | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

$5.5M Memorial HIPAA Resolution Agreement Shows Need To Audit

February 16, 2017

Memorial Healthcare Systems (MHS) has paid the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) $5.5 million to settle potential violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy and Security Rules. The nonprofit corporation which operates six hospitals, an urgent care center, a nursing home, and a variety of ancillary health care facilities throughout the South Florida area with affiliated physician offices through an Organized Health Care Arrangement (OHCA) also agreed to implement a robust corrective action plan as part of the Resolution Agreement.

The MHS Resolution sends a strong message to all health care providers, health plans health care clearinghouses (Covered Entities) and their business associates that simply adopting HIPAA policies alone is insufficient to avoid getting nailed by OCR under HIPAA; Covered Entities and their business associates also must implement, audit and enforce those policies.

The MHS Resolution Agreement resulted from an investigation initiated by the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) after MHS reported to OCR that protected health information (PHI) of 115,143 individuals had been impermissibly accessed by its employees and impermissibly disclosed to affiliated physician office staff. This information consisted of the affected individuals’ names, dates of birth, and social security numbers. The login credentials of a former employee of an affiliated physician’s office had been used to access the ePHI maintained by MHS on a daily basis without detection from April 2011 to April 2012, affecting 80,000 individuals.

The investigation revealed that although MHS had workforce access policies and procedures in place, MHS failed to implement procedures with respect to reviewing, modifying and/or terminating users’ right of access, as required by the HIPAA Rules. Further, MHS failed to regularly review records of information system activity on applications that maintain electronic protected health information by workforce users and users at affiliated physician practices, despite having identified this risk on several risk analyses conducted by MHS from 2007 to 2012.

MHS’ failure to follow through to implement the controls required by its policies and audit and enforce compliance with HIPAA and its HIPAA policies was a costly mistake. Other Covered Entities should heed MHS’ painful lesson and take documented steps to ensure its HIPAA policies not only are adopted, but also implemented and monitored and audited for compliance.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Ambulatory care, ASC, Border Health, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Civil Rights, Consumer Driven Health Care, Corporate Compliance, data breach, data security, Doctor, drug treatment, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employee Benefits, Employer, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Genetic Information, GINA, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, healthcare, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, Indian Health, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Laws, Meaningful Use, Medicaid, Medical Licensure, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Medicare Advantage | Tagged: audit, civil monetary penalty, Data Breach, healthcare, HIPAA, Hospital, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Learn From Children’s New $3.2M+ HIPAA CMP For “Knowing” Violation of HIPAA Security Rules

February 2, 2017

The just-announced $3.2 million Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) Civil Monetary Penalty (CMP) that Children’s Medical Center of Dallas (Children’s) recently paid for failing to adequately secure electronic protected health information (ePHI) and correct other HIPAA compliance deficiencies demonstrates the risks healthcare providers, health plans and insurers, healthcare clearinghouses and their business associates (“Covered Entities”) run by failing to take appropriate, well-documented actions to timely to secure ePHI on systems and mobile devices or comply with other HIPAA Privacy or Security requirements.

The Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) imposed the $3,217,000.00 Civil Monetary Penalty (CMP) under a January 18, 2017 Final Determination based upon findings that Children’s for years knowingly violated HIPAA by failing to encrypt or otherwise properly secure ePHI on laptops and other mobile devices and failing to comply with many other HIPAA requirements. OCR originally notified Children’s of its intention to impose the CMP based on findings of widespread violations by Children’s of HIPAA in a September 30, 2016 Notice of Proposed Determination (Proposed Determination) that OCR sent to Children’s President of System Clinical Operations, David Berry. Although the Proposed Determination included instructions for requesting a hearing on the Proposed Determination, Children’s paid the CMP rather than exercising these hearing rights.

Breach Notice Investigation Reveals Children’s Failed For Years To Secure ePHI on Mobile Devices Despite Repeated Warnings

According to the Proposed Determination, OCR uncovered widespread HIPAA violations by Children’s while investigating the HIPAA compliance of the Dallas-based pediatric health and hospital system in response to two separate notices of large breaches of ePHI that Children’s filed with OCR in response to the HIPAA Breach Notification Rule. Under the Breach Notification Rule, Covered Entities generally must provide notice of any breach of unsecured ePHI involving more than 500 individuals with OCR, subjects of the breached ePHI and the media within 60 days of receiving notice of the breach. In contrast, for breaches of unsecured ePHI involving fewer than 500 individuals, Covered Entities generally must notify subjects of the breached ePHI within 60 days, but can delay notification to OCR until filing a consolidated annual report of small breaches of ePHI.

The two breach notifications that triggered the OCR investigation leading to the CMP both involved losses of mobile devices containing ePHI that Children’s filed with OCR.

The first breach report, filed on January 18, 2010, notified OCR of the loss at the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport on November 19, 2009 of an unencrypted, non-password protected BlackBerry device containing the ePHI of approximately 3,800 individuals.

The second reported breach report filed on July 5, 2013, reported the theft of an unencrypted laptop with the ePHI of 2,462 individuals from its premises sometime between April 4 and April 9, 2013. The OCR investigation found that although Children’s implemented some physical safeguards to the operating room storage area (e.g., badge access was required, and a security camera was present at one of the entrances), it also provided access to the area to staff who were not authorized to access ePHI. Children’s janitorial staff had unrestricted access to the area where the laptop was stored but did not provide encryption to protect the ePHI on the laptop from access by such unauthorized persons. Children’s internal investigation concluded that the laptop was probably stolen by a member of the janitorial staff.

In the course of investigating these two reported breaches, OCR took note that Children’s previously reported a small breach of unsecured ePHI on an unencrypted mobile device. In a letter dated August 22, 2011, from Children’s Vice President of Compliance and Internal Audit and Chief Compliance Officer Ron Skillens to OCR Equal Opportunity Specialist Jamie Sorley, Mr. Skillens stated that a Children’s workforce member (an unidentified medical resident) lost an iPod device in December 2010. The iPod had been synched to the resident’s Children’s email account, which resulted in the ePHI of at least 22 individuals being placed on the device. The ePHI on the iPod was not encrypted. The loss of the iPod resulted in the impermissible disclosure of ePHI by the medical resident. OCR concluded the ePHI of 22 individuals was impermissibly disclosed, because the workforce member and agent of Children’s provided access to any unauthorized person who discovered the device.

OCR found that the breaches resulted from Children’s violation of the HIPAA Security Rule by failing to encrypt laptops and other mobile devices or and implement other appropriate safeguards for the protection of ePHI on mobile devices;
Failing to appropriately document its decision to not implement encryption on mobile devices and any applicable rationale behind a decision to use alternative security measures to encryption; and
Failing to implement security measures that were an equivalent alternative to the security protection available from encryption solutions.

The Proposed Determination also reports that the OCR ’s investigation revealed that Children repeatedly over several years knowingly failed to implement and administer proper encryption and other safeguards on laptops and other mobile devices containing ePHI despite actual knowledge of the unaddressed risks to unencrypted ePHI in violation of the HIPAA Security Rule dating back to at least 2007. The Proposed Determination notes, for instance, that:

A Security Gap Analysis and Assessment conducted for Children’s December 2006-February 2007 by Strategic Management Systems, Inc. (SMS) (SMS Gap Analysis) identified the absence of risk management as a major finding and recommended that Children’s implement encryption to avoid loss of PHI on stolen or lost laptops.
A separate PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) analysis of threats and vulnerabilities to certain ePHI (PwC Analysis) conducted in August, 2008 for Children’s determined that encryption was necessary and appropriate. The PwC Analysis also determined that a mechanism was not in place to protect data on a laptop, workstation, mobile device, or USB thumb drive if the device was lost or stolen and identified the loss of data at rest through unsecured mobile devices as being “high” risk. PwC identified data encryption as a “high priority” item and recommended that Children’s implement data encryption in the fourth quarter of 2008.
Furthermore, in September 2012, the HHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG) issued the findings from its audit of Children’s that focused on information technology controls for devices such as smartphones and USB drives. Among other things, the report, entitled “Universal Serial Bus Control Weaknesses Found at Children’s Medical Center,” found that Children’s had insufficient controls to prevent data from being written onto unauthorized and unencrypted USB devices and that “without sufficient USB controls, there was a risk that ePHI could have been written onto an unauthorized/unencrypted USB device and taken out of the hospital, resulting in a data breach.” A copy of this report was provided to Mr. Skillens.
Despite the prior breach notifications and warnings from the SMS Gap Analysis, the PwC Analysis and the OIG audit report, Children’s failed to take the necessary steps to encrypt and otherwise safeguard its ePHI on mobile devices. Children’s still had not implemented encryption on all devices as of April 9, 2013 even though appropriate commercial encryption products were available to achieve encryption of laptops, workstations, mobile devices, and USB thumb drives in use by Children’s staff by, at least, the time of the PwC Analysis in 2008. Furthermore, while leaving these deficiencies unresolved, the Proposed Determination notes that Children’s issued unencrypted BlackBerry devices to nurses beginning in 2007 and allowed its workforce members to continue using unencrypted laptops and other mobile devices until at least April 9, 2013 despite the findings of SMS and PwC and Children’s actual knowledge about the risk of maintaining unencrypted ePHI on its devices.

Based on this evidence, OCR concluded that Children’s had “actual knowledge” of the unaddressed threats to ePHI as early as March 2007 and at least one year prior to the reported security incidents. Furthermore, OCR also found that Children’s additionally violated HIPAA by failing to implement sufficient policies and procedures governing the receipt and removal of hardware and electronic media that contain ePHI into and out of its facility, and the movement of these items within the facility prior to at least November 9, 2012. Prior to November 2012, Children’s information technology (IT) assets were inventoried and managed separately from the inventory of devices used within its Biomedical Department. Children’s IT asset policies did not apply to devices that accessed or stored ePHI that were managed by the Biomedical Department. Consequently, Children’s was unable to identify all devices to which the device and media control policy should apply prior to completing a full-scope inventory to identify all information systems containing ePHI in November 9, 2012. As Children’s did not conduct a complete inventory to identify all devices to which its IT asset policies apply to ensure that all devices were covered by its device and media control policies, the Proposed Determination concluded Children’s was out of compliance with the Security Rule at 45 C.P.R. § 164.310(d)(l).

After OCR’s investigation indicated widespread Privacy and Security Rule noncompliance by Children’s, the Proposed Determination states that OCR attempted to negotiate a resolution with Children’s through its informal resolution agreement process from approximately November 6, 2015, to August 30, 2016. When these efforts failed, OCR issued a May 10,2016 Letter of Opportunity that formally informed Children’s that since OCR had been unable to resolve its findings that Children’s violated the Privacy and Security Rules by informal means, OCR was informing Children’s of the preliminary indications of non-compliance and providing Children’s with an opportunity to submit written evidence of mitigating factors under 45 C.F.R. § 160.408 or affirmative defenses under 45 C.F.R. § 160.410 for OCR’s consideration in making a determination of a CMP pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 160.404. The letter stated that Children’s could also submit written evidence to support a waiver of a CMP for the indicated areas of non-compliance. Each of Children’s indicated acts of noncompliance and the potential CMP for them were described in the letter. The letter was delivered to Children’s and received by Children’s agent on May 12, 2016.

Children’s responded to OCR’s letter on or about June 9, 2016. The Proposed Determination states that OCR determined that the information and arguments submitted by Children’s in its June 9, 2016 letter did not support an affirmative defense pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 160.410 or a waiver of the CMP pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 160.412. Accordingly, OCR notified Children’s in its September 30, 2016 Proposed Determination of OCR’s intent to implement the $3,217,000.00 CMP and procedures for appealing this planned CMP assessment. When Children’s did not file an appeal, OCR issued the Final Determination assessing the CMP. OCR reports that Children now has paid the $3,217,000.00 CMP.

Important Lessons For Other Covered Entities & Their Leaders

The Children’s CMP and underlying circumstances provide many key lessons for other Covered Entities. Obviously, the Final Decision drives home the importance of:

Proper encryption and other security and access controls of devices and systems containing ePHI; and
Proper documentation of risk assessments, audits, breach investigations and other events, compliance analysis and conclusions taken in response, and corrective actions selected and implemented in response to these events.

Beyond the importance of documented compliance with encryption and other requirements, the Children’s CMP and its associated Proposed Determination and Final Determinations also illustrate the importance of proper behavior in response to a known or suspected breach. The Proposed Determination and Final Determination make clear that beyond the breaches uncovered in the course of the investigation, OCR’s decision to implement the CMP was influenced by, among other things:

The recurrent disregard and failure by Children to act to address the HIPAA security violations over a period of years despite both repeated notifications of its noncompliance and actual breaches resulting from these compliance deficiencies; and
The failure of Children’s to cooperate with OCR to reach a voluntary resolution agreement which might have allowed Children to resolve its liability for the breaches OCR found by paying a potentially smaller settlement payment and implementing corrective actions to OCR’s satisfaction.

About The Author

Recognized by LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as a “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%/ the highest) and “Top Rated Lawyer,” with special recognition as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: Erisa & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, the author of this uProposed Determinationate is widely known for her 28 plus years’ of work in health care, health benefit, health policy and regulatory affairs and other health industry concerns as a practicing attorney and management consultant, thought leader, author, public policy advocate and lecturer.

Throughout her adult life and nearly 30-year legal career, Ms. Stamer’s legal, management and governmental affairs work has focused on helping health industry, health benefit and other organizations and their management use the law, performance and risk management tools and process to manage people, performance, quality, compliance, operations and risk. Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer helps these and other organizations and their leaders manage their employees, vendors and suppliers, and other workforce members, customers and other’ performance, compliance, compensation and benefits, operations, risks and liabilities, as well as to prevent, stabilize and cleanup legal and operational crises large and small that arise in the course of operations.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, current American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting, former Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, past ABA JCEB Council Representative, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms. Stamer’s includes nearly 30 years’ of work with a diverse range of health industry clients on an extensive range of matters.

Ms. Stamer has worked closely with health industry, managed care and insurance and other businesses and their management, employee benefit plans, governments and other organizations deal with all aspects of staffing, human resources and workforce performance management, internal controls and regulatory compliance, change management and other performance and operations management and compliance. She supports her clients both on a real-time, “on demand” basis and with longer term basis to deal with daily performance management and operations, emerging crises, strategic planning, process improvement and change management, investigations, defending litigation, audits, investigations or other enforcement challenges, government affairs and public policy.

As a core component of her work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively throughout her career with health care providers, health plans and insurers, managed care organizations, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers, banks and other financial institutions, management services organizations, professional associations, medical staffs, accreditation agencies, auditors, technology and other vendors and service providers, and others on legal and operational compliance, risk management and compliance, public policies and regulatory affairs, contracting, payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations and matters including extensive involvement advising, representing and defending public and private hospitals and health care systems; physicians, physician organizations and medical staffs; specialty clinics and pharmacies; skilled nursing, home health, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; billing and management services organizations; consultants; investors; technology, billing and reimbursement and other services and product vendors; products and solutions consultants and developers; investors; managed care organizations, insurers, self-insured health plans and other payers; and other health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; comply with requirements, investigate and respond to Board of Medicine, Health, Nursing, Pharmacy, Chiropractic, and other licensing agencies, Department of Aging & Disability, FDA, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC and other public health, Department of Justice and state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies; JCHO and other accreditation and quality organizations; private litigation and other federal and state health care industry investigation, enforcement including insurance or other liability management and allocation; process and product development, contracting, deployment and defense; evaluation, commenting or seeking modification of regulatory guidance, and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement, and a host of other related concerns for public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, employers, and others.and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns.

Heavily involved in health care and health information technology, data and related process and systems development, policy and operations innovation and a Scribe for ABA JCEB annual agency meeting with OCR for many years who has authored numerous highly-regarded works and training programs on HIPAA and other data security, privacy and use, Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her extensive work and leadership on HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, trade secret, physician and other medical confidentiality and privacy, federal and state data security and data breach and other information privacy and data security rules and concerns including policy design, drafting, administration and training; business associate and other contracting; risk assessments, audits and other risk prevention and mitigation; investigation, reporting, mitigation and resolution of known or suspected breaches, violations or other incidents; and defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR, FTC, state attorneys’ general and other federal or state agencies, other business partners, patients and others. Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers and other plan sponsors, banks and other financial institutions, and others on risk management and compliance with HIPAA, FACTA, trade secret and other information privacy and data security rules, including the establishment, documentation, implementation, audit and enforcement of policies, procedures, systems and safeguards, investigating and responding to known or suspected breaches, defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR and other federal or state agencies, reporting known or suspected violations, business associate and other contracting, commenting or obtaining other clarification of guidance, training and enforcement, and a host of other related concerns. Her clients include public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, and others. In addition to representing and advising these organizations, she also has conducted training on Privacy & The Pandemic for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans, as well as HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, medical confidentiality, insurance confidentiality and other privacy and data security compliance and risk management for Los Angeles County Health Department, ISSA, HIMMS, the ABA, SHRM, schools, medical societies, government and private health care and health plan organizations, their business associates, trade associations and others.

A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Pension Privatization Project with extensive domestic and international public policy and governmental and regulatory affairs experience, Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for regulatory and policy work, advocacy and outreach on healthcare, education, aging, disability, savings and retirement, workforce, ethics, and other policies. Throughout her adult life and career, Ms. Stamer has provided thought leadership; policy and program design, statutory and regulatory development design and analysis; drafted legislation, proposed regulations and other guidance, position statements and briefs, comments and other critical policy documents; advised, assisted and represented health care providers, health plans and insurers, employers, professional. and trade associations, community and government leaders and others on health care, health, pension and retirement, workers’ compensation, Social Security and other benefit, insurance and financial services, tax, workforce, aging and disability, immigration, privacy and data security and a host of other international and domestic federal, state and local public policy and regulatory reforms through her involvement and participation in numerous client engagements, founder and Executive Director of the Coalition for Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE: the Coalition on Patient Empowerment, adviser to the National Physicians Congress for Healthcare Policy, leadership involvement with the US-Mexico Chamber of Commerce, the Texas Association of Business, the ABA JCEB, Health Law, RPTE, Tax, Labor, TIPS, International Life Sciences, and other Sections and Committees, SHRM Governmental Affairs Committee and a host of other involvements and activities.

Beyond her extensive involvement advising and representing clients on privacy and data security concerns and other health industry matters, Ms. Stamer also has served for several years as a scrivener for the ABA JCEB’s meeting with OCR, the Chair of the Southern California ISSA Health Care Privacy & Security Summit, and an editorial advisory board member, author, program chair or steering committee member, and faculties for a multitude of other programs and publications regarding privacy, data security, technology and other compliance, risk management and operational concerns in the health care, health and other insurance, employee benefits and human resources, retail, financial services and other arenas.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on HIPAA and other concerns by her service in the leadership of a broad range of other professional and civic organization including her involvement as the Vice Chair of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association, Executive Director of the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; former Board Compliance Chair and Board member of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, immediate past RPTE Representative to ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative and current RPTE Representative to the ABA Health Law Coordinating Council, former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, a former member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | data breach, data security, Doctor, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Medical Privacy, Physician, Privacy, Uncategorized | Tagged: breach, children's health, Children's Medical Center, Civil Monetary Penalties, civil monetary penalty, CMP, Data, Data Breach, Data Security, EPHI, Health Care, Health Plan, HIPAA, medical, Medical Privacy, mobile device, OCR, PHI, Privacy, Security, Technology | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

$2.7M OCR Settlement Warns HIPAA Covered Entities To Clean Up Compliance

October 28, 2016

A new settlement agreement requiring Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) to pay $2.7 million and implement a comprehensive three-year corrective action plan to resolve charges it violated the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act Privacy & Security Rules (HIPAA) sends a clear warning to other health care providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses (Covered Entities) and their business associates to encrypt devices with protected health information (PHI), have signed HIPAA-compliant business associate agreement in place before letting them access PHI and otherwise keep your HIPAA enterprise risk assessment and compliance up-to-date.

OHSU Charges

The OHSU settlement announced September 23 settled Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights (OCR) charges of multiple, long-standing, systematic HIPAA violations by OHSU uncovered by OCR as a result of investigations initiated in response to three reports of large-scale breaches of electronic protected health information (ePHI) made by OHSU.

OCR opened its HIPAA investigations at OHSU after the large public academic health center and research university centered in Portland, Oregon, submitted three HIPAA breach reports affecting thousands of individuals, including two reports involving unencrypted laptops and another large breach involving a stolen unencrypted thumb drive:

On March 23, 2013, HHS received notification from OHSU regarding a breach of its unsecured electronic protected health information (“ePHI”) resulting from a stolen laptop computer;
On July 28, 2013, HHS received notification from OHSU regarding a breach of its ePHI resulting from storing ePHI at an internet-based service provider without a business associate agreement; and.
On May I, 2013, and on November 8, 2013, HHS notified OHSU of its investigations of these breach incidents, respectively, regarding OHSU’s compliance with the HIPAA Rules.

These incidents each garnered significant local and national press coverage. OCR’s investigation uncovered evidence of widespread vulnerabilities within OHSU’s HIPAA compliance program, including the storage of the ePHI of more than 3,000 individuals on a cloud-based server without a business associate agreement. OCR found significant risk of harm to 1,361 of these individuals due to the sensitive nature of their diagnoses.

OCR found the reported breaches resulted from widespread, long-term, systematic and unresolved HIPAA violations by OHSU that OCR attributed to an inadequate commitment to and oversight of HIPAA compliance by OHSU C-level management which lead OHSU to fail to appropriately monitor and maintain its ongoing compliance and to assess and address changes in its enterprise-wide risk and compliance obligations on an ongoing basis. OHSU performed risk analyses in 2003, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2013, but OCR’s investigation found that these analyses did not cover all ePHI in OHSU’s enterprise, as required by the Security Rule. While the analyses identified vulnerabilities and risks to ePHI located in many areas of the organization, OHSU did not act in a timely manner to implement measures to address these documented risks and vulnerabilities to a reasonable and appropriate level. OHSU also lacked policies and procedures to prevent, detect, contain, and correct security violations and failed to implement a mechanism to encrypt and decrypt ePHI or an equivalent alternative measure for ePHI maintained on its workstations, despite having identified this lack of encryption as a risk.

Based on these findings, OCR concluded that while OHSU initially adopted HIPAA Policies, the reported breaches were the result of a series of widespread and ongoing breaches of HIPAA resulted including the following:

From January 5, 2011, until July 3, 2013, OHSU disclosed the ePHI of 3,044 individuals in violation of Privacy Rules §§160.103 and 164.502(a) when workforce members disclosed the ePHI to a third-party internet-based service provider without obtaining a business associate agreement or other satisfactory assurance that the internet-based service provider would safeguard the ePHI;
From January 5, 2011 until July 3, 2013 OHSU failed to obtain a business associate agreement from an internet-based service provider that was storing ePHI on its behalf as a business associate as required by 45 C.F.R. § 164.308(b);
From January 5, 2011 until July 3, 2013 OHSU failed to implement policies and procedures to prevent, detect, contain, and correct security violations as required under Privacy Rule § 164.308(a)(1)(i);
From July 12, 2010 to present, OHSU failed to implement a mechanism to encrypt and decrypt ePHI or an equivalent alternative measure for all ePHI maintained in OHSU’s enterprise as required by Privacy Rules §§ 164.312(a)(2)(iv) and 164.306(d)(3)); and
From May 29, 2013 until July 3, 2013, OHSU failed to implement policies and procedures to address security incidents in violation of Privacy Rule § 164.308(a)(6)(i).

According to statements made by OCR Director Jocelyn Samuels in OCR’s announcement of the OHSU Settlement, the breaches should not have happened. “From well-publicized large-scale breaches and findings in their own risk analyses, OHSU had every opportunity to address security management processes that were insufficient,” said OCR Director Jocelyn Samuels. OCR’s announcement also signals that OCR views inadequate commitment and oversight by OHSU’s senior management to have played a key role in the creation and perpetuation of the OHSU violations. It quotes OCR Director Jocelyn Samuels as stating, “This settlement underscores the importance of leadership engagement and why it is so critical for the C-suite to take HIPAA compliance seriously.”

To resolve the HIPAA charges, the OHSU Settlement requires OHSU to pay OCR $2,700,000 as well as take a long series of corrective actions detailed in the Corrective Action Plan incorporated into the Settlement Agreement. The requirements of the Corrective Action Plan both seek to address the specific weaknesses that lead to the breaches of unsecured ePHI reported by OHSU in its breach notifications as well as the broader deficiencies in OHSU’s overall HIPAA compliance practice by requiring among other things that OHSU:

Conduct an accurate and thorough assessment of the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of ePHI at all OHSU facilities and on all systems, networks, and devices that create, receive, maintain, or transmit ePHI;.
Develop and present to OCR for approval a comprehensive written risk managementh plan that explains OHSU’s strategy for implementing security measures sufficient to reduce the risks and vulnerabilities identified in the risk analysis to a reasonable and appropriate level based on OHSU’s circumstances as well as a comprehensive, enterprise-wide plan to implement effective oversight of OHSU workforce members to ensure their adherence to HIPAA Rules and OHSU’s internal privacy and security policies and procedures with specific timelines for their expected completion and compensating controls identified in the interim to safeguard OHSU’s ePHI;
Implement and administer the written risk management plan and other safeguards as approved by OCR;
Provide updates to OCR about OHSU’s implementation of required encryption including a Mobile Device Management (MDM) solution that ensures all OHSU- owned and personally-owned mobile devices (tablets, smart phones, and other mobile devices) that access ePHI on OHSU’s secure network are encrypted other than mobile devices for which OHSU has granted exceptions based on documented evidence of the implementation of alternative reasonable compensating controls to protect the ePHI on such devices;
Report to OCR on OHSU’s efforts to a solution to enforce encryption of ePHI on OHSU-owned and personally-owned devices (laptops, desktops, and medical equipment) connecting to OHSU’s secure wired and wireless networks except for any devices for which OHSU has granted exceptions to the encryption requirement;
Report to OCR about its implementation of policies that prohibit the transfer of data containing ePHI from OHSU-owned and personally-owned devices to unencrypted removable storage devices (USB drives and portable hard drives) and implementation of a technical solution that enforces the policies prohibiting transfers of this type when attached to the OHSU secure network, except for any removable storage devices for which OHSU has granted exceptions based on documented evidence of reasonable compensating controls that have been implemented to protect the ePHI on such devices;
Send a communication to all members of the OHSU community describing its commitment to enterprise encryption;
Prepare to the satisfaction of OCR security awareness training materials needed to implement its security management processing including specific privacy and security awareness related to a) use of internet-based information storage services; b) disclosures to third-party entities that require a business associate agreement or other reasonable assurance in place to ensure that the business associate will safeguard the protected health information (PHI) and/or ePHI; c) regarding managers, effective oversight of workforce members’ uses and disclosures of PHI, including ePHI, to ensure the workforce members’ compliance with the Privacy and Security Rules and OHSU’s internal policies and procedures; d) security incident reporting; and e) password management;
Initially train all workforce members with access to PHI and/or ePHI with 120 days of OCR’s approval of the training and thereafter ensure that new workforce members are trained with 15 days of hire and that all workforce members subsequently continue to receive training on an ongoing basis
Review the security awareness training materials annually, and, where appropriate, update the training to reflect changes in Federal law or HHS guidance, any issues discovered during audits or reviews, and any other relevant developments.
Management oversight and reporting to OCR concerning OHSU’s implementation and compliance with the Corrective Action Plan and HIPAA.

OHSU Lessons For Other Covered Entities & Business Associates & Their Management

The OHSU Settlement Agreement gives notice to all Covered Entities and business associates and their C-level management that OCR expects these organizations and their top management to get serious about HIPAA compliance. The OHSU Settlement shows Covered Entities and their business associates that they must constantly reassess their required HIPAA Privacy and Security policies and safeguards as well as risks to PHI and ePHI. In the event of a breach or audit, these organization’s leadership needs to ensure their organization can show both a strong commitment to HIPAA compliance and their actions to ensure their organization appropriately monitors events and developments that could impact the adequacy of their existing measures and timely update their systems and security, policies, procedures, training and other relevant safeguards.

The Settlement also makes clear that Covered Entities and their business associates should ensure that their organization possesses a well-documented current enterprise-wide risk assessment, as well as has in place and is administering as necessary to maintain the currency and adequacy of its risk assessment strong practices for conducting documented evaluations of their own HIPAA security, policies, practices, audits and investigations and other procedures necessary to comply with HIPAA, taking into account recent OCR guidance, its initiation of its Phase II audit program, the insights offered by OCR’s ever growing list of enforcement actions and compliance tools, as well as changes in systems, documentation, software, equipment or other occurrences within the operations of the Covered Entity or business associate’s operations that could impact the currency and adequacy of its risk assessment or otherwise raise compliance risks.

In this respect, Covered Entities and business associates are encouraged to take special note of the advisability of specifically reviewing and updating their HIPAA policies, practices, business associate agreements, training, oversight and documentation to in response to the guidance and insight that OCR provides, including:;

HIPAA Settlement Illustrates The Importance Of Reviewing And Updating, As Necessary, Business Associate Agreements (September 23, 2016); Business Associate’s Failure to Safeguard Nursing Home Residents’ PHI Leads to $650,000 HIPAA Settlement (June 29, 2016);
Clarification of Permissible Fees for HIPAA Right of Access – Flat Rate Option Up to $6.50 is Not a Cap on All Fees for Copies of PHI (May 23, 2016)
Guidance On HIPAA & Cloud Computing released October 6, 2016, which provides guidance for Covered Entities and business associates about contracting and other procedures that HIPAA-regulated Covered Entities and their business associates should implement when contracting for and using Cloud Computing Services;
Joint Guidance published October 21, 2016 by the Federal Trade Commission and OCR reminding Covered Entities and their business associates of the need to ensure that in addition to fulfilling the technical content requirements of HIPAA, their HIPAA authorizations, privacy practices notices and other HIPAA notices and communications are written and presented in plan language, include required specific terms and descriptions and in a manner that does not mislead individuals about their rights or about what is happening with their PHI. Furthermore, where Covered Entities and their business associates contemplate that businesses associates may request that individuals sign HIPAA authorizations, Covered Entities and their business associates should the Covered Entity and business associate have in place a current, signed HIPAA-compliant business associate agreement that expressly authorizes the business associate to request the HIPAA authorization in light of statements in the Joint Guidance indicating that OCR views the Privacy Rules as prohibiting a business associate from asking a consumer to sign a HIPAA authorization unless its business associate contract expressly permits the business associate to do so; and
Other OCR enforcement actions, tools and guidance. See, e.g. All Covered Entities Should Learn Lessons From Mississippi Medical Center’s $2.75 Million HIPAA Resolution Agreement; Providers, Health Plans Should Confirm Copy Charges Comply With New OCR HIPAA Guidance; $2 Million+ HIPAA Settlement, FAQ Warn Providers Protect PHI From Media, Other Recording Or Use; Addressing Gaps in Cybersecurity: OCR Releases Crosswalk Between HIPAA Security Rule and NIST Cybersecurity Framework; HIPAA Security Rule Crosswalk to NIST Cybersecurity Framework.

Employer and other health plan sponsors, health plan fiduciaries and business associates, and their service providers also generally will want to consider their responsibilities to provide and enforce employer certifications, as well as the fiduciary obligations health plan fiduciaries under the fiduciary responsibility rules of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Among other things, wrongful disclosure of PHI to a sponsoring employer or others could violate HIPAA or other plan terms. Furthermore, Department of Labor officials have indicated stated that a fiduciary’s general fiduciary responsibilities can apply to the protection and administration of PHI and other health plan information as well as create a duty by a responsible fiduciary to prudently investigate and take steps to address breaches or other potential concerns that place PHI at risk. See, HIPAA Settlement Warns Health Plans, Sponsoring Employers & Business Associates To Manage HIPAA Risks.

Furthermore, as breaches of PHI and other violations of HIPAA also frequently give rise to responsibilities or risks under a broad range of other federal and state laws medical and financial privacy and data security, Medicare and other terms of federal program participation, medical credentialing, licensure and ethics, insurance and Employee Retirement Income Security Act fiduciary responsibilities in the case of health plans, contractual, tort and other exposures, Covered Entities and their business associates also generally are best served to take into account these other responsibilities and exposures in conjunction with the design and administration of their HIPAA compliance and risk management policies and practices.

Covered Entities and their business associates also should seek advice from legal counsel regarding the adequacy of their compliance, investigatory, training, management oversight, training, reporting, documentation, document retention and other processes and procedures that could reduce risks of HIPAA violations and position the organization to effectively and more efficiently respond to a potential breach, audit, investigation or enforcement action and mitigate the costs and potential liability exposures that increasingly attends these events. In addition, given the typically high financial, operational and legal costs typically incurred to conduct investigations, report and redress breaches, and respond to OCR audits or investigations, much less make any payments and implement any corrective actions required to settle OCR changes, most Covered Entities and their business associations will want to consider the advisability and adequacy of insurance and other sources of funding or indemnification for the often substantial costs that often attend a HIPAA breach, audit or enforcement event. Since HIPAA violations under certain circumstances also can give rise to felony criminal liability, boards of directors and other leaders of Covered Entities and business associates also will want to ensure that their HIPAA compliance policies and practices also are incorporated and monitored by management as part of their organization’s overall Federal Sentencing Guideline Compliance programs and practices.

About The Author

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, past Group Chair and current Defined Contribution Plans Committee Co-Chair, Groups and Substantive Committee and Membership Committee Members, past Welfare Plans Committee Chair and Co-Chair, and former Fiduciary Responsibility Vice Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, current ABA International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, former ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative and Marketing Committee Chair and a prolific author and highly popular speaker and consultant, Ms. Stamer helps management manage.

Ms. Stamer’s legal and management consulting work throughout her nearly 30-year career has focused on helping organizations and their management use the law and process to manage people, process, compliance, operations and risk. Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer helps public and private, domestic and international businesses, governments, and other organizations and their leaders manage their employees, vendors and suppliers, and other workforce members, customers and other’ performance, compliance, compensation and benefits, operations, risks and liabilities, as well as to prevent, stabilize and cleanup workforce and other legal and operational crises large and small that arise in the course of operations.

Ms. Stamer works with businesses and their management, employee benefit plans, governments and other organizations deal with all aspects of human resources and workforce, internal controls and regulatory compliance, change management and other performance and operations management and compliance. She supports her clients both on a real-time, “on demand” basis and with longer term basis to deal with daily performance management and operations, emerging crises, strategic planning, process improvement and change management, investigations, defending litigation, audits, investigations or other enforcement challenges, government affairs and public policy.

As a core component of her work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively throughout her career with health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers, banks and other financial institutions, their technology and other vendors and service providers, and others on legal and operational risk management and compliance with HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, trade secret, physician and other medical confidentiality and privacy, federal and state data security and data breach and other information privacy and data security rules and concerns; prevention, investigation, response, mitigation and resolution of known or suspected data or privacy breaches or other incidents; defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR, FTC, state attorneys’ general and other federal or state agencies; reporting and redressing known or suspected breaches or other violations; business associate and other contracting; insurance or other liability management and allocation; process and product development, contracting, deployment and defense; evaluation, commenting or seeking modification of regulatory guidance, and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement, and a host of other related concerns for public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, employers, and others.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on HIPAA and other concerns by her service in the leadership of a broad range of other professional and civic organization including her involvement as the Vice Chair of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association, Executive Director of the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; former Board Compliance Chair and Board member of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, immediate past RPTE Representative to ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative and current RPTE Representative to the ABA Health Law Coordinating Council, former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, a former member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

Ms. Stamer also is a highly popular lecturer, symposium and chair, faculty member and author, who publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry, human resources, employment and other privacy, data security and other technology, regulatory and operational risk management. Examples of her many highly regarded publications on these matters include “Protecting & Using Patient Data In Disease Management: Opportunities, Liabilities And Prescriptions,” “Privacy Invasions of Medical Care-An Emerging Perspective,” “Cybercrime and Identity Theft: Health Information Security: Beyond HIPAA,” as well as thousands of other publications, programs and workshops these and other concerns for the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, American Health Lawyers, Society of Human Resources Professionals, the Southwest Benefits Association, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, Lexis-Nexis, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, the HCCA, ISSA, HIMSS, Modern Healthcare, Managed Healthcare, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society of CPAs, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other symposia and publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications and speaks and conducts training for a broad range of professional organizations and for clientson the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see CynthiaStamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via email here or via telephone to (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Consumer Driven Health Care, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, health care reimbursement, healthcare, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, Hospital, hospitals, Medical Privacy, OCR, Physician, Physician Licensing, Privacy, Rural Health Care, Uncategorized | Tagged: HIPAA, HITECH, medical, Privacy, Security, Technology | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

$2.4M+ St. Joseph Health HIPAA Settlement Teaching Lesson For Other HIPAA-Covered Entities & Business Associates

October 25, 2016

St. Joseph Health (SJH) has agreed to pay a $2.4 million plus settlement payment, conduct an enterprise-wide risk analysis and implement and administer a comprehensive correction plan under a Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan (SJH Settlement) reached with the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) to settle OCR charges that SJH violated the Privacy & Security Rules of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) by allowing files containing electronic protected health information (ePHI) of 31,800 individuals that SJH created for its participation in the Medicare meaningful use program to be publicly accessible on the internet from February 1, 2011, until February 13, 2012. The SJH Settlement announced here by OCR on October 18, 2016 demonstrates the mounting HIPAA enforcement exposures that HIPAA-covered health care providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses and their business associates (Covered Entities) risk when a breach of ePHI or other prohibited use, access, destruction or disclosure of ePHI or other personal health information (PHI) results from the failure of the Covered Entity or its business associates to properly protect or secure it in accordance with HIPAA. A review of the SJH Settlement drives home the point that Covered Entities should not assume that meaningful use or other electronic recordkeeping systems containing ePHI are properly secured in accordance with HIPAA.

SJH Investigation & Charges Resulting In $2.4 Million+ Settlement

A nonprofit integrated Catholic health care delivery system sponsored by the St. Joseph Health Ministry, who through its 24,000 employees and 6,000 physicians provides a range of health care services to more than 137,000 inpatients and 3.6 million outpatients each year at SHS’ 4 acute care hospitals, home health agencies, hospice care, outpatient services, skilled nursing facilities, community clinics and physician organizations located throughout California and in parts of Texas and New Mexico.

OCR’s charges against SJH arose out of OCR’s investigation into a 2012 breach notification report SJS filed with OCR. On February 14, 2012, SJH reported to OCR that files containing electronic protected health information (ePHI) of 31,800 individuals from five of the SJH hospitals-St. Jude Medical Center, Mission Hospital, Queen of the Valley Medical Center, Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, and Petaluma Valley Hospital that SJH created for its participation in the meaningful use program were publicly accessible on the internet from February 1, 2011, until February 13, 2012, via Google and possibly other internet search engines.

SJH’s report to OCR indicated that this public access resulted from a configuration within its network server in which PDF files containing following patient information were uploaded: patient names; BMI; blood pressure; lab results; smoking status; diagnoses lists; medication allergies; advance directive status and demographic information (language, ethnicity, race, sex, and birth date). The server SJH purchased to store the files included a file sharing application whose default settings allowed anyone with an internet connection to access them. Upon implementation of this server and the file sharing application, SJH did not examine or modify it. As a result, the public had unrestricted access to PDF files containing the ePHI of 31,800 individuals, including patient names, health statuses, diagnoses, and demographic information from February 14, 2012 until SJH blocked external access to the ePHI when it shut down the application February 13, 2012.

OCR’s investigation indicated the following potential violations of the HIPAA Rules:

From February 1, 2011 to February 13, 2012, SJH potentially disclosed the PHI of 31,800 individuals;
Evidence indicated that SJH failed to conduct an evaluation in response to the environmental and operational changes presented by implementation of a new server for its meaningful use project, thereby compromising the security of ePHI;
Although SJH hired a number of contractors to assess the risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity and availability of ePHI held by SJH, evidence indicated that this was conducted in a patchwork fashion and did not result in an enterprise-wide risk analysis, as required by the HIPAA Security Rule.

SJH Settlement Agreement Highlights

Under the settlement agreement with SJH that OCR announced on October 18, 2016, SJH must pay a $2,140,500 settlement payment and adopt a comprehensive corrective action plan which among other things, requires SJH to conduct an enterprise-wide risk analysis, develop and implement a risk management plan, revise its policies and procedures, and train its staff on these policies and procedures. SJH’s Chief Executive Officer, Annette M. Walker, is named in the Corrective Action Plan as the SJH authorized representative and contact person responsible for overseeing the CAP implementation.

Among other things, the Corrective Action Plan specifically requires that SJH:

Within 240 days, conduct an enterprise-wide analysis and provide a report to OCR which includes a complete inventory of all electronic equipment, data systems, and applications that contain or store ePHI, and prepare and deliver to OCR for review an enterprise-wide risk analysis that identifies all security risks and vulnerabilities that incorporates all electronic equipment, data systems, and applications controlled, administered, or owned by SJH, its workforce members, and affiliated staff that contains, stores, transmits, or receives electronic protected health information (ePHJ);
Revise this risk analysis plan as directed by OCR based on its review of the presented risk analysis;
Develop and implement to the satisfaction of OCR an organization-wide risk management plan to address and mitigate any security risks and vulnerabilities identified in the risk analysis;
Distribute the risk management plan as finally approved by OCR to to workforce members involved with implementation of the plan within 30 days of OCR approval;
Revise to OCR’s satisfaction, adopt and implement within 30 days of OCR’s approval compliant HIPAA policies and procedures;
Prepare for review of OCR training materials and once approved by OCR, provide initial training to required workforce members, and obtain certification of completion of that training from each required workforce member within 60 days of OCR’s approval of the training and thereafter at least annually as long as the Corrective Action Plan remains in force;
Promptly conduct a documented investigation of any information indicating a potential workforce member violation of the new HIPAA policies in the manner required by OCR and if the investigation confirms a violation (Reportable Event), notify OCR of the relevant facts, findings, corrective actions and sanctions imposed against the violating workforce member in the manner required by the Corrective Action Plan;
Submit annual report to OCR signed and attested to by an SJH officer, which contains the information and attestations of compliance with the requirements of the Corrective Action Plan in accordance with the Corrective Action Plan;
Retain for inspection and copying and provide to OCR upon request all documents and records relating to compliance with this Corrective Action Plan for six (6) years from the Effective Date of the SJH Settlement Agreement.

Take Away For Other Covered Entities & Business Associates

To help safeguard their own organizations against potential sanctions from OCR and other HIPAA enforcement risks, Covered Entities and their business associates should ensure that their organization possesses a well-documented current enterprise-wide risk assessment, as well as has in place and is administering as necessary to maintain the currency and adequacy of its risk assessment strong practices for conducting documented evaluations of their own HIPAA security, policies, practices, audits and investigations and other procedures necessary to comply with HIPAA, taking into account recent OCR guidance, its initiation of its Phase II audit program, the insights offered by the SJH and other OCR’s ever growing list of enforcement actions and compliance tools, as well as changes in systems, documentation, software, equipment or other occurrences within the operations of the Covered Entity or business associate’s operations that could impact the currency and adequacy of its risk assessment or otherwise raise compliance risks..

A series of recent OCR Resolution Agreements emphasizing the need for Covered Entities and their Business Associates to verify that have in place, and review and update as necessary business associate agreements e.g .HIPAA Settlement Illustrates The Importance Of Reviewing And Updating, As Necessary, Business Associate Agreements (September 23, 2016); Business Associate’s Failure to Safeguard Nursing Home Residents’ PHI Leads to $650,000 HIPAA Settlement (June 29, 2016)
Clarification of Permissible Fees for HIPAA Right of Access – Flat Rate Option Up to $6.50 is Not a Cap on All Fees for Copies of PHI (May 23, 2016)
Guidance On HIPAA & Cloud Computing released October 6, 2016, which provides guidance for Covered Entities and business associates about contracting and other procedures that HIPAA-regulated Covered Entities and their business associates should implement when contracting for and using Cloud Computing Services;
Joint Guidance published October 21, 2016 by the Federal Trade Commission and OCR reminding Covered Entities and their business associates of the need to ensure that in addition to fulfilling the technical content requirements of HIPAA, their HIPAA authorizations, privacy practices notices and other HIPAA notices and communications are written and presented in plan language, include required specific terms and descriptions and in a manner that does not mislead individuals about their rights or about what is happening with their PHI. Furthermore, where Covered Entities and their business associates contemplate that businesses associates may request that individuals sign HIPAA authorizations, Covered Entities and their business associates should the Covered Entity and business associate have in place a current, signed HIPAA-compliant business associate agreement that that expressly authorizes the business associate to request the HIPAA authorization in light of statements in the Joint Guidance indicating that OCR views the Privacy Rules as prohibiting a business associate from asking a consumer to sign a HIPAA authorization unless its business associate contract expressly permits the business associate to do so; and
Other OCR enforcement actions, tools and guidance. See, e.g. All Covered Entities Should Learn Lessons From Mississippi Medical Center’s $2.75 Million HIPAA Resolution Agreement; Providers, Health Plans Should Confirm Copy Charges Comply With New OCR HIPAA Guidance; $2 Million+ HIPAA Settlement, FAQ Warn Providers Protect PHI From Media, Other Recording Or Use; Addressing Gaps in Cybersecurity: OCR Releases Crosswalk Between HIPAA Security Rule and NIST Cybersecurity Framework; HIPAA Security Rule Crosswalk to NIST Cybersecurity Framework.

As breaches of PHI and other violations of HIPAA also frequently give rise to responsibilities or risks under a broad range of other federal and state laws medical and financial privacy and data security, Medicare and other terms of federal program participation, medical credentialing, licensure and ethics, insurance and Employee Retirement Income Security Act fiduciary responsibilities in the case of health plans, contractual, tort and other exposures, Covered Entities and their business associates also generally are best served to take into account these other responsibilities and exposures in conjunction with the design and administration of their HIPAA compliance and risk management policies and practices.

About The Author

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely recognized for her extensive work and pragmatic thought leadership, experience, publications and training on HIPAA and other privacy, medical records and data and other health care and health plan concerns.

Recognized as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in both Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law, a “Texas Top Lawyer,” an “AV-Preeminent” and “Top Rated Lawyer” by Martindale-Hubble and as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” in employee benefits by D Magazine; Ms. Stamer has more than 28 years of extensive proven, pragmatic knowledge and experience representing and advising health industry clients and others on operational, regulatory and other compliance, risk management, product and process development, public policy and other key concerns.

As a core component of her work as the Managing Shareholder of Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, PC, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively throughout her career with health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers, banks and other financial institutions, their technology and other vendors and service providers, and others on legal and operational risk management and compliance with HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, trade secret, physician and other medical confidentiality and privacy, federal and state data security and data breach and other information privacy and data security rules and concerns; prevention, investigation, response, mitigation and resolution of known or suspected data or privacy breaches or other incidents; defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR, FTC, state attorneys’ general and other federal or state agencies; reporting and redressing known or suspected breaches or other violations; business associate and other contracting; insurance or other liability management and allocation; process and product development, contracting, deployment and defense; evaluation, commenting or seeking modification of regulatory guidance, and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement, and a host of other related concerns for public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, employers, and others.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares shared her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on HIPAA and other concerns by her service in the leadership of a broad range of other professional and civic organization including her involvement as the Vice Chair of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association, Executive Director of the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; former Board Compliance Chair and Board member of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, immediate past RPTE Representative to ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative and current RPTE Representative to the ABA Health Law Coordinating Council, former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, a former member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

Ms. Stamer also is a highly popular lecturer, symposia chair and author, who publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry, human resources, employment and other privacy, data security and other technology, regulatory and operational risk management. Examples of her many highly regarded publications on these matters include “Protecting & Using Patient Data In Disease Management: Opportunities, Liabilities And Prescriptions,” “Privacy Invasions of Medical Care-An Emerging Perspective,” “Cybercrime and Identity Theft: Health Information Security: Beyond HIPAA,” as well as thousands of other publications, programs and workshops these and other concerns for the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, American Health Lawyers, Society of Human Resources Professionals, the Southwest Benefits Association, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, Lexis-Nexis, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, the HCCA, ISSA, HIMSS, Modern Healthcare, Managed Healthcare, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society of CPAs, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other symposia and publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications and speaks and conducts training for a broad range of professional organizations and for clientson the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see CynthiaStamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via email here or via telephone to (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Ambulatory care, ARRA, Civil Rights, Conditions of Participation, Corporate Compliance, data breach, data security, DME, Doctor, drug treatment, Durable Medical Equipment, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employee Benefits, FACTA, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Genetic Information, GINA, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, Health Policy, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, Indian Health, Laws, managed care, Meaningful Use, Medical Malpractice, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Medicare Advantage, Mental Health, Mental Heatlh, Outcomes Data, Pharmaceudical, Pharmacy, Privacy, Psychiatric, Public Policy, Uncategorized, Wellness | Tagged: HIPAA, Meaningful Use, Technology | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

New Rule Gives ONC More Power Over Electronic Health Record Providers

October 16, 2016

The Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC) will have more oversight over certifying electronic health records and other technologies that store, share and analyze health information for consumers and the authority to ask developers to pull noncompliant products from the market under a new Final Rule scheduled for official publication in the Federal Register on October 19, 2016. The Final Rule will give ONC power to decertify health IT products and issue a cease-and-desist notice to prevent the future sale or marketing of products that don’t comply with regulations or found to pose a risk to public health or safety. Developers of decertified products also would have to notify affected customers and providers who purchased the products.

About The Author
Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, current American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, former scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting and JCEB Council Representative, former Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, the former Board President and Treasurer of the Richardson Development Center for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, and past Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, is AV-Preeminent (the highest) rated attorney repeatedly recognized for her nearly 30 years of experience and knowledge representing and advising healthcare, health plan and other health industry and others on these and other regulatory, workforce, risk management, technology, public policy and operations matters as a Martindale-Hubble as a “LEGAL LEADER™” and “Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law, Labor and Employment Law, and Business & Commercial Law and among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” by D Magazine.

Ms. Stamer’s health industry experience includes advising hospitals, nursing home, home health, rehabilitation and other health care providers and health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; prevent, conduct and investigate, and respond to peer review and other quality concerns; and to respond to Board of Medicine, Department of Aging & Disability, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns.

Ms. Stamer also is known for her experience in HIPAA and other privacy and data security and breach concerns. The scribe for ABA JCEB annual agency meeting with OCR for many years, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers and other plan sponsors, banks and other financial institutions, and others on risk management and compliance with HIPAA, FACTA, trade secret and other information privacy and data security rules, including the establishment, documentation, implementation, audit and enforcement of policies, procedures, systems and safeguards, investigating and responding to known or suspected breaches, defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR and other federal or state agencies, reporting known or suspected violations, business associate and other contracting, commenting or obtaining other clarification of guidance, training and enforcement, and a host of other related concerns. Her clients include public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, and others. In addition to representing and advising these organizations, she also has conducted training on Privacy & The Pandemic for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans, as well as HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, medical confidentiality, insurance confidentiality and other privacy and data security compliance and risk management for Los Angeles County Health Department, ISSA, HIMMS, the ABA, SHRM, schools, medical societies, government and private health care and health plan organizations, their business associates, trade associations and others.

You can get more information about her health industry experience here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here..
About Solutions Law Press Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, compensation, data security and privacy, health care, insurance, and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and other key operational concerns.

If you found these updates of interest, you may be interested in other recent Solutions Law Press, Inc. updates available here.

For important information about this communication see here. THE FOLLOWING DISCLAIMER IS INCLUDED TO COMPLY WITH AND IN RESPONSE TO U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR 230 REGULATIONS. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Accreditation, ASC, Clinical pathway, data breach, data security, DME, Doctor, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Federal Health Center, Health Care, Health care coding, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, health care reimbursement, Health IT, HIPAA, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Meaningful Use, Medical Records, Medicare Fee Schedule, Medicare Fee Schedule, Physician, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

All Covered Entities Should Learn Lessons From Mississippi Medical Center’s $2.75 Million HIPAA Resolution Agreement

July 27, 2016

Health care providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses (covered entities) and their business associates should reevaluate the adequacy of their practices and procedures for the protection of electronic protected health information (ePHI) on or accessible through laptops or other mobile devices in light of the $2.75 million penalty and other schooling the Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) just gave the University of Mississippi (UM) Medical Center (UMMC) documented in a July 7, 2016 Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan (Resolution Agreement) resolving OCR charges of multiple violations of the privacy, security and breach notification requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) OCR says it uncovered while investigating UMMC’s breach notification report to OCR of the loss a laptop containing 328 files containing the ePHI of an estimated 10,000 patients.

UMMC Report of Missing Laptop Leads To Multiple Charges & Resolution Agreement

Mississippi’s sole public academic health science center, UMMC provides patient care in four specialized hospitals on the Jackson campus and at clinics throughout Jackson and the State as well as conducts medical education and research functions. Its designated health care component, UMMC, includes University Hospital, the site of the breach in this case, located on the main UMMC campus in Jackson.

The settlement agreed to by UMMC stems from charges resulting from an OCR investigation of UMMC triggered by a breach of unsecured electronic protected health information (“ePHI”) affecting approximately 10,000 individuals.

Like many prior resolution agreements previously announced by OCR, UMMC’s HIPAA woes came to light after a laptop went missing. OCR learned of the breach and opened its investigation in response to a March 21, 2013 notification UMMC filed with OCR. UMMC made the breach notification to comply with HIPAA’s Breach Notification Rule requirement that health care providers, health plans and healthcare clearinghouses (Covered Entities) timely notify affected individuals, OCR and others of breaches of unsecured ePHI.

UMMC’s breach notification disclosed that UMMC’s privacy officer had discovered a password-protected laptop containing ePHI of thousands of UMMC patients missing from UMMC’s Medical Intensive Care Unit (MICU). UMMC additionally reported that based on its investigation, UMMC believed that the missing laptop likely was stolen by a visitor to the MICU who had inquired about borrowing one of the laptops.

After discovering the loss, UMMC disclosed the breach to local media and on its website and notified OCR of the breach but apparently did not individually notify the subjects of the missing ePHI.

In keeping with its announced policy of investigating all breach reports impacting 500 or more individuals, OCR opened an investigation into UMMC’s breach report. Based on this investigation, OCR concluded that while the laptop apparently was password protected, UMMC had breached the Security Rules because ePHI stored on a UMMC network drive was vulnerable to unauthorized access via UMMC’s wireless network because users could use a generic username and password to access an active directory containing 67,000 files including 328 files containing the ePHI of an estimated 10,000 patients.

While OCR’s investigation confirmed that UMMC had implemented policies and procedures pursuant to the HIPAA Rules, OCR’s additionally found that the theft of the laptop that prompted UMMC’s breach report resulted from broad deficiencies in UMMC’s implementation and administration of these policies and its practices.

Based on these findings, OCR charged UMMC with the following HIPAA violations:

From the compliance date of the Security Rule, April 20, 2005, through the settlement date, UMMC violated 45 C.F.R. §164.308(a)(1)(i) by failing to implement policies and procedures to prevent, detect, contain, and correct security violations, including conducting an accurate and thorough assessment of the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of all of the ePHI it holds, and implementing security measures sufficient to reduce risks and vulnerabilities to a reasonable and appropriate level;
From January 19, 2013, until March 1, 2014, UMMC violated 45 C.F.R. §164.310(c) by failing to implement physical safeguards for all workstations that access ePHI to restrict access to authorized users;
From the compliance date of the Security Rule, April 20, 2005, to March 14, 2013, UM violated 45 C.F.R. § 164.312 (a)(2)(i) by failing to assign a unique user name and/or number for identifying and tracking user identity in information systems containing ePHI including, for example, allowing workforce members to access ePHI on a shared department network drive through a generic account, preventing UMMC from tracking which specific users were accessing ePHI; and
While UMMC provided notification on UMMC’s website and in local media outlets following the discovery of the reported breach of unsecured ePHI,, UMMC violated the Breach Notification Rule by failing to notify each individual whose unsecured ePHI was reasonably believed to have been accessed, acquired, used, or disclosed as a result of the breach.

Finally, OCR determined that UMMC was aware of risks and vulnerabilities to its systems as far back as April 2005, yet took no significant risk management activity until after the breach, due largely to organizational deficiencies and insufficient institutional oversight.

To resolve these charges, UMMC agrees in the Resolution Agreement to pay OCR $2.75 million and implement a comprehensive compliance plan which among other things, requires UMMC to conduct a sweeping review and correct its HIPAA privacy, security and breach notification policies and their implementation and administration to comply with HIPAA as well as implement and administer detailed management and OCR oversight and reporting processes over the implementation and administration of these procedures.

Lessons For Other Covered Entities From UMMC Resolution Agreement

The UMMC charges and Resolution Agreement contains several key lessons for other covered entities and their business associates, which OCR’s July 21, 2016 announcement warns other covered entities and business associates to heed..

Certainly, the $2.75 million settlement amount reaffirms that covered entities and their business associates risk substantial liability for failing to properly assess and protect the security of ePHI in accordance with HIPAA’s Privacy and Security Rule.

Furthermore, the charges and Resolution Agreement also adds a new twist to OCR’s now well established to stiffly sanction covered entities and their business associates that fail appropriately assess and address risks to the security of their ePHI on or accessible from laptops or other mobile devices. Through previous resolution agreements and guidance, OCR has made clear that it interprets the HIPAA Security Rule as generally requiring that covered entities and business associates encrypt all laptops or other mobile devices containing ePHI. The UMMC charges and Resolution Agreement makes clear that the responsibility to protect ePHI on or accessible through laptops or other mobile devices does not end with encryption. Rather, the Resolution Agreement makes clear that covered entities and their business associates also must take appropriate, well-documented steps to monitor, assess, identify, and timely and effectively address other potential risks to the security of the ePHI.

The Resolution Agreement makes clear that these additional responsibilities include, but are not necessarily limited to ensuring that proper safeguards are implemented and enforced to secure access not only to the ePHI contained on the laptop as well as other data bases and systems containing ePHI accessible through the laptop. In this respect, the Resolution Agreement particularly highlights the need for covered entities and their business associates to assess risks and take appropriate steps:

To safeguard the physical security of laptops and other mobile devices;
To prevent the use of generic or other unsecure passwords to access ePHI on or accessible through the laptop or other mobile device;
To establish and administer appropriate, well-documented processes for assessing and addressing the adequacy of safeguards for and potential threats to the security of ePHI both initially and on an ongoing basis in a manner that meaningfully assesses the actual risks and effectiveness of safeguards against these risks, including those resulting from nonadherence to required safeguards and practices such as the sharing of passwords, changing systems or circumstances, and other developments that potentially threaten the adequacy of ePHI security.

Furthermore, OCR’s July 21, 2016 press release concerning the Resolution Agreement also sends a clear message to all covered entities and business associates that OCR views HIPAA as requiring organizations not only to adopt written policies and procedures that comply on paper or in theory with HIPAA, but also to take steps to monitor and maintain the effectiveness of their safeguard by continuously assessing and monitoring their HIPAA risks and acting as necessary to ensure that required safeguards of protected health information and ePHI and other HIPAA requirements are effectively implemented and administered in operation as well as form.

In OCR’s Press Release announcing the Resolution Agreement, OCR Director Jocelyn Samuels. Stated, “We at OCR remain particularly concerned with unaddressed risks that may lead to impermissible access to ePHI.” She also warned “In addition to identifying risks and vulnerabilities to their ePHI, entities must also implement reasonable and appropriate safeguards to address them within an appropriate time frame.”

Additionally, the Resolution Agreement also illustrates need for covered entities and business associates to timely provide all individual and other notifications and otherwise fully comply with all requirements of the Breach Notification Rules.

Since the risk of a breach is ever-present even for Covered Entities and business associates exercising the highest degree of care to safeguard PHI and maintain compliance with HIPAA, Covered Entities and business associates are wise to take steps to position themselves to be able to demonstrate the adequacy of both their written policies and procedures and the effectiveness of their implementation and enforcement including ongoing documented practices for assessing, monitoring and addressing security risks and other compliance concerns as well as prepare to comply with the breach notification requirements in the event they experience their own breach of unsecured ePHI.

About The Author

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, current American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, former scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting and JCEB Council Representative, former Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, the former Board President and Treasurer of the Richardson Development Center for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, and past Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, is AV-Preeminent (the highest) rated attorney repeatedly recognized for her nearly 30 years of experience and knowledge representing and advising healthcare, health plan and other health industry and others on these and other regulatory, workforce, risk management, technology, public policy and operations matters as a Martindale-Hubble as a “LEGAL LEADER™” and “Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law, Labor and Employment Law, and Business & Commercial Law and among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” by D Magazine.

You can get more information about her health industry experience here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press Inc.™

If you found these updates of interest, you may be interested in other recent Solutions Law Press, Inc. updates like the following:

Go here to register to receive other Solutions Law Press, Inc. updates and announcements about other upcoming briefings, training or other programs, products, services, and activities or to learn more about Solutions Law Press, Inc., its publications, programs and training, PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment community service and education projects, event management and other resources and services.

For important information concerning this communication see here. THE FOLLOWING DISCLAIMER IS INCLUDED TO COMPLY WITH AND IN RESPONSE TO U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR 230 REGULATIONS. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Ambulatory care, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Civil Rights, Corporate Compliance, data breach, data security, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, drug treatment, Durable Medical Equipment, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employee Benefits, FACTA, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Genetic Information, GINA, Health Care, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Indian Health, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Licensing, managed care, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Mental Health, Mental Heatlh, OCR, Outpatient, Pharmacy, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Privacy, Psychiatric, Rural Health Care, substance abuse treatment, Technology, Telemedicine, Uncategorized, Union, Veterans Health, Veterans Health Care, Wellness | Tagged: Employers, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Plans, HIPAA, Hospital, Medicaid, OCR, Physician, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Providers, Health Plans Should Confirm Copy Charges Comply With New OCR HIPAA Guidance

May 26, 2016

Healthcare providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses (Covered Entities) and their business associates should verify that their copying charges and other policies and practices for responding to requests of individuals for copies and other access to protected health information (PHI) comply with the Privacy and Security Rules (Privacy Rule) of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) as construed in a new Frequently Asked Question (FAQ published May 24, 2016 as follow up to two other sets of guidance about HIPAA assess rights published by the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights (OCR) since January, 2016.

New OCR Guidance Sheds New Light On HIPAA Access Rule Requirements

The OCR FAQ titled New Clarification – Up to $6.50 Flat Rate Option published May 24, 2016 is the third in a series of guidance materials OCR discussing OCR’s interpretation of individuals’ core right under HIPAA to access and obtain a copy of their PHI from Covered Entities since January, 2016 (the “Access Rule”). With OCR Enforcement Data already showing Access Rule violations among the top 5 issues in cases investigated by OCR every year since HIPAA took effect in 2003, Covered Entities can expect OCR to include Access Rule violations among the Privacy Rule violations OCR likely will target as it continues to ramp up its HIPAA audit, investigation and enforcement efforts.

As part of its sweeping requirements concerning the use, access, protection and disclosure of PHI, the Access Rule provisions of the Privacy Rule generally require Covered Entities to provide individuals, upon request, with access to the protected health information (PHI) about them in one or more “designated record sets” maintained by or for the Covered Entity or its business associate. This includes the right to inspect or obtain a copy, or both, of the PHI, as well as to direct the Covered Entity to transmit a copy to a designated person or entity of the individual’s choice as long as the Covered Entity or a business associate on its behalf maintains the PHI, regardless of the date the information was created; whether the information is maintained in paper or electronic systems onsite, remotely, or is archived; or where the PHI originated (e.g., whether the Covered Entity, another provider, the patient, etc.).

With its publication of the New Clarification FAQ on May 24, 2016, OCR now has published three pieces of guidance (the Access Guidance) about its interpretation of the Access Rule since January, 2016 that it hopes will promote greater understanding of and compliance with the Access Rule by Covered Entities:

In January, OCR published a comprehensive Fact Sheet (Fact Sheet) and the first in a series of topical frequently asked questions (FAQs) addressing patients’ right to access their medical records, which set forth requirements providers must follow in sharing medical records with patients, including that they must do so in a timely manner and in a format that works for the patient;
On March 1, OCR published a second set of FAQs accessible here addressing when Covered Entities may charge individuals to provide requested copies of their PHI, how Covered Entities must calculate these fees, when Covered Entities must send an individual’s PHI to a third party designated by the individual in its request for copies, and other issues relating to access rights guaranteed by the Privacy Rule; and
On May 24, 2016 OCR clarified this prior Access Guidance by publishing another FAQ titled New Clarification – Up to $6.50 Flat Rate Option .

Collectively, the Access Guidance addresses a broad range of questions and issues about the responsibilities of Covered Entities under the Access Rule including what PHI Covered Entities must provide as well as detailed guidance about when and how much Covered Entities can charge individuals for requested copies of their PHI or summaries of their PHI. Since the OCR Access Guidance may restrict the charge that health care providers or other Covered Entities can charge for copies or other access more than applicable state law rules, Covered Entities need to verify their practices comply with OCR’s Access Guidance in addition to any applicable state law rules. The Access Guidance makes clear that OCR expects Covered Entities and their business associates to ensure that their charges for copying or providing other access to PHI guaranteed by the Privacy Rule complies with this Access Guidance even if that practice does not violate applicable state law.

Are You Charging Too Much? Charges For Copies of PHI Must Meet OCR Privacy Rule Guidance

Concerning charges for copies of PHI requested by an individual, Privacy Rule § 164.524(c)(4) permits a Covered Entity to impose a reasonable, cost-based fee if the individual requests a copy of the PHI (or agrees to receive a summary or explanation of the information) provided that the Covered Entity properly and timely notifies the individual of the cost and properly determines the cost in accordance with OCR guidance.

Many physicians or other health care providers that use electronic health records (EHRs) certified to allow individuals to access their PHI in the system may be unaware that OCR views the availability of electronic access from the EHR affects the health care provider’s ability to charge for copies of requested PHI. OCR’s position is that the Privacy Rule prohibits a Covered Entity from charging an individual for requested copies of PHI when the request is fulfilled by the individual accessing the requested PHI using the View, Download, and Transmit functionality of the provider’s certified electronic health record.

Assuming the request for access or copies is not fulfilled through download from an HER, the Access Guidance indicates q Covered Entity must use one of three potentially applicable OCR-approved methods to calculate the fee the Covered Entity charges an individual for copies of PHI or an agreed upon summary provided that the method used takes into account only labor costs for copying or producing an agreed upon summary as defined by OCR.:

The “Actual Cost” Method;
The “Average Cost” Method; or
For electronic copies of PHI maintained electronically, the “Flat Fee” Method.

Charging a flat fee not to exceed $6.50 is an option available to those entities that do not want to go through the process of calculating actual or average costs for requests for electronic copies of PHI under either the Actual Cost or Average Cost Methods. However, by its terms, the “Flat Fee” Method is only an allowable for Covered Entities to use to avoid calculating actual or average allowable costs when a Covered Entity is providing electronic copies of PHI maintained electronically (and presumably when the access request is not fulfilled through download from an EHR). When applicable, the Flat Fee Method allows a Covered Entity to charge a flat fee for all requests for electronic copies of PHI maintained electronically, provided the fee does not exceed $6.50, inclusive of all labor, supplies, and any applicable postage. The New Clarification – Up to $6.50 Flat Rate Option clarifies that use of the Flat Rate Method is permitted not required when a Covered Entity provides copies of PHI maintained electronically other through download directly from a certified EHR. Covered Entities that wish to charge more than the $6.50 flat rate allowed under the Flat Rate Option retain the right, if the facts and evidence warrant, to use either the Actual Cost Method or Average Cost Method to calculate the fee for providing electronic records electronically within the boundaries of what is permissible under the Privacy Rule.

Where the Flat Fee Method is inapplicable or the Covered Entity elects not to use it, the Covered Entity must use either the Actual Cost Method or the Average Cost Method to calculate the fee in accordance with OCR’s rules.

Under the “Actual Cost Method,” a Covered Entity may calculate actual labor costs to fulfill the request, as long as the labor included is only for copying (and/or creating a summary or explanation if the individual chooses to receive a summary or explanation) and the labor rates used are reasonable for such activity. The Covered Entity may add to the actual labor costs any applicable supply (e.g., paper, or CD or USB drive) or postage costs. Covered Entities that charge individuals actual costs based on each individual access request still must be prepared to inform individuals in advance of the approximate fee that may be charged for providing the individual with a copy of her PHI. An example of an actual labor cost calculation would be to time how long it takes for the workforce member of the Covered Entity (or business associate) to make and send the copy in the form and format and manner requested or agreed to by the individual and multiply the time by the reasonable hourly rate of the person copying and sending the PHI. What is reasonable for purposes of an hourly rate will vary depending on the level of skill needed to create and transmit the copy in the manner requested or agreed to by the individual (e.g., administrative level labor to make and mail a paper copy versus more technical skill needed to convert and transmit the PHI in a particular electronic format);

Under the “Average Cost” Method, in lieu of calculating labor costs individually for each request, a Covered Entity can develop a schedule of costs for labor based on average labor costs to fulfill standard types of access requests, as long as the types of labor costs included are the ones which the Privacy Rule permits to be included in a fee (e.g., labor costs for copying but not for search and retrieval) and are reasonable. Covered Entities may add to that amount any applicable supply (e.g., paper, or CD or USB drive) or postage costs. This standard rate can be calculated and charged as a per page fee only in cases where the PHI requested is maintained in paper form and the individual requests a paper copy of the PHI or asks that the paper PHI be scanned into an electronic format. However OCR’s guidance states that OCR does not consider per page fees for copies of PHI maintained electronically to be reasonable for purposes of 45 CFR 164.524(c)(4);

Whether using the Actual Cost Method or the Average Cost Method, a Covered Entity must only take into account only “reasonable labor costs associated only with the: (1) labor for copying the PHI requested by the individual, whether in paper or electronic form; and (2) labor to prepare an explanation or summary of the PHI, if the individual in advance both chooses to receive an explanation or summary and agrees to the fee that may be charged.

OCR’s guidance makes clear that the reasonability of the charges for labor must reflect the technology available for providing this access. In this respect, OCR’s guidance states that a Covered Entity cannot charge a fee under HIPAA for individuals to access the PHI from a health care provider’s EHR technology that has been certified as being capable of making the PHI accessible. OCR’s position is that where a Covered Entity fulfills an individual’s HIPAA access request by allowing the individual to access the requested PHI using the View, Download, and Transmit functionality of the provider’s certified electronic health record (CEHRT), an individual requests or agrees to access her PHI available through the View, Download, and Transmit functionality of the CEHRT, there are no labor costs and no costs for supplies to enable such access.

To the extent that access is not provided through an CEHRT, the fee a Covered Entity charges an individual to provide copies of requested PHI or an agreed upon summary may include only the cost of:

Copying the PHI; and
Preparation of an explanation or summary of the PHI, if agreed to by the individual.

As interpreted by OCR, labor for copying includes only labor for creating and delivering the electronic or paper copy in the form and format requested or agreed upon by the individual, once the PHI that is responsive to the request has been identified, retrieved or collected, compiled and/or collated, and is ready to be copied. For example, labor for copying may include labor associated with the following, as necessary to copy and deliver the PHI in the form and format and manner requested or agreed to by the individual:

Labor for copying the PHI requested by the individual, whether in paper or electronic form;

Supplies for creating the paper copy or electronic media (e.g., CD or USB drive) if the individual requests that the electronic copy be provided on portable media;
Postage, when the individual requests that the copy, or the summary or explanation, be mailed; and
Creating and executing a mailing or e-mail with the responsive PHI.

See 45 CFR 164.524(c)(4).

The Access Guidance states the fee may not include costs associated with verification; documentation; searching for and retrieving the PHI; maintaining systems; recouping capital for data access, storage, or infrastructure; outsourcing the function of responding to individual requests for PHI copies or other costs not listed above even if such costs are authorized by State law. See 45 CFR 164.524(c)(4).

Of course, in any case, OCR’s guidance makes clear that regardless of how a entity chooses to calculate its fee to copy PHI, the Privacy Rule requires that the Covered Entity inform the requesting individual in advance of the approximate fee that may be charged for providing the copy requested and otherwise comply with the Privacy Rule as interpreted by OCR’s latest guidance concerning providing individuals access to PHI and other requirements.

Documented, Timely Action Needed To Mitigate OCR Audit, Investigation & Enforcement Risks

Beyond operationally complying with the Access Guidance, Covered Entities and their business associates generally will want to update their policies, practices and training to position themselves to defend their calculation of any charges made for copies provided in response to a request for access protected by the Privacy Rule and other compliance with the requirements of that rule and the otherwise applicable provisions of HIPAA as well as include monitoring and enforcement of these requirements as part of their ongoing HIPAA compliance efforts.

These and other HIPAA compliance efforts are particularly critical in light of the expanding audit, investigation and enforcement activities of OCR under the Privacy Rule. OCR’s publication of the Access Guidance coincides with a surge in OCR’s HIPAA audit, investigation and enforcement activities.

OCR’s publication of the new Access Guidance comes as OCR is ramping up its interpretation, oversight and enforcement of HIPAA generally. See, Brace For OCR HIPAA Audits & Enforcement; Update Privacy Practices For New OCR HIPAA Enforcement, Security & Records Access Guidance. While continuing to offer guidance like the Access Guidance and other tools to encourage and help Covered Entities and their business to understand and comply with the Privacy Rule, OCR also increasingly now uses the expanded penalties and authority created by the HITECH Act to punish Covered Entities for violating Privacy Rule requirements. HITECH Act amendments, among other things, broadened the duties of OCR to audit, investigate and sanction HIPAA violations as well as tightened various requirements of the Privacy Rules.

The risks to Covered Entities from violating the Privacy Rules are significant and growing. Since the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 (HITECH) amended HIPAA, Covered Entities and their business associates face heightened risks that violations of HIPAA will trigger liability to pay a Civil Monetary Penalty (CMP) to OCR or other sanctions. The two, multimillion dollar CMPs now imposed by OCR against two different Covered Entities caught violating the Privacy Rules only reflect a small part of OCR’s CMP enforcement. Equally or perhaps more significant are the growing stream of high dollar settlement payments that an ever-growing list of Covered Entities to resolve OCR Privacy Rule violation charges that otherwise also might result in OCR’s assessment of a CMP against them. See, e.g. $2 Million+ HIPAA Settlement, FAQ Warn Providers Protect PHI From Media, Other Recording Or Use; Provider Pays $750K To Settle HIPAA Business Associate Rule Breach Charges; North Memorial Hit With $3.9M HIPAA Fine For HIPAA Violations; OCR’s 2nd-Ever HIPAA CMP Nails Lincare For $239,000; Lehey Pays $850K After Unencrypted Laptop Stolen.

These already substantial enforcement risks are likely to rise as OCR begins auditing the compliance of selected Covered Entities as part of its recently announced 2016 audit program. As a result of audit requirements enacted as part of the HITECH Act, Covered Entities now need to be prepared to demonstrate the adequacy of their HIPAA compliance in case their organization becomes targeted for audit under OCR’s 2016 audit program. Even if not selected for audit, however, Covered Entities and their business associates still face the risk that a complaint filed with OCR will trigger an OCR investigation of their practices for providing copies or other access or other compliance with the Privacy Rules. In light of the growing aggressiveness of OCR’s enforcement, Covered Entities and their business associates need to be prepared to demonstrate their efforts to comply. Those that cannot show adequate compliance efforts should be prepared for potentially substantial CMP or Resolution Agreement payments and other sanctions. Consequently, Covered Entities and their business associates should move quickly to review and update their practices, communications and training to comply with this new Access Guidance as well as other guidance, enforcement and other developments that might impact the adequacy of their existing practices under the Privacy Rule generally. Because of the risk that any review or investigation of the adequacy of its practices or complaints under the Privacy Rule will involve sensitive information or analysis, Covered Entities and their business associates are cautioned to consider the advisability of arranging for this analysis and review to be conducted within the scope of attorney-client privilege under the guidance of legal counsel experienced with the Privacy Rules and other related legal concerns.

About The Author

Recognized as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in both Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law, a “Texas Top Lawyer,” an “AV-Preeminent” and “Top Rated Lawyer” by Martindale-Hubble and as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” in employee benefits 2015 by D Magazine; Ms. Stamer has more than 28 years of extensive proven, pragmatic knowledge and experience representing and advising health industry clients and others on operational, regulatory and other compliance, risk management, product and process development, public policy and other key concerns.

As a core component of her work as the Managing Shareholder of Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, PC, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively throughout her nearly 30 year career with health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers, banks and other financial institutions, their technology and other vendors and service providers, and others on legal and operational risk management and compliance with HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, trade secret, physician and other medical confidentiality and privacy, federal and state data security and data breach and other information privacy and data security rules and concerns; prevention, investigation, response, mitigation and resolution of known or suspected data or privacy breaches or other incidents; defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR, FTC, state attorneys’ general and other federal or state agencies; reporting and redressing known or suspected breaches or other violations; business associate and other contracting; insurance or other liability management and allocation; process and product development, contracting, deployment and defense; evaluation, commenting or seeking modification of regulatory guidance, and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement, and a host of other related concerns for public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, employers, and others.

Beyond her extensive involvement advising and defending clients on these matters, Ms. Stamer also has served for several years as the scrivener for the ABA JCEB’s meeting with OCR for many years. She returns as Chair of the Southern California ISSA Health Care Privacy & Security Summit for the third year in 2016, as well as speaks and serves on the steering committee of a multitude of other programs.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares shared her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on HIPAA and other concerns by her service in the leadership of a broad range of other professional and civic organization including her involvement as the Vice Chair of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association, Executive Director of the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE; Coalition on Patient Empowerment, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; former Board Compliance Chair and Board member of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, immediate past RPTE Representative to ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative and current RPTE Representative to the ABA Health Law Coordinating Counsel, former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, a former member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

Ms. Stamer also is a highly popular lecturer, symposia chair and author, who publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry, human resources, employment and other privacy, data security and other technology, regulatory and operational risk management. Examples of her many highly regarded publications on these matters include “Protecting & Using Patient Data In Disease Management: Opportunities, Liabilities And Prescriptions,” “Privacy Invasions of Medical Care-An Emerging Perspective,” “Cybercrime and Identity Theft: Health Information Security: Beyond HIPAA,” as well as thousands of other publications, programs and workshops these and other concerns for the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, American Health Lawyers, Society of Human Resources Professionals, the Southwest Benefits Association, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, Lexis-Nexis, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, the HCCA, ISSA, HIMSS, Modern Healthcare, Managed Healthcare, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society of CPAs, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other symposia and publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications and speaks and conducts training for a broad range of professional organizations and for clients, on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see www.CynthiaStamer.com, email Ms. Stamer cstamer@solutionslawyer.net or telephone her at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating or updating your profile here. ©2016 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ All other rights reserved.

1 Comment | Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Health Care, Health care coding, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, health care reimbursement, HIPAA, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Meaningful Use, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Physician, Physician Licensing, Privacy, Rural Health Care, Uncategorized, Veterans Health Care | Tagged: Data Security, Electronic Health Records, EMR, Health Care, Health Plan, HIPAA, Hospital, Meaningful Use, Medical Records, Privacy, Privacy Rule | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

$2 Million+ HIPAA Settlement, FAQ Warn Providers Protect PHI From Media, Other Recording Or Use

April 26, 2016

Unauthorized Filming for “NY Med” Results in $2.2 Million Settlement with New York Presbyterian Hospital; New FAQ Details Requirements When Dealing With Media

Physicians, hospitals and other health care providers, health plans and health care clearinghouses (Covered Entities) and their business associates should review and tighten policies for allowing members of the media and even other staff, patients or visitors in their facilities not involved in patient care to film, photograph or otherwise observe a patient without that patient’s authorization in light of the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) just announced $2.2 million Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy and Security Rules (HIPAA) Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan (Resolution Agreement) with New York Presbyterian Hospital (NYP) for allowing unauthorized filming and photographing of patients in its facility and concurrently released new OCR guidance about the duty of Covered Entities and business associates under HIPAA to prevent unauthorized photography or filming of patients and new concurrently published guidance on HIPAA’s implications on Covered Entities’ duties when dealing with the media.

Settlements Show Duty To Control Media & Other Recording, Use Or Access To PHI

The NYP Resolution Agreement resolves charges arising from an OCR investigation of a complaint that on April 28, 2011, NYP violated HIPAA by impermissibly disclosing patients’ PHI to a film crew and other staff of “NY Med,” a television program being filmed in the hospital. According to the Resolution Agreement, OCR’s investigation revealed that NYP “blatantly” violated HIPAA when it allowed ABC film crews and staff virtually unfettered access to its health care facility. OCR says the access NYP allowed ABC effectively created an environment where patients PHI could not be protected from impermissible disclosure to the ABC film crew and staff filming the episode. While the Resolution Agreement reflects allowing the filming and other access to ABC without prior HIPAA-compliant authorization from patients in the facility itself violated HIPAA, OCR also particularly found “egregious” the facility allowing ABC film crews and staff to film a dying patient and another patient in significant distress without first obtaining a HIPAA-compliant authorization from each of those patients and even more so that NYP failed stop the filming even after a medical professional urged the crew to stop.

Based on its investigation, OCR charged NYP with violating 45 C.F.R. §§ 164.502(a) and 164.530(c) by:

Impermissibly disclosing the PHI of two identified patients to the film crew and other staff of “NY Med”; and
Failing appropriately and reasonably to safeguard its patients’ PHI from disclosure during the filming of “NY Med” on its premises; and
Failing to implement policies, procedures and practices to protect the privacy of its filming of aforementioned television show.

OCR made clear that it intends other Covered Entities to learn by example from the NYP experience in its April 21, 2016 announcement of the Resolution Agreement when it quotes OCR Director Jocelyn Samuels as stating, “This case sends an important message that OCR will not permit covered entities to compromise their patients’ privacy by allowing news or television crews to film the patients without their authorization.”

Control Unauthorized Filming, Photography Of Patients By Media, Others

OCR reinforced its clear message about the responsibility of Covered Entities and business associates under HIPAA to protect PHI against unauthorized disclosure to the media in the NYP Resolution Agreement and its announcement by concurrently publishing a new Frequently Asked Question available here that specifically discusses dealings with the media.

Among other things, the Media FAQ expressly states that except in very limited circumstances identified in the Media FAQ, HIPAA prohibits health care providers from inviting or allowing media personnel into treatment or other areas where patients or patient PHI will be accessible in written, electronic, oral, or other visual or audio form, or otherwise making PHI accessible to the media, without prior written authorization from each individual who is or will be in the area or whose PHI otherwise will be accessible to the media except in a very limited set of circumstances set forth in the Media FAQ.

The Media FAQ also states, “It is not sufficient for a health care provider to request or require media personnel to mask the identities of patients (using techniques such as blurring, pixelation, or voice alteration software) for whom an authorization was not obtained, because the HIPAA Privacy Rule does not allow media access to the patients’ PHI, absent an authorization, in the first place.

In addition, the Media FAQ states that a health care provider also must ensure that reasonable safeguards are in place to protect against impermissible disclosures or to limit incidental disclosures of other PHI that may be in the area but for which an authorization has not been obtained.

Concerning the limited circumstances when a health care provider or other Covered Entity or business associate may disclose to the media or allow unconsented filming, photographing or use of PHI to the media or other film crews, the Media FAQ also clarifies that the HIPAA Privacy Rule does not require health care providers to prevent members of the media from entering areas of their facilities that are otherwise generally accessible to the public like public waiting areas or areas where the public enters or exits the facility.

In addition, the Media FAQ states a health care provider or other Covered Entity may:

Disclose limited PHI about the incapacitated patient to the media in accordance with the requirements of 45 C.F.R. 164.510(b)(1)(ii) when, in the hospital’s professional judgment, doing so is in the patient’s best interest; or
Disclose a patient’s location in the facility and condition in general terms that do not communicate specific medical information about the individual to any person, including the media, without obtaining a HIPAA authorization where the individual has not objected to his information being included in the facility directory, and the media representative or other person asks for the individual by name as specified in 45 C.F.R. 164.510(a).

The Media FAQ also discusses circumstances where a healthcare provider or other Covered Entity may use the services of a contract film crew to produce training videos or public relations materials on the provider’s behalf if the provider ensures that the film crew acting as a business associate enters into a HIPAA compliant business associate agreement with the Covered Entity which among other things ensures that the film crew will safeguard the PHI it obtains, only use or disclose the PHI for the purposes provided in the agreement, and return or destroy any PHI after the work for the health care provider has been completed as required by 45 C.F.R. 164.504(e)(2). The Media FAQ also states that as a business associate, the film crew must comply with the HIPAA Security Rule and a number of provisions in the Privacy Rule, including the Rule’s restrictions on the use and disclosure of PHI. In addition, the Media FAQ reminds Covered Entities and business associates of the need to obtain prior authorizations from patients whose PHI is included in any materials before any of those materials are posted online, printed in brochures for the public, or otherwise publicly disseminated.

Finally, the Media FAQ states Covered Entities can continue to inform the media of their treatment services and programs so that the media can better inform the public, provided that, in doing so, the covered entity does not share PHI with the media without the prior authorization of the individuals who are the subject of the PHI.

Filming, Photography & Access By Others Beyond The Media

While the NYP Resolution Agreement and the Media FAQ specifically focus on access, filming and photography to film crews and members of the Media, a close reading of the NYP Resolution Agreement suggests that Covered Entities and their business associates also should consider reevaluating their the adequacy and advisability of their policies and practices for monitoring and controlling photography and filming by more than just members of the media and film crews within their facilities. As part of the corrective actions required under the Resolution Agreement, NYP must adopt and enforce a specific prohibition against NYP or any of its workforce members, agents or business associates permitting the use or disclosure of PHI by or to “any person or entity planning, coordinating or engaging in, for purposes not related to the provision of medical care, photography, video recording or audio recording” without the prior authorization of the patient who is the subject of the PHI sought to be disclosed. (emphasis added).

The Resolution Agreement further reinforces the breadth of a Covered Entity’s duty to protect patients from being filmed or photographed without their authorization by others not involved in the care of the patient by its requirement that NYP require that “all photography, video recording and audio recording conducted on NYP premises” be reviewed, preapproved and actively monitored by appropriate NYP representatives for compliance with the Privacy Rule and NYP’s policies.

Like discussion included in the Media FAQ about disclosures beyond those to outside media, this discussion in the NYP Resolution Agreement signals that beyond their media dealings, Covered Entities and business associates also should use care to appropriately monitor and control film, photographic, audio or other recording and other access or observation of patients or areas where patient PHI is located by not just the media, but “any third party not involved in patient care.”

Act To Manage HIPAA & Other Patient Filming, Photography & Media Risks

In response to the NYP Resolution Agreement and new Media FAQ, Covered Entities and their business associates clearly should consider conducting a well-documented assessment of their current policies, practices and workforce training on allowing media or other parties to enter, film, photograph or record within nonpublic areas of their facilities or otherwise disclosing or allowing media access to their facilities.

Furthermore, given the statements in the NYP Resolution Agreement and additional guidance in the new Media FAQ, most Covered Entities and their business associates also will want to evaluate their policies, practices, controls and workforce training about when the Covered Entity or its business associate will allow any party not involved in care of a particular patient to film, photograph, or otherwise record, observe or access areas where patients or patient PHI is or might be present without prior written consent of the patient.

When conducting this review and analysis, Covered Entities and their business associates also should use care to consider and properly accommodate other potential legal or ethical responsibilities such as medical confidentiality duties applicable to physicians and other health care providers under medical ethics, professional licensure or other similar rules, contractual responsibilities, as well as common law privacy or other related exposures.

Since this analysis and review in most cases will result in the uncovering or discussion of potentially legally or politically sensitive information, Covered Entities and their business associates generally will want to consult with experienced legal counsel to arrange to conduct this review with the guidance of legal counsel within the scope of attorney-client privilege.

About The Author

A practicing attorney and Managing Shareholder of Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C., a member of Stamer│Chadwick │Soefje PLLC, Ms. Stamer’s more than 28 years’ of leading edge work as an practicing attorney, author, lecturer and industry and policy thought leader have resulted in her recognition as a “Top” attorney in employee benefits, labor and employment and health care law.

Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, past Chair and current Welfare Benefit Committee Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, former Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative and Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms. Stamer is recognized nationally and internationally for her practical and creative insights and leadership on HIPAA and other health and other employee benefit, human resources, and related insurance, health care, privacy and data security and tax matters and policy.

Ms. Stamer’s legal and management consulting work throughout her 27 plus year career has focused on helping organizations and their management use the law and process to manage people, process, compliance, operations and risk. Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer helps public and private, domestic and international businesses, governments, and other organizations and their leaders manage their employees, vendors and suppliers, and other workforce members, customers and other’ performance, compliance, compensation and benefits, operations, risks and liabilities, as well as to prevent, stabilize and cleanup workforce and other legal and operational crises large and small that arise in the course of operations.

Ms. Stamer works with businesses and their management, employee benefit plans, governments and other organizations deal with all aspects of human resources and workforce management operations and compliance. She supports her clients both on a real time, “on demand” basis and with longer term basis to deal with daily performance management and operations, emerging crises, strategic planning, process improvement and change management, investigations, defending litigation, audits, investigations or other enforcement challenges, government affairs and public policy.

Well known for her extensive work with health care, insurance and other highly regulated entities on corporate compliance, internal controls and risk management, her clients range from highly regulated entities like employers, contractors and their employee benefit plans, their sponsors, management, administrators, insurers, fiduciaries and advisors, technology and data service providers, health care, managed care and insurance, financial services, government contractors and government entities, as well as retail, manufacturing, construction, consulting and a host of other domestic and international businesses of all types and sizes.

As a key part of this work, Ms. Stamer uses her deep and highly specialized health, insurance, labor and employment and other knowledge and experience to help health industry, insurance and financial services and other employers and other employee benefit plan sponsors; health, pension and other employee benefit plans, their fiduciaries, administrators and service providers, insurers, and others design legally compliant, effective compliance and internal controls, risk management, human resources and other workforce performance, discipline, compensation, employee benefits and related programs, products and arrangements.

In the course of this work, Ms. Stamer has accumulated an impressive resume of experience advising and representing clients on HIPAA and other privacy and data security concerns. The scribe for the American Bar Association (ABA) Joint Committee on Employee Benefits annual agency meeting with the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights for several years, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with health plans, health care providers, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employer and other sponsors, banks and other financial institutions, and others on risk management and compliance with HIPAA and other information privacy and data security rules, investigating and responding to known or suspected breaches, defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR and other federal or state agencies, reporting known or suspected violations, business associate and other contracting, commenting or obtaining other clarification of guidance, training and enforcement, and a host of other related concerns. Her clients include public and private health plans, health insurers, health care providers, banking, technology and other vendors, and others. Beyond advising these and other clients on privacy and data security compliance, risk management, investigations and data breach response and remediation, Ms. Stamer also advises and represents clients on OCR and other HHS, Department of Labor, IRS, FTC, DOD and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. She also is the author of numerous highly acclaimed publications, workshops and tools for HIPAA or other compliance including training programs on Privacy & The Pandemic for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans, as well as HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, medical confidentiality, insurance confidentiality and other privacy and data security compliance and risk management for Los Angeles County Health Department, ISSA, HIMMS, the ABA, SHRM, schools, medical societies, government and private health care and health plan organizations, their business associates, trade associations and others.

Ms. Stamer also is deeply involved in helping to influence the Affordable Care Act, HIPAA and other privacy and data security, federal state and local laws and regulations. She both helps her clients respond to and resolve emerging regulations and laws, government investigations and enforcement actions and helps them shape the rules through dealings with Congress and other legislatures, regulators and government officials domestically and internationally. A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Social Security reform law and most recognized for her leadership on U.S. health and pension, wage and hour, tax, education and immigration policy reform, Ms. Stamer works with U.S. and foreign businesses, governments, trade associations, and others on workforce, social security and severance, health care, immigration, privacy and data security, tax, ethics and other laws and regulations. Founder and Executive Director of the Coalition for Responsible Healthcare Policy and its PROJECT COPE: the Coalition on Patient Empowerment and a Fellow in the American Bar Foundation and State Bar of Texas. She also works as a policy advisor and advocate to health plans, their sponsors, administrators, insurers and many other business, professional and civic organizations.

Author of the thousands of publications and workshops these and other employment, employee benefits, health care, insurance, workforce and other management matters, Ms. Stamer also is a highly sought out speaker and industry thought leader known for empowering audiences and readers. Ms. Stamer’s insights on employee benefits, insurance, health care and workforce matters in Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, Modern Healthcare, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications. Ms. Stamer also regularly serves on the faculty and planning committees for symposia of LexisNexis, the American Bar Association, ALIABA, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, ISSA, HIMMs, and many other prominent educational and training organizations and conducts training and speaks on these and other management, compliance and public policy concerns.

Ms. Stamer also is active in the leadership of a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For instance, Ms. Stamer presently serves on an American Bar Association (ABA) Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council representative; Vice President of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Professionals Association; Immediate Past Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, its current Welfare Benefit Plans Committee Co-Chair, on its Substantive Groups & Committee and its incoming Defined Contribution Plan Committee Chair and Practice Management Vice Chair; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and a current member of its Healthcare Coordinating Council; current Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefit Committee; the former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division; on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications. She also previously served as a founding Board Member and President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, as a Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; the Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee; a member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see www.cynthiastamer.com, or http://www.stamerchadwicksoefje.com the member of contact Ms. Stamer via email here or via telephone to (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also may be interested reviewing other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources at www.solutionslawpress.com such as:

Leave a Comment » | Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Qulity, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, Medical Privacy, Privacy, Rural Health Care, Uncategorized, Veterans Health Care | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Provider Pays $750K To Settle HIPAA Business Associate Rule Breach Charges

April 21, 2016

Health Care Providers, Health Plans, Healthcare Clearing Houses & Business Associates Should Verify Plan’s HIPAA Business Associate Rule Compliance

Health care providers as providers and as health plan sponsors, health plans and their sponsors, health care clearinghouses and their business associates should reconfirm and ensure they can prove they have all required business associate agreements in place and otherwise properly are administering all policies, practices, safeguards and procedures for handling, using and disclosing electronic and other protected health information in accordance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy and Security Rules (Privacy Rule) in light of the April 20, 2016 Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights (OCR) announcement of its latest resolution agreement settling charges against a health care provider for sharing protected health information with a business associate without first implementing the required business associate agreement.

OCR Charges Brought For Business Associate Agreement Violations

HIPAA’s Privacy Rules generally apply to “covered entities,” which under HIPAA are health plans and insurers, health care providers, health care clearinghouses (Covered Entities) and “business associates,” which are individuals or entities that perform services that aid the Covered Entity to perform its duties as a Covered Entity.

The Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan (Resolution Agreement) with Raleigh Orthopaedic Clinic, P.A. of North Carolina (Raleigh Orthopaedic) announced by OCR on April 20th requires Raleigh Orthopaedic to pay $750,000 to settle charges OCR it violated the Privacy Rule by handing over protected health information of approximately 17,300 patients to a potential business partner without first executing a business associate agreement.

Raleigh Orthopaedic is a provider group practice that operates clinics and a surgery center in the Raleigh, North Carolina area. OCR initiated its investigation of Raleigh Orthopaedic after receiving a breach report on April 30, 2013. OCR’s investigation indicated that Raleigh Orthopaedic violated the Privacy Rules by releasing the x-ray films and related protected health information of 17,300 patients to an entity that promised to transfer the images to electronic media in exchange for harvesting the silver from the x-ray films. Raleigh Orthopaedic failed to execute a business associate agreement with this entity before turning over the x-rays and PHI.

OCR says this sharing of the x-ray files and other protected health information by Raleigh Orthopaedic violated the Privacy Rules.

Specifically, the Privacy Rules prohibit Covered Entities and their business associates from using, accessing and disclosing protected health information except as specifically permitted in the Privacy Rules. As part of these rules, the “Business Associate” requirements of the Privacy Rule prohibit Covered Entities from disclosing or allowing business associates to use, and business associates from receiving or using protected health information unless the parties first enter into a written business associate agreement that complies with the requirements of the Privacy Rules.

The Resolution Agreement settles OCR charges that Raleigh Orthopaedic violated this Business Associate Agreement requirement by sharing the x-rays and other protected health information with the service provider without first entering a business associate agreement. Under the Settlement Agreement, Raleigh Orthopaedic must pay a $750,000 payment, as well as revise its policies and procedures to: establish a process for assessing whether entities are business associates; designate a responsible individual to ensure business associate agreements are in place prior to disclosing PHI to a business associate; create a standard template business associate agreement; establish a standard process for maintaining documentation of a business associate agreements for at least six (6) years beyond the date of termination of a business associate relationship; and limit disclosures of PHI to any business associate to the minimum necessary to accomplish the purpose for which the Covered Entity hires the business associate.

Although the Resolution Agreement only addresses charges OCR brought against the Covered Entity, Raleigh Orthopaedic, business associates need to keep in mind that both Covered Entities and business associates now are responsible for ensuring compliance with the business associate agreement requirements of the Privacy Rules since the Stimulus Bill amended HIPAA to make most provisions of the Privacy Rule directly applicable to business associates as well as Covered Entities.

Take Aways For Covered Entities & Their Business Associates

OCR’s announcement of the Resolution Agreement includes a strong message for other Covered Entities and business associates of the importance of taking seriously their responsibility under the Privacy Rule to ensure that the business associate agreement requirements of the Privacy Rule are met before business associates are allowed to receive, access or use protected health information. The announcement quotes Jocelyn Samuels, Director of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) as stating. “It is critical for entities to know to whom they are handing PHI and to obtain assurances that the information will be protected.” and “HIPAA’s obligation on covered entities to obtain business associate agreements is more than a mere check-the-box paperwork exercise.”

In light of the Business Associate Rule and Director Samuels’ comments, Covered Entities and business associates alike should review the adequacy of their documentation, policies and practices regarding dealings with service providers who are or could collect, receive or use electronic or other protected health information to propose or perform services in the capacity as a business associate. Certainly both Covered Entities and business associates to ensure that they possess and are able to produce if needed signed business associate agreements for each current business associate agreement as well as that appropriate policies, practices and procedures are in place to ensure that all required business associate agreements are implemented before any disclosure or use of protected health information to the business associate in the future. As part of these activities, both Covered Entities and business associates also should ensure their policies and practices appropriately provide for the retention of signed copies of all business associate agreements and other records, and the implementation of all other processes and procedures required to position the entity to be able to demonstrate it not only had policies requiring compliance, but appropriately implemented and administered those policies in accordance with the Privacy Rule.

When conducting this review, Covered Entities and business associates also generally should consider the advisability of also reviewing their business associate agreements and the adequacy of these arrangements in light of any other contractual confidentiality and or contractual rights and commitments, regulatory requirements and other operational and risk management concerns that impact or interrelate with the relationship between the business associate and the Covered Entity. It is important to ensure that appropriate steps are taken to evaluate and properly integrate the confidentiality and other commitments that the Privacy Rules mandate a business associate agreement include with audit, performance assessment, and other data access or disclosure, trade secrets, confidentiality, performance standards and guarantees, indemnity and other contractual obligations of other agreements that could impact or be impacted by the business associate agreements. Steps also should be taken to incorporate appropriate processes and procedures for ensuring that the Covered Entity and members of its workforce understand and consistently administer and document their use of appropriate processes to ensure that the business associate agreement and other requirements of the Privacy Rules are fulfilled. In the case of employer sponsored plans subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, for instance, the selection and proper oversight of business associates and the management of plan data both are subject to the fiduciary responsibility rules of ERISA. Meanwhile, insurers, business associates and other plan vendors also generally should anticipate that beyond HIPAA, they also may be subject to data security, privacy and other mandates and exposures under state HIPAA-like rules for protected health information, as well as other obligations under insurance, data security, identity theft, breach, privacy and other state laws.

The process of evaluating the adequacy of current arrangement and considering the advisability of changes to tighten existing practices in many cases will result in the discovery and discussion of potentially sensitive information about the adequacy of current or past compliance with the Privacy Rules or other matters. For example, it is possible that in the course of review, parties may be unable to locate a signed business associate agreement governing a relationship that the Privacy Rules require be subject to a business associate agreement or in the course of review, information indicating breaches of protected health information or other Privacy Rule violations may have occurred. For this reason, most Covered Entities and their business associates will want to consider arranging for this review and analysis to be conducted within the scope of attorney-client privilege by or under the direction of qualified legal counsel with HIPAA experience that has entered into a business associate agreement with the Covered Entity or business associate.

About The Author

The author of this update,Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, is a noted Texas-based management lawyer and consultant, author, lecturer and policy advocate, recognized as among the “Top Rated Labor & Employment Lawyers in Texas” by LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® and as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the field of “Tax: Erisa & Employee Benefits” and “Health Care” by D Magazine who works, writes and speaks extensively about HIPAA and other data privacy and security concerns.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer’s legal and management consulting work throughout her career has focused on helping health industry, insurance and other organizations and their management use the law and process to manage people, process, compliance, operations and risk. Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer helps public and private, domestic and international businesses, governments, and other organizations and their leaders manage their employees, vendors and suppliers, and other workforce members, customers and other’ performance, compliance, compensation and benefits, operations, risks and liabilities, as well as to prevent, stabilize and cleanup workforce and other legal and operational crises large and small that arise in the course of operations.

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms. Stamer helps health industry and other organizations manage. Ms. Stamer works with businesses and their management, employee benefit plans, governments and other organizations deal with all aspects of human resources and workforce management operations and compliance. She supports her clients both on a real time, “on demand” basis and with longer term basis to deal with daily performance management and operations, emerging crises, strategic planning, process improvement and change management, investigations, defending litigation, audits, investigations or other enforcement challenges, government affairs and public policy. Well-known for her extensive work with health care, insurance and other highly regulated entities on corporate compliance, internal controls and risk management, her clients range from highly regulated entities like employers, contractors and their employee benefit plans, their sponsors, management, administrators, insurers, fiduciaries and advisors, technology and data service providers, health care, managed care and insurance, financial services, government contractors and government entities, as well as retail, manufacturing, construction, consulting and a host of other domestic and international businesses of all types and sizes. Common engagements include internal and external workforce hiring, management, training, performance management, compliance and administration, discipline and termination, and other aspects of workforce management including employment and outsourced services contracting and enforcement, sentencing guidelines and other compliance plan, policy and program development, administration, and defense, performance management, wage and hour and other compensation and benefits, reengineering and other change management, internal controls, compliance and risk management, communications and training, worker classification, tax and payroll, investigations, crisis preparedness and response, government relations, safety, government contracting and audits, litigation and other enforcement, and other concerns.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Ms. Stamer also brings to the table extensive knowledge and experience to help employers and other employee benefit plan sponsors; health, pension and other employee benefit plans, their fiduciaries, administrators and service providers, insurers, and others design legally compliant, effective compensation, health and other welfare benefit and insurance, severance, pension and deferred compensation, private exchanges, cafeteria plan and other employee benefit, fringe benefit, salary and hourly compensation, bonus and other incentive compensation and related programs, products and arrangements. She is particularly recognized for her leading edge work, thought leadership and knowledgeable advice and representation on the design, documentation, administration, regulation and defense of a diverse range of self-insured and insured health and welfare benefit plans including private exchange and other health benefit choices, health care reimbursement and other “defined contribution” limited benefit, 24-hour and other occupational and non-occupational injury and accident, ex-patriate and medical tourism, onsite medical, wellness and other medical plans and insurance benefit programs as well as a diverse range of other qualified and nonqualified retirement and deferred compensation, severance and other employee benefits and compensation, insurance and savings plans, programs, products, services and activities. As a key element of this work, Ms. Stamer works closely with employer and other plan sponsors, insurance and financial services companies, plan fiduciaries, administrators, and vendors and others to design, administer and defend effective legally defensible employee benefits and compensation practices, programs, products and technology. She also continuously helps employers, insurers, administrative and other service providers, their officers, directors and others to manage fiduciary and other risks of sponsorship or involvement with these and other benefit and compensation arrangements and to defend and mitigate liability and other risks from benefit and liability claims including fiduciary, benefit and other claims, audits, and litigation brought by the Labor Department, IRS, HHS, participants and beneficiaries, service providers, and others. She also assists debtors, creditors, bankruptcy trustees and others assess, manage and resolve labor and employment, employee benefits and insurance, payroll and other compensation related concerns arising from reductions in force or other terminations, mergers, acquisitions, bankruptcies and other business transactions including extensive experience with multiple, high-profile large scale bankruptcies resulting in ERISA, tax, corporate and securities and other litigation or enforcement actions.

Throughout her career, Ms. Stamer has advised these and other clients about health care, health plan, financial information, trade secret, privacy and other related compliance, data breach response and remediation and related compliance, risk management and related concerns. In the course of this work, Ms. Stamer has accumulated an impressive resume of experience advising and representing clients on HIPAA and other privacy and data security concerns. The scribe for the American Bar Association (ABA) Joint Committee on Employee Benefits annual agency meeting with the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights for several years, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with health plans, health care providers, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employer and other sponsors, banks and other financial institutions, and others on risk management and compliance with HIPAA and other information privacy and data security rules, investigating and responding to known or suspected breaches, defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR and other federal or state agencies, reporting known or suspected violations, business associate and other contracting, commenting or obtaining other clarification of guidance, training and enforcement, and a host of other related concerns. Her clients include public and private health plans, health insurers, health care providers, banking, technology and other vendors, and others.

Beyond advising these and other clients on privacy and data security compliance, risk management, investigations and data breach response and remediation and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. She also is the author of numerous highly acclaimed publications, workshops and tools for HIPAA or other compliance including training programs on Privacy & The Pandemic for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans, as well as HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, medical confidentiality, insurance confidentiality and other privacy and data security compliance and risk management for Los Angeles County Health Department, ISSA, HIMMS, the ABA, SHRM, schools, medical societies, government and private health care and health plan organizations, their business associates, trade associations and others.

Ms. Stamer also is deeply involved in helping to influence the Affordable Care Act and other health care, pension, social security, workforce, insurance and other policies critical to the workforce, benefits, and compensation practices and other key aspects of a broad range of businesses and their operations. She both helps her clients respond to and resolve emerging regulations and laws, government investigations and enforcement actions and helps them shape the rules through dealings with Congress and other legislatures, regulators and government officials domestically and internationally. A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Social Security reform law and most recognized for her leadership on U.S. health and pension, wage and hour, tax, education and immigration policy reform, Ms. Stamer works with U.S. and foreign businesses, governments, trade associations, and others on workforce, social security and severance, health care, immigration, privacy and data security, tax, ethics and other laws and regulations. Founder and Executive Director of the Coalition for Responsible Healthcare Policy and its PROJECT COPE: the Coalition on Patient Empowerment and a Fellow in the American Bar Foundation and State Bar of Texas, Ms. Stamer annually leads the Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) HHS Office of Civil Rights agency meeting and other JCEB agency meetings. She also works as a policy advisor and advocate to many business, professional and civic organizations.

Beyond these involvements, Ms. Stamer also is active in the leadership of a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For instance, Ms. Stamer presently serves on an American Bar Association (ABA) Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council representative; Vice President of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Professionals Association; Immediate Past Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, its current Welfare Benefit Plans Committee Co-Chair, on its Substantive Groups & Committee and its incoming Defined Contribution Plan Committee Chair and Practice Management Vice Chair; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and a current member of its Healthcare Coordinating Council; current Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefit Committee; the former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division; on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications. She also previously served as a founding Board Member and President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, as a Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; the Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee; a member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly by email cstamer@solutionslawyer.net or by telephone at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also may be interested reviewing other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources at www.solutionslawpress.com such as:

Leave a Comment » | Doctor, Health Care, Health Care Provider, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, Physician, Uncategorized | Tagged: Assisted Living, clinic, Data Breech, Data Security, Doctor, Health Care, Health Care Clinic, healthcare, HIPAA, Medical Privacy, Nurse, Office of Civil Rights, PHI, Physician, Privacy, Protected Health Information, Radiology, Skilled Nursing | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

North Memorial Hit With $3.9M HIPAA Fine For HIPAA Violations

March 25, 2016

Just one day after the announcement of a $1,555,000 settlement with North Memorial Health Care of Minnesota under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy and Security Rules, the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) announced March 17, 2016 that Feinstein Institute for Medical Research has agreed to pay $3.9 million and will undertake a substantial corrective action plan to settle charges of HIPAA violations and bring its operations into compliance. The two settlements drive home again the substantial liability that health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates risk for violating HIPAA. Register for March 30, 2016 Solutions Law Press, Inc. briefing to learn the latest about this and other new regulatory and enforcement guidance impacting the HIPAA compliance obligations and risks of health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates. 3/30 Webex Shares Latest On Security, Patient Access & Other HIPAA Developments.

Feinstein Settlement

Feinstein is a biomedical research institute that is organized as a New York not-for-profit corporation and is sponsored by Northwell Health, Inc., formerly known as North Shore Long Island Jewish Health System, a large health system headquartered in Manhasset, New York that is comprised of twenty one hospitals and over 450 patient facilities and physician practices.

OCR’s investigation began after Feinstein filed a breach report indicating that on September 2, 2012, a laptop computer containing the electronic protected health information (ePHI) of approximately 13,000 patients and research participants was stolen from an employee’s car. The ePHI stored in the laptop included the names of research participants, dates of birth, addresses, social security numbers, diagnoses, laboratory results, medications, and medical information relating to potential participation in a research study.

OCR’s investigation discovered that Feinstein’s security management process was limited in scope, incomplete, and insufficient to address potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of ePHI held by the entity. Further, Feinstein lacked policies and procedures for authorizing access to ePHI by its workforce members, failed to implement safeguards to restrict access to unauthorized users, and lacked policies and procedures to govern the receipt and removal of laptops that contained ePHI into and out of its facilities. For electronic equipment procured outside of Feinstein’s standard acquisition process, Feinstein failed to implement proper mechanisms for safeguarding ePHI as required by the Security Rule.

“Research institutions subject to HIPAA must be held to the same compliance standards as all other HIPAA-covered entities,” said OCR Director Jocelyn Samuels. “For individuals to trust in the research process and for patients to trust in those institutions, they must have some assurance that their information is kept private and secure.”

The resolution agreement and corrective action plan may be found here.

The Feinstein settlement announcement follows yesterday’s announcement of a $1.5 million plus settlement with North Memorial to resolve HIPAA charges that it failed to implement a business associate agreement with a major contractor and failed to institute an organization-wide risk analysis to address the risks and vulnerabilities to its patient information. North Memorial is a comprehensive, not-for-profit health care system in Minnesota that serves the Twin Cities and surrounding communities. The settlement highlights the importance for healthcare providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses and their business associates to comply with HIPAA’s business associate agreement and other HIPAA organizational, risk assessment, privacy and security, and other requirements.

OCR’s announcement emphasizes the importance of meeting these requirements. “Two major cornerstones of the HIPAA Rules were overlooked by this entity,” said Jocelyn Samuels, Director of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR). “Organizations must have in place compliant business associate agreements as well as an accurate and thorough risk analysis that addresses their enterprise-wide IT infrastructure.”

The settlement comes from charges filed after OCR initiated its investigation of North Memorial following receipt of a breach report on September 27, 2011, which indicated that an unencrypted, password-protected laptop was stolen from a business associate’s workforce member’s locked vehicle, impacting the electronic protected health information (ePHI) of 9,497 individuals.

OCR’s investigation indicated that North Memorial failed to have in place a business associate agreement, as required under the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules, so that its business associate could perform certain payment and health care operations activities on its behalf. North Memorial gave its business associate, Accretive, access to North Memorial’s hospital database, which stored the ePHI of 289,904 patients. Accretive also received access to non-electronic protected health information as it performed services on-site at North Memorial.

The investigation further determined that North Memorial failed to complete a risk analysis to address all of the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the ePHI that it maintained, accessed, or transmitted across its entire IT infrastructure — including but not limited to all applications, software, databases, servers, workstations, mobile devices and electronic media, network administration and security devices, and associated business processes.

In addition to the $1,550,000 payment, North Memorial is required to develop an organization-wide risk analysis and risk management plan, as required under the Security Rule. North Memorial will also train appropriate workforce members on all policies and procedures newly developed or revised pursuant to this corrective action plan.

The Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan can be found here.

Settlement Latest Reminder To Manage HIPAA Risks

Following up on OCR’s imposition of its second-ever HIPAA Civil Monetary Penalty (CMP) and the latest in an ever-growing list of settlements by Covered Entities under HIPAA, the North Memorial settlement is another example of the substantial liability that Covered Entities face for violating HIPAA. To avoid these liabilities, Covered Entities must constantly be diligent to comply with the latest guidance of OCR concerning their obligations under HIPAA. As OCR continues to issue additional guidance as well as supplement this guidance through information shared in settlement agreements like the North Memorial settlement, even if Covered Entities reviewed their practices in the last 12-months, most will want to update this review in response to new OCR guidance and enforcement actions, including new guidance on obligations to provide plan members or other subjects of protected health information with access to or copies of their records and other guidance, as well as the ever expanding list of enforcement actions by OCR.

Since the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 (HITECH) amended HIPAA, Covered Entities face growing responsibilities and liability for maintaining the security of ePHI. In response to HITECH, OCR continues to use a carrot and stick approach to encouraging and enforcing compliance. As demonstrated by OCR’s imposition of the second-ever HIPAA Civil Monetary Penalty (CMP) of $239,000 against Lincare and the ever-growing list of Resolution Agreements OCR announces with other Covered Entities, OCR continues to step up enforcement against Covered Entities that breach the Privacy and Security Rules. See OCR’s 2nd-Ever HIPAA CMP Nails Lincare For $239,000.

On the other hand, OCR also continues to encourage voluntary compliance by Covered Entities by sharing guidance and tools to aid Covered Entities to understand fulfill their HIPAA responsibilities such as the HIPAA Security Rule Crosswalk to NIST Cybersecurity Framework (Crosswalk) unveiled by OCR on February 24, 2016.The crosswalk that maps the HIPAA Security Rule to the standards of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity (the Cybersecurity Framework) as well as mappings to certain other commonly used security frameworks.

While stating that the HIPAA Security Rule does not require use of the NIST Cybersecurity Framework, OCR says it hopes the Crosswalk will provide “a helpful roadmap” for HIPAA Covered Entities and their business associates to understand the overlap between the NIST Cybersecurity Framework, the HIPAA Security Rule, and other security frameworks that can help Covered Entities safeguard health data in a time of increasing risks and help them to identify potential gaps in their programs. At the same time, OCR’s announcement of its release of the Crosswalk also cautions users that “use of the Framework does not guarantee HIPAA compliance.” Rather, OCR says “the crosswalk provides an informative tool for entities to use to help them more comprehensively manage security risks in their environments.

With a USA Today report attributing more than 40 percent of data breaches to the healthcare industry over the last three years 91 percent of all health organizations having reporting breaches over the last two years, OCR has made clear that it intends to zealously investigate and enforce the Security Rules against Covered Entities that violate the Security Rules against Covered Entities that fail to take suitable steps to safeguard the security of PHI as required by the HIPAA Security Rule. To meet these requirements, the HIPAA Security Rule requires that Covered Entities conduct and be prepared to product documentation of their audit and other efforts to comply with the Security Rule Most Covered Entities will want to consider including an assessment of the adequacy of their existing practices under the Crosswalk and other requirements disclosed by OCR in these assessments to help position the Covered Entity to defend or mitigate HIPAA CMP and other liabilities in the event of a HIPAA breach or audit.

Latest Guidance Clarifies Patient Rights To Access PHI & Allowable Charges

In addition to maintaining adequate security, HIPAA also requires Covered Entities to provide individuals with the right to access and receive a copy of their health information from their providers, hospitals, and health insurance plans in accordance with the HIPAA Privacy Rule. In response to recurrent difficulties experienced by individuals in exercising these rights, OCR recently published supplemental guidance to clarify and promote better understanding and compliance with these rules by Covered Entities.

OCR started this process in January, 2015 by releasing a comprehensive fact sheet (Access fact sheet) and the first in a series of topical frequently asked questions (FAQs) addressing patients’ right to access their medical records, which set forth requirements providers must follow in sharing medical records with patients, including that they must do so in a timely manner and in a format that works for the patient.

Earlier this month, OCR followed up by publishing on March 1, 2016 a second set of FAQs addresses additional issues, including the fees individuals may be charged for copies of their health information and the right of individuals to have their health information sent directly to a third party if they so choose.

Covered entities and their business associates should move quickly to review and update their business associate agreements and other practices to comply with this new guidance as well as watch for further guidance and enforcement about these practices from OCR.

Other Key HIPAA Regulatory & Enforcement Changes Raise Responsibilities & Risks

OCR’s new guidance on access to PHI follows a host of other regulatory and enforcement activities. While the particulars of each of these new actions and guidance vary, all send a very clear message: OCR expects Covered Entities and their business associates to comply with HIPAA and is offering tools and other guidance to aid them in that process.. In the event of a breach or audit, Covered Entities and their business associates need to be prepared to demonstrate their efforts to comply. Those that cannot show adequate compliance efforts should be prepared for potentially substantial CMP or Resolution Agreement payments and other sanctions.

Register For 3/30 Webex Briefing

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ invites to catch up on the latest guidance on the Covered Entities’ responsibility under HIPAA to provide access to patients to PHI by registering here to participate in the “HIPAA Update: The Latest On Security, Patient Access & Other HIPAA Developments” Webex briefing by attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer that Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ will host beginning at Noon Central Time on Wednesday, March 30, 2016. Get additional information or register here.

About The Author

Recognized as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in both Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law, a “Texas Top Lawyer,” an “AV-Preeminent” and “Top Rated Lawyer” by Martindale-Hubble and as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” in employee benefits 2015 by D Magazine; Ms. Stamer has more than 28 years of extensive proven, pragmatic knowledge and experience representing and advising health industry clients and others on operational, regulatory and other compliance, risk management, product and process development, public policy and other key concerns.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares shared her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on HIPAA and other concerns by her service in the leadership of a broad range of other professional and civic organization including her involvement as the Vice Chair of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association, Executive Director of the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE; Coalition on Patient Empowerment, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; former Board Compliance Chair and Board member of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, immediate past RPTE Representative to ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative and current RPTE Representative to the ABA Health Law Coordinating Counsel, former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, a former member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

Ms. Stamer also is a highly popular lecturer, symposia chair and author, who publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry, human resources, employment and other privacy, data security and other technology, regulatory and operational risk management. Examples of her many highly regarded publications on these matters include “Protecting & Using Patient Data In Disease Management: Opportunities, Liabilities And Prescriptions,” “Privacy Invasions of Medical Care-An Emerging Perspective,” “Cybercrime and Identity Theft: Health Information Security: Beyond HIPAA,” as well as thousands of other publications, programs and workshops these and other concerns for the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, American Health Lawyers, Society of Human Resources Professionals, the Southwest Benefits Association, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, Lexis-Nexis, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, the HCCA, ISSA, HIMSS, Modern Healthcare, Managed Healthcare, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society of CPAs, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other symposia and publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications and speaks and conducts training for a broad range of professional organizations and for clientson the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see CynthiaStamer.com or the Stamer│Chadwick │Soefje PLLC or contact Ms. Stamer via email to here or via telephone to (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating or updating your profile here. ©2016 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ All other rights reserved.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Consumer Driven Health Care, data breach, data security, Disease Management, Doctor, drug treatment, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employer, Employment law, FACTA, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Genetic Information, GINA, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Indian Health, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Labor Law, Laws, managed care, Meaningful Use, Medicaid, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Mental Health, Mental Heatlh, OCR, Outpatient, Patient Empowerment, Pharmacy, Physician, Physician Licensing, Prescription Drugs, Privacy, Psychiatric, Reproductive Rights, Rural Health Care, substance abuse treatment, Technology, Telemarketing, Telemedicine, Union, Veterans Health, Wellness | Tagged: breech, Data Breech, HIPAA, Medical Confidentiality, Medical Privacy, North Memorial, OCR, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

North Memorial Health Care Pays $1.5M Plus HIPAA Settlement For Business Associate Agreement Deficiencies

March 16, 2016

North Memorial Health Care of Minnesota has agreed to pay $1,550,000 to settle charges that it potentially violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy and Security Rules by failing to implement a business associate agreement with a major contractor and failing to institute an organization-wide risk analysis to address the risks and vulnerabilities to its patient information. North Memorial is a comprehensive, not-for-profit health care system in Minnesota that serves the Twin Cities and surrounding communities. The settlement highlights the importance for healthcare providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses and their business associates to comply with HIPAA’s business associate agreement and other HIPAA organizational, risk assessment, privacy and security, and other requirements.

The Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan can be found on the HHS website at: http://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/compliance-enforcement/agreements/north-memorial-health-care/index.html.

Settlement Latest Reminder To Manage HIPAA Risks

Latest Guidance Clarifies Patient Rights To Access PHI & Allowable Charges

Other Key HIPAA Regulatory & Enforcement Changes Raise Responsibilities & Risks

Register For 3/30 Webex Briefing

About The Author

Recognized as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in both Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law, a “Texas Top Lawyer,” an “AV-Preeminent” and “Top Rated Lawyer” by Martindale-Hubble and as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” in employee benefits 2015 by D Magazine; Ms. Stamer has more than 28 years of extensive proven, pragmatic knowledge and experience representing and advising health industry clients and others on operational, regulatory and other compliance, risk management, product and process development, public policy and other key concerns.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares shared her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on HIPAA and other concerns by her service in the leadership of a broad range of other professional and civic organization including her involvement as the Vice Chair of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association, Executive Director of the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE; Coalition on Patient Empowerment, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; former Board Compliance Chair and Board member of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, immediate past RPTE Representative to ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative and current RPTE Representative to the ABA Health Law Coordinating Counsel, former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, a former member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

Ms. Stamer also is a highly popular lecturer, symposia chair and author, who publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry, human resources, employment and other privacy, data security and other technology, regulatory and operational risk management. Examples of her many highly regarded publications on these matters include “Protecting & Using Patient Data In Disease Management: Opportunities, Liabilities And Prescriptions,” “Privacy Invasions of Medical Care-An Emerging Perspective,” “Cybercrime and Identity Theft: Health Information Security: Beyond HIPAA,” as well as thousands of other publications, programs and workshops these and other concerns for the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, American Health Lawyers, Society of Human Resources Professionals, the Southwest Benefits Association, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, Lexis-Nexis, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, the HCCA, ISSA, HIMSS, Modern Healthcare, Managed Healthcare, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society of CPAs, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other symposia and publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications and speaks and conducts training for a broad range of professional organizations and for clientson the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see CynthiaStamer.com or the Stamer│Chadwick │Soefje PLLC or contact Ms. Stamer via email to here or via telephone to (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Corporate Compliance, data breach, data security, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employee Benefits, Employer, Federal Health Center, Genetic Information, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health IT, Health Plan, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, managed care, Medical Malpractice, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Mental Health, OCR, Outpatient, Pandemic, Patient Empowerment, Pharmacy, Physician, Privacy, Psychiatric, Rural Health Care, Technology, Telemarketing, Telemedicine | Tagged: business associate, covered entity, Health Care, Health Plan, HIPAA, Hospital, Medical Privacy, North Memorial, OCR, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

3/30 Webex Shares Latest On Security, Patient Access & Other HIPAA Developments

March 9, 2016

Solutions Law Press, Inc. ™ Invites You To A Special WebEx Briefing

HIPAA Update: The Latest On Security, Patient Access & Other HIPAA Developments

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

1:00 P.M.-2:00 P.M. Eastern | 12:00 P.M.-1:00 P.M. Central 11:00 A.M-12:00 P.M. Mountain | 10:00 A.M-11:00 A.M. Pacific

Health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates (Covered Entities) face new imperatives to review and tighten their practices to ensure their practices comply with recently released guidance from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights (OCR)) emphasizing and clarifying the responsibilities of health care providers, health plans and the healthcare clearinghouses under the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) to provide access to individuals that are the subject of protected health information or “PHI” to access or copies of their PHI in accordance with HIPAA’s rules and other recent HIPAA guidance and enforcement. With OCR’s recent release of added guidance and OCR enforcement statistics continuing to show HIPAA access rule violations among the most common HIPAA violations and OCR stepping up HIPAA enforcement, health care providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses can expect heightened scrutiny and enforcement of these requirements. Additionally, Covered Entities also should evaluate the adequacy of their other practices in light of other recent OCR guidance and enforcement actions.

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ invites to catch up on the latest guidance on HIPAA’s requirements to provide access to patients to PHI by registering here to participate in the Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ “HIPAA Update: The Latest On Security, Patient Access & Other HIPAA Developments” WebEx briefing from Cynthia Marcotte Stamer on Friday, March 18, 2016. During the Briefing, Ms. Stamer will provide participants with:

√ An update on OCR enforcement actiions and guidance over past 12 months

√ A detailed discussion of OCR’s new guidance about when Covered Entities must provide PHI access or copies to patients

√ Discuss rules and best practices for verifying the identity and credentials of an individual requesting PHI as a patient or personal representative of a patient

√ Share tips for contracting and dealing with business associates to facilitate administration of patient PHI access and security compliance activities

√ Share other practical considerations & best practices for compliance and risk management

√ Respond to participant questions on a time permitting basis

√ More

ABOUT THE SPEAKER

Recognized as “Legal Leader™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in both Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law, a “Texas Top Lawyer,” and an “AV-Preeminent” and “Top Rated Lawyer” by Martindale-Hubble, singled out as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” in employee benefits 2015 by D Magazine;, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely recognized for her more than 28 years extensive work and pragmatic thought leadership, experience, publications and training on HIPAA and other privacy, medical records and data and other health care, health plan and employee benefits, workforce and related regulatory and other compliance, performance management, risk management, product and process development, public policy and other key operational concerns.

As a core component of her work as the Managing Shareholder of Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, PC, the Co-Managing Member of Stamer Chadwick Soefje PLLC, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively throughout her nearly 30 year career with health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers, banks and other financial institutions, their technology and other vendors and service providers, and others on legal and operational risk management and compliance including extensive involvement with HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, trade secret, physician and other medical confidentiality and privacy, federal and state data security and data breach and other information privacy and data security rules and concerns; prevention, investigation, response, mitigation and resolution of known or suspected data or privacy breaches or other incidents; defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR, FTC, state attorneys’ general and other federal or state agencies; reporting and redressing known or suspected breaches or other violations; business associate and other contracting; insurance or other liability management and allocation; process and product development, contracting, deployment and defense; evaluation, commenting or seeking modification of regulatory guidance, and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement, and a host of other related concerns for public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, employers, and others. Ms. Stamer also has worked extensively domestically and internationally on public policy and regulatory advocacy on HIPAA and other privacy and data security risks and requirements as well as a broad range of other health, employee benefits, human resources, insurance, tax, compliance and other matters and representing clients in dealings with the US Congress, Departments of Labor, Treasury, Health & Human Services, Federal Trade Commission, HUD and Justice, as well as a state legislatures attorneys general, insurance, labor, worker’s compensation, and other agencies and regulators as well supports clients in defending litigation as lead strategy counsel, special counsel and as an expert witness.

Beyond her extensive involvement advising and defending clients on these matters, Ms. Stamer also has served as the scrivener for the ABA JCEB’s meeting with OCR on HIPAA for many years. She returns as Chair of the Southern California ISSA Health Care Privacy & Security Summit for the third year in 2016, as well as speaks and serves on the steering committee of a multitude of other programs.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares shared her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on HIPAA and other concerns by her service in the leadership of a broad range of other professional and civic organization including her involvement as the Vice Chair of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association, Executive Director of the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE; Coalition on Patient Empowerment, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; former Board Compliance Chair and Board member of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, immediate past RPTE Representative to ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative and current RPTE Representative to the ABA Health Law Coordinating Counsel, former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, a former member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

Ms. Stamer also is a highly popular lecturer, symposia chair and author, who publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry, human resources, employment and other privacy, data security and other technology, regulatory and operational risk management. Examples of her many highly regarded publications on these matters include “Protecting & Using Patient Data In Disease Management: Opportunities, Liabilities And Prescriptions,” “Privacy Invasions of Medical Care-An Emerging Perspective,” “Cybercrime and Identity Theft: Health Information Security: Beyond HIPAA,” as well as thousands of other publications, programs and workshops these and other concerns for the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, American Health Lawyers, Society of Human Resources Professionals, the Southwest Benefits Association, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, Lexis-Nexis, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, the HCCA, ISSA, HIMSS, Modern Healthcare, Managed Healthcare, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society of CPAs, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other symposia and publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications and speaks and conducts training for a broad range of professional organizations and for clients, serves on the faculty and planning committee of many workshops, seminars, and symposia, and on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see CynthiaStamer.com or the Stamer│Chadwick │Soefje PLLC or contact Ms. Stamer via email to here or via telephone to (469) 767-8872.

REGISTRATION & PROGRAM DETAILS

Registration Fee per course is $75.00 per person. Registration Fee Discounts available for groups of three or more participants from the same organization. Limited opportunities for participation. Registration accommodated on a first come basis. Completed registration and payment required via website registration 48 hours in advance of the program. No checks or cash accepted. Persons not registered with completed payment at least 48 hours in advance will only participate subject to availability and completed registration and payment. Payment only accepted via website PayPal. Register Here!

The Webex will be conducted over the internet. Participants will receive access code and instructions for sign on to participate in the Webex and/or dial in to participate in the program via telephone after processing of completed registration. Participants must have access to a computer with internet access and to telephone access to dial in via telephone to participate in the program. Solutions Law Press, Inc. is not responsible for any interruption or interference in participation resulting from limitations in the internet connectivity, computer, telephone or other equipment used by the participant to access and participate in the program.

ABOUT SOLUTIONS LAW PRESS, INC.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides business and management information, tools and solutions, training and education, services and support to help organizations and their leaders better anticipate legal and operational issues impacting their organization’s performance, regulatory compliance and risk management, data and information protection and risk management and other key management objectives. Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ also conducts and assist businesses and associations to design, present and conduct customized programs and training targeted to their specific audiences and needs. For additional information about upcoming programs, to inquire about becoming a presenting sponsor for an upcoming event, e-mail your request to info@Solutionslawpress.com. These programs, publications and other resources are provided only for general informational and educational purposes, the applicability of which to any particular circumstances may be impacted by legal changes, the specific facts and circumstances or other factors. Consequently, neither the distribution or presentation of these programs and materials to any party nor any statement or information provided in or in connection with this communication, the program or associated materials are not intended to or shall not be construed as establishing an attorney-client relationship, to constitute legal advice or a substitute for legal advice, or otherwise provide any assurance or expectation from Solutions Law Press, Inc., the presenter or any related parties that any participant or any other party can rely upon the information or any statements presented herein. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future Alerts or other information about developments, publications or programs or other updates, send your request to info@solutionslawpress.com. If you would prefer not to receive communications from Solutions Law Press, Inc. send an e-mail with “Solutions Law Press Unsubscribe” in the Subject to support@solutionslawyer.net. CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: The following disclaimer is included to comply with and in response to U.S. Treasury Department Circular 230 Regulations. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN. If you are an individual with a disability who requires accommodation to participate, please let us know at the time of your registration so that we may consider your request. ©2016 Solutions Law Press, Inc.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Ambulatory care, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Clinical pathway, Conditions of Participation, Consumer Driven Health Care, data breach, data security, DEA, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, drug treatment, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employee Benefits, Employer, FACTA, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Genetic Information, GINA, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, health care reimbursement, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, Indian Health, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, managed care, Meaningful Use, Medicare Advantage, Mental Heatlh, OCR, Outpatient, Peer Review, Pharmacy, Physician, Privacy, Psychiatric, substance abuse treatment, Technology, Telemedicine, Wellness | Tagged: Breach Notification, Data Breech, Employer, GINA, Health Care, Health insurer, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HIPAA Privacy, HIPAA Security, Hospital, Medical Privacy, PHI, Physician, Protected Health Information | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Redesigned OCR Website Launched

January 7, 2016

Design changes to the Department of Health & Human Services Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) website at www.hhs.gov/ocr may make it easier for health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates (“Covered Entities”), patients and others to use the website to find and use the extensive guidance, tools, enforcement and other data and other resources the website provides on the Privacy, Security, Breach Notification and other Rules of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (“HIPAA”), various health industry Medicare, Medicaid and other Civil Rights rules, and other laws and activities of the via OCR’s website.

In announcing its launch of the redesigned website yesterday (January 6, 2015) OCR touted the website redesign as providing “more responsive, user-friendly” website. In OCR’s announcement of the redesigned website launch, Jocelyn Samuels, OCR’s Director, is quoted as saying “The new features and capabilities of the website will help visitors quickly and easily find the information they are looking for. We are committed to providing the most useful tools as possible for our audiences and this new site will help us in achieving this goal.”

As redesigned, the website:

Categorizes information and resources by “Individuals”, “Professionals” and “Providers” for easier, quicker access to the most useful content.
Uses a “[p]owerful search functionality to display OCR-specific information and resources prominently at the top of search results listings and offerlinks to related content posted on other U.S Department of Health and Human Services websites.
Facilitates access to “[m]ost requested information by displaying links in the prominently displayed in “I would like info on…” box located on the main homepages for Civil Rights and Health Information Privacy as well as offers content organized by topic and accessible through the navigation.
Is built on a mobile-first platform to optimize access on cell phones, tablets and other mobile devices.
Simplifies and redefines site navigation and content lay out on the webpages .are simplified and refined.

The following are some key quick links for finding and navigating the website:

To access the main OCR website, go to www.hhs.gov/ocr.
To access Civil Rights information, go to www.hhs.gov/civil-rights.
To access Health Information Privacy information, go to www.hhs.gov/hipaa.

OCR is the first division within HHS to launch a newly designed website as part of the “Reimagined HHS.gov” project. Look for changes from other HHS agency websites as the project progresses.

For More Information Or Assistance

If you need assistance reviewing or responding to these or other health care related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, may be able to help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law, and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 27 years’ experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Her experience includes advising hospitals, nursing home, home health, rehabilitation and other health care providers and health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; prevent, conduct and investigate, and respond to peer review and other quality concerns; and to respond to Board of Medicine, Department of Aging & Disability, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. The scribe for the American Bar Association (ABA) Joint Committee on Employee Benefits annual agency meeting with the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers, banks and other financial institutions, and others on risk management and compliance with HIPAA and other information privacy and data security rules, investigating and responding to known or suspected breaches, defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR and other federal or state agencies, reporting known or suspected violations, business associate and other contracting, commenting or obtaining other clarification of guidance, training and enforcement, and a host of other related concerns. Her clients include public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, and others. In addition to representing and advising these organizations, she also has conducted training on Privacy & The Pandemic for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans, as well as HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, medical confidentiality, insurance confidentiality and other privacy and data security compliance and risk management for Los Angeles County Health Department, ISSA, HIMMS, the ABA, SHRM, schools, medical societies, government and private health care and health plan organizations, their business associates, trade associations and others.

About Solutions Law Press

Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, compensation, data security and privacy, health care, insurance, and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and other key operational concerns.

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information.

We hope that this information is useful to you. If you found these updates of interest, you also be interested in other recent Solutions Law Press, Inc. training, articles and resources. You can see more articles from this Health Care Update electronic publication, the Coalition for Responsible Health Care Reform electronic publication, our electronic HR & Benefits Update and other publications like the following and get information about training and other resources at www.Solutionslawpress.com:

You also can get access to information about how you can arrange for training on “Building Your Family’s Health Care Toolkit,” using the “PlayForLife” resources to organize low-cost wellness programs in your workplace, school, church or other communities, and other process improvement, compliance and other training and other resources for health care providers, employers, health plans, community leaders and others here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail by creating or updating your profile here. You can access other recent updates and other informative publications and resources here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here. For important information concerning this communication see here. THE FOLLOWING DISCLAIMER IS INCLUDED TO COMPLY WITH AND IN RESPONSE TO U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR 230 REGULATIONS. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN.

Leave a Comment » | HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, OCR, Privacy, Uncategorized | Tagged: Civil Rights, HIPAA | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Providers Get More Flexibility To Report Mental Health Patients To Gun Data Base Under New Privacy Rule

January 6, 2016

As part of the broader series of regulatory and executive actions that President Obama says the Obama Administration is taking in hopes of deterring gun violence, the Department of Health & Human Service Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) is amending the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) Privacy Rule applicable to health care providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses and their business associates (hereafter, collectively “Covered Entities”) to expressly permit some (not all) HIPAA-Covered Entities to disclose the identities of and certain other protected health information (PHI) of individuals with certain mental health conditions that would disqualify the individual from having a firearm under Federal law.

“The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule and the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS): Final Rule” (“Final Rule”) scheduled for official publication in the Federal Register today (January 6, 2016).

The adoption of the Final Rule provides more latitude for some by not all health care providers covered by HIPAA to report for listing on the NICS patients with gun ownership disqualifying mental health histories under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, Pub. L. 103-159 (Brady Gun Law), and its implementing regulations.

However, an analysis of a prepublication copy of the Final Rule available for review here reveals that while the Final Rule will provide greater latitude for some Covered Entities to disclose the identify and other specified PHI to the NICS data base, Covered Entities contemplating making such disclosures should conduct a careful, well-documented analysis of the proposed report to ensure that the disclosure fulfills each of the requirements to qualify as allowed by the Final Rule.

The NICS reporting and other requirements of the Brady Gun Law and the Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended (Title 18, United States Code, Chapter 44), certain individuals from owning, and licensed dealers from selling or otherwise transferring firearms to certain categories of individuals referred to as “prohibitors” including felons and, most relevant for the Final Rule, “mental health prohibitors.”

Under the Department of Justice (DOJ) regulations, a “mental health prohibitors” are defined as individuals who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution, for reasons such as mental illness or drug use; found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity; or otherwise determined by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to be a danger to themselves or others or unable to manage their own affairs, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency.

Prior to the adoption of the Final Rule, many health care providers have cited the HIPAA Privacy Rule as a deterrent to their reporting patients whose mental health history would qualify the patients as mental health prohibitors to the NICS. The HIPAA Privacy Rule, establishes federal protections to ensure the privacy and security of protected health information (PHI) and establishes an array of individual rights with respect to one’s own health information by providing that Covered Entities may only use and disclose individually identifiable health care information considered “protected health information” for purposes of HIPAA (“PHI” with the individual’s written authorization, or as otherwise expressly permitted or required by the HIPAA Privacy Rule.

As interpreted by OCR prior to its adoption of the Final Rule, a health care provider or other Covered Entity generally could not rely upon exceptions from the Privacy Rule for disclosures to law enforcement or for safety to exempt the report from HIPAA’s prohibitions against disclosure of PHI where the record of an involuntary commitment or mental health adjudication originated with a HIPAA covered entity, or the HIPAA covered entity is the State repository for such records. Rather, OCR interpreted the Privacy Rule as providing only three possible ways in which Covered Entities generally could report to the NICS (without the individual’s authorization):

The patient authorized the disclosure in accordance with the HIPAA Privacy Rule;
Where a State enacted a law that requires (and does not merely authorize) such reporting; or
Where no such state law exists, a HIPAA covered entity that performs both health care and non-health care functions (e.g., NICS reporting) could become a hybrid entity under HIPAA so that the Privacy Rule applies only to its health care functions and then report the prohibitor information through its non-HIPAA covered NICS reporting unit without restriction under the Privacy Rule.

OCR’s adoption of the Final Rule implements changes that it previously proposed in 2013 as part of a series of 23 executive actions President Obama proposed in 2013 aimed at curbing gun violence across the nation. OCR says its adoption of the Final Rule is an important step to improving public safety by better enabling the reporting of the identities of prohibited individuals to the background check system “while continuing to strongly protect individuals’ privacy interests.”

While preserving these options, the Final Rule expands the authority of health care providers and other Covered Entities to report a mental health prohibitor to the NICS data bank by creating a specific NICS reporting disclosure exception to the HIPAA Privacy Rule’s general prohibitions against disclosures of PHI without authorization in Privacy Rule § 164.512(k)(7).

Health care providers and other Covered Entities considering making NICS reports about the mental health history of individuals that qualifies as PHI should proceed with caution. The Final Rule only authorizes NICS disclosures of PHI for a small subset of HIPAA Covered Entities that either make the mental health determinations that disqualify individuals from having a firearm or are designated by their States to report this information to NICS. The rule does not apply to most treating providers.

Under the Final Rule, a Covered Entity may use or disclose PHI for purposes of reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System the identity of an individual who is prohibited from possessing a firearm as a mental health prohibitor under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4), if the Covered Entity:

Is a State agency or other entity that is, or contains an entity that is either
- An entity designated by the State to report, or which collects information for purposes of reporting, on behalf of the State, to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System; or
- A court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that makes the commitment or adjudication that causes an individual to be a mental health prohibitor; and
Discloses the information only to:
- The National Instant Criminal Background Check System; or
- An entity designated by the State to report, or which collects information for purposes of reporting, on behalf of the State, to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System; and
Discloses only the limited demographic and certain other information needed for purposes of reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System; and
Does not disclose diagnostic or clinical information for such purposes.

Health care providers contemplating making or the need to consider making NICS reports about persons with mental health treatment histories need to proceed cautiously as even following the adoption of the Final Rule, the health care provider should anticipate the need to manage a number of risks under HIPAA and otherwise. Obviously, since disclosure of PHI in a NICS report or otherwise exposes health care providers and other Covered Entities to civil penalties, criminal prosecution, licensing board or other disciplinary actions as well as a host of other adverse consequences, a health care provider or other Covered Entity contemplating making a NICS disclosure under the Final Rule or any other disclosure of PHI will want to ensure the all requirements to make the use or disclosure permitted under the Privacy Rule are met.

Beyond these HIPAA considerations, since the disclosures specifically relate to individuals suffering mental illness, health care providers or other Covered Entities also should take steps to mitigate their potential exposures to potential charges of disability discrimination which if not properly managed, could trigger civil sanctions by OCR under its disability discrimination rules, limitation or exclusion from Medicare or other federal program participation, law suits and other liabilities.

In addition, Covered Entities also will want to consider and manage the foreseeable challenges and exposures that could arise from the disclosure under medical malpractice, licensing board, ethics, confidentiality and other applicable federal and state laws and regulations

In light of these and other risks, health care providers or other Covered Entities contemplating making or facing the need to consider making a NICS report should consider, among other things engaging the assistance of qualified legal counsel experienced with HIPAA and these other matters to assist and advise them about:

Reviewing their existing policies and procedures in light of the Final Rule, as well as their state’s current policies regarding the permissibility or requirement to make NICS reports;
Updating their written privacy practices and notices of their privacy practices to allow the NICS report in accordance with the Final Rule
Ensuring that the updated privacy notices are distributed going forward to patients and posted on their websites, in their facilities as required to comply with the Privacy Rule;
Exercising care both to verify that all requirements of the Final Rule (or the other alternatives for allowing disclosure) are met and to preserve documentation of this analysis in the event of a future complaint or investigation;
Reviewing and adopting additional protocols to manage potential mental health disability discrimination exposures under federal and state disability or other discrimination and laws; and
Considering and implementing other processes to manage foreseeable malpractice, breach of medical confidentiality, licensing or ethical requirements or other risks that could result from such disclosures.

For More Information Or Assistance

The author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, has extensive experience representing and advising health industry clients and others on these and other regulatory, risk management, public policy and operations matters.

Recognized as a “Top Lawyer” and “Legal Leader” in Healthcare Law, Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law, and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 28 years’ experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Her experience includes advising hospitals, nursing home, home health, rehabilitation and other health care providers and health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; prevent, conduct and investigate, and respond to peer review and other quality concerns; and to respond to Board of Medicine, Department of Aging & Disability, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. The scribe for the American Bar Association (ABA) Joint Committee on Employee Benefits annual agency meeting with the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers, banks and other financial institutions, and others on risk management and compliance with HIPAA and other information privacy and data security rules, investigating and responding to known or suspected breaches, defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR and other federal or state agencies, reporting known or suspected violations, business associate and other contracting, commenting or obtaining other clarification of guidance, training and enforcement, and a host of other related concerns. Her clients include public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, and others. In addition to representing and advising these organizations, she also has conducted training on Privacy & The Pandemic for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans, as well as HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, medical confidentiality, insurance confidentiality and other privacy and data security compliance and risk management for Los Angeles County Health Department, ISSA, HIMMS, the ABA, SHRM, schools, medical societies, government and private health care and health plan organizations, their business associates, trade associations and others.

About Solutions Law Press

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information.

Leave a Comment » | Brady Bill, Gun Control, HIPAA, Mental Health, Psychiatric, Second Amendment, Uncategorized | Tagged: Chemical Dependency, Gun Control, Health Care, Medical Confidentiality, Medical Privacy, Mental Health, Obama, Physician, Privacy, Protected Health Information, Psych, psychiatric | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

New HIPAA Settlement Highlights Internet Applications Safeguards, Whistleblower & Management Oversight Compliance Risks

July 10, 2015

Health care providers, health insurers, group health plans and health care clearinghouses (Covered Entities), their business associates and their leaders need to ensure the adequacy of the security of internet portals and applications used to create, use, access or disclose protected health information (PHI) and should establish and administer ongoing procedures to monitor and maintain adequate PHI security on an ongoing basis in light of a new Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy, Security and Breach Notification Rule (“HIPAA Rules”) Resolution Agreement with St. Elizabeth’s Medical Center (SEMC) announced today (July 10, 2015) by the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights (OCR). Concurrently, the Resolution Agreement also reaffirms the growing involvement of employees and other workforce members as HIPAA “whistleblowers” as well as the need for Covered Entities, business associates and their leaders to ensure that they include and administer documented requirements for board reporting and oversight in their HIPAA compliance and risk management activities.

To settle OCR charges that the Brighton, Massachusetts’s based hospital system violated the HIPAA Rules resulting from OCR’s investigation of a November 16, 2012 complaint made to OCR by SEMC workforce members, SEMC has agreed to pay $218,400 and to implement a “robust corrective action plan” to correct deficiencies in its HIPAA security and other compliance revealed in the investigation.

According to OCR, OCR opened the investigation after employees complained to OCR that SEMC violated HIPAA by allowing workforce members to use an internet-based document sharing application to share and store documents containing electronic protected health information (ePHI) of at least 498 individuals without having analyzed the risks associated with such a practice. According to OCR, its investigation of the complaint revealed among other things that:

SEMC improperly disclosed the PHI of at least 1,093 individuals;
SEMC failed to implement sufficient security measures regarding the transmission of and storage of ePHI to reduce risks and vulnerabilities to a reasonable and appropriate level; and
SEMC failed to timely identify and respond to a known security incident, mitigate the harmful effects of the security incident, and document the security incident and its outcome. Separately, on August 25, 2014, SEMC submitted notification to HHS OCR regarding a breach of unsecured ePHI stored on a former SEMC workforce member’s personal laptop and USB flash drive, affecting 595 individuals. A review of detailed corrective action plan imposed under the Resolution Agreement provides helpful insights about some of the steps that OCR is likely to expect Covered Entities and business associates to take to meet its security expectations for internet applications and portals. Beyond imposing a $218,400 penalty (“Resolution Amount”) against SEMC, the Resolution Agreement requires among other things that SEMC in accordance with the Resolution Agreement and to OCR satisfaction.

In announcing the Resolution Agreement, OCR Director Jocelyn Samuels sent a clear message to Covered Entities and their business associates to confirm and maintain the adequacy of security of internet portals and applications used in connection with PHI. “Organizations must pay particular attention to HIPAA’s requirements when using internet-based document sharing applications,” said OCR Director Jocelyn Samuels. “In order to reduce potential risks and vulnerabilities, all workforce members must follow all policies and procedures, and entities must ensure that incidents are reported and mitigated in a timely manner.”

To self-assess the adequacy of its policies and workforce and operations compliance with HIPAA including conducting unannounced audits of SEMC workforce members’ familiarity and compliance with SEMC policies and procedures on transmitting ePHI using unauthorized networks; storing ePHI on unauthorized information systems, including unsecured networks and devices; removal of ePHI from SEMC; prohibition on sharing accounts and passwords for ePHI access or storage; encryption of portable devices that access or store ePHI; security incident reporting related to ePHI;
The adequacy of workforce compliance with these policies by conducting unannounced site visits to various SEMC departments, inspections of certain laptops, smartphones, storage media and other portable devices as well as on workstations and other devices containing ePHI;
To identify and report to OCR any material compliance issues with the policies and recommendations for improving these policies and procedures, oversight and supervision, or training;
Develop and implement to OCR satisfaction corrections to policies, practice and training along with oversight mechanisms reasonably tailored to ensure that all SEMC workforce members follow such policies and procedures, and only use and disclose ePHI appropriately;
Collect and retain for OCR review and approval certain documentation of compliance; and
Conduct documented investigations of potential violations, redress and report to OCR about investigations and violations.

First, management should take special note that members of the SEMC workforce made the complaint to OCR that prompted OCR’s investigation.

As in other health care compliance areas, required workforce training coupled with HIPAA’s anti-retaliation and whistleblower protections provide encouragement if not incentives for disgruntled or well-meaning employees or other workforce members and business partners of covered entities or business associates make complaints about suspected HIPAA or other compliance concerns internally or to OCR. Management needs to take appropriate steps to ensure that its policies and processes include appropriate privacy and human resources procedures to manage both its HIPAA compliance obligations and potential retaliation and other human resources exposures that can result if these concerns are mishandled. Employee & Other Whistleblower Complaints Common Source of HIPAA Privacy & Other Complaints. Effective health plan and employer HIPAA and human resources compliance, reporting internal investigation and risk management policies and practices are critical to manage both HIPAA and other compliance exposures and the retaliation and other human resources risks that inevitably arise when employees or other workforce members or business partners raise compliance concerns or participate in compliance investigations internally or externally.

Second, the Resolution Agreement also reflects the clear expectation that management of Covered Entities and business associates make compliance with HIPAA a priority. Consistent with its recent practice, the Resolution Agreement requires management oversight and accountability for ensuring compliance with the Resolution Agreement and HIPAA by requiring an officer to attest to the fulfillment of the requirements of the Resolution Agreement. This emphasis upon requiring leadership oversight and prioritization of HIPAA compliance tracks the broader general expectations regarding responsibilities for management and boards concerning compliance with HIPAA and other federal health care increasingly articulated by HHS and other federal agencies enforcing laws subject to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines like HIPAA, See e.g. Practical Guidance for Health Care Governing Boards on Compliance Oversight. While OCR officials have indicated that the need for officer attestation like that required by the Resolution Agreement may not be required in all cases, the inclusion of these requirements coupled with these other developments sends a strong message that Boards and other management should ensure that their processes include appropriate evidence and document retention of management oversight.

For More Information Or Assistance

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer, see here.

About Solutions Law Press

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

We hope that this information is useful to you. If you found these updates of interest, you also be interested in one or more of the following other recent articles published on the Coalition for Responsible Health Care Reform electronic publication available here, our electronic Solutions Law Press Health Care Update publication available here, or our HR & Benefits Update electronic publication available here. You also can get access to information about how you can arrange for training on “Building Your Family’s Health Care Toolkit,” using the “PlayForLife” resources to organize low-cost wellness programs in your workplace, school, church or other communities, and other process improvement, compliance and other training and other resources for health care providers, employers, health plans, community leaders and others here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail by creating or updating your profile here. You can reach other recent updates and other informative publications and resources. Examples of some of these recent health care related publications include:

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here. For important information concerning this communication see here. THE FOLLOWING DISCLAIMER IS INCLUDED TO COMPLY WITH AND IN RESPONSE TO U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR 230 REGULATIONS. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Ambulatory care, ASC, data breach, data security, Health Care, Health Plan, HIPAA, hospitals, managed care, OCR, Privacy | Tagged: Corporate Governance, Data Breach, Data Security, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care Clearinghouse, Health Care Providers, health care technology, Health Plans, HIPAA, Mobile Devices, Office of Civil Rights, Privacy, Protected Health Information, Technology | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Use New State Ebola Protocol Table In Ebola Prevention & Management Planning

January 10, 2015

Health care providers, public health, school, and other community organizations, employers and other business leaders and others concerned about continuing Ebola and other pandemic prevention and containment should check out the new table of State Ebola Protocols Table compiled by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to help law and policy makers prepare for and respond to Ebola-related situations As part of continuing Federal efforts to make up for lost time on helping U.S. health care providers and communities prepare to prevent and respond to Ebola outbreak risks since the death of Liberian Ebola patient Thomas Eric Duncan at a in Dallas hospital last year alerted Americans to the risks and need for tighter preparations.

While the Dallas hospital that treated Mr. Duncan paid a settlement to his family and faced other widespread criticism and negative publicity, it then has become clear that misinformation provided by the patient, the original presentation of the patient with flu-like symptoms, the Obama Administration’s reluctance to adopt policies or communications that might interfere with its pro-immigration political agenda, the CDC’s failure to maintain and communicate the most current health care information to health care providers and communities, the CDC’s academic rather than operational emphasis, EMTALA mandates that forced the hospital to triage the patient, Medicaid and other insurance payment protocols that would have as medically unnecessary screening tests in the absence of more clear risk factors, federal licensing restrictions on the use of testing and a host of other limits and deficiencies in the Federal government’s preparations and response to Ebola and other communication risks, left Texas Health Resources and other U.S. health care providers, as well as U.S schools, public service agencies, employers and others at a great disadvantage in their efforts to deal with the outbreak. After denying the seriousness of Ebola risk concerns for several weeks, the diagnosis with Ebola of health care providers that treated Mr. Duncan and subsequent death and diagnosis resulted in the CDC and other federal and state agencies stepping up their Ebola preparation and guidelines. In keeping with this ongoing commitment, CDC says the CDC now will continue to update the State guidelines table as states continue to modify their Ebola response protocols.

For More Information Or Assistance

If you need assistance reviewing or responding to these or other health care related developments or other risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, may be able to help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 26 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Her experience includes advising hospitals, nursing home, home health, rehabilitation and other health care providers and health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; prevent, conduct and investigate, and respond to peer review and other quality concerns; and to respond to Board of Medicine, Department of Aging & Disability, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, HHS, DOD and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. The scribe for the American Bar Association (ABA) Joint Committee on Employee Benefits annual agency meeting with the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers, banks and other financial institutions, and others on risk management and compliance with HIPAA and other information privacy and data security rules, investigating and responding to known or suspected breaches, defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR and other federal or state agencies, reporting known or suspected violations, business associate and other contracting, commenting or obtaining other clarification of guidance, training and enforcement, and a host of other related concerns. Her clients include public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, and others. In addition to representing and advising these organizations, she also has conducted training on Privacy & The Pandemic for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans, as well as HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, medical confidentiality, insurance confidentiality and other privacy and data security compliance and risk management for Los Angeles County Health Department, ISSA, HIMMS, the ABA, SHRM, schools, medical societies, government and private health care and health plan organizations, their business associates, trade associations and others.

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer, see here.

About Solutions Law Press

THE FOLLOWING DISCLAIMER IS INCLUDED TO COMPLY WITH AND IN RESPONSE TO U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR 230 REGULATIONS. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN.

Leave a Comment » | Centers For Disease Control, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Disability Discrimination, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, E-Prescribing, Employee Benefits, FDA, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Hospital, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Licensing, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, OIG, Pandemic, Patient Empowerment, Pharmacy, Prescription Drugs, Privacy, Prospective Payment, Public Policy, Substance Abuse | Tagged: controlled substance, DEA, DOJ, Drug Testing, drugs, false claims act, Grants, Health Care, Health Care Compliance, Health Care Fraud, Health Plans, HEAT, HIPAA, licensure, Medicaid, Medical Board, pain management, pharmacist, pharmacy, physical therapy, Physician | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Unpatched and Unsupported Software Triggers Latest HIPAA Security Breach Resolution Agreement

December 11, 2014

Health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses (covered entities) and their business associates need to watch for and protect protected health information (PHI) against security exposures from unpatched or unsupported software and other weaknesses in their data security protections as part of their compliance obligations under the Security Rules of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA).

The need to monitor and address data security threats associated with unpatched or unsupported software is demonstrated by the December 9, 2014 announcement by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) that Anchorage Community Mental Health Services (ACMHS) will pay $150,000 and adopt a corrective action plan to correct deficiencies in its HIPAA compliance program resulting from unpatched and unsupported software.

OCR opened an investigation against the five-facility, nonprofit provider of behavioral health care services to children, adults, and families in Anchorage, Alaska after receiving notification from ACMHS of a breach of unsecured electronic protected health information (ePHI) affecting 2,743 individuals due to malware compromising the security of its information technology resources.

According to the OCR announcement of the ACMHS Resolution Agreement with OCR, OCR’s investigation revealed that ACMHS had adopted sample Security Rule policies and procedures in 2005, but failed to follow these procedures. Moreover, OCR found that the reported security incident directly resulted of ACMHS failing to identify and address basic risks, such as not regularly updating their IT resources with available patches and running outdated, unsupported software.

“Successful HIPAA compliance requires a common sense approach to assessing and addressing the risks to ePHI on a regular basis,” said OCR Director Jocelyn Samuels. “This includes reviewing systems for unpatched vulnerabilities and unsupported software that can leave patient information susceptible to malware and other risks.”

In an effort to promote awareness of the need to assess and monitor the security of ePHI by covered entities and business associates, OCR continues to encourage covered entities and business associates to conduct regular documented evaluations of the adequacy of their ePHI safeguards and systems. To aid in this process, OCR and the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology have created a Security Rule Risk Assessment Tool available here to assist organizations that handle PHI in conducting a regular review of the administrative, physical and technical safeguards they have in place to protect the security of the information. Since OCR points to the Tool as a resource, covered entities and business associates should anticipate that their failure to identify and address any deficiencies in the areas identified by the tools as a potentially serious compliance issue. As a result, covered entities and business associates likely will want to take steps to ensure that their records include documented review of the adequacy of the security safeguards identified in the Tool. At the same time, covered entities and their business associates should not assume that the Tool adequately covers all potential HIPAA Security Rule exposures. OCR has made clear in this and other Resolution Agreements that HIPAA’s Security Rule requires ongoing monitoring and assessment of the adequacy of security in response to changes in software or system, emerging threats and other developments.

For More Information Or Assistance

If you need assistance reviewing or responding to these or other health care related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, may be able to help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 26 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Her experience includes advising hospitals, nursing home, home health, rehabilitation and other health care providers and health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; prevent, conduct and investigate, and respond to peer review and other quality concerns; and to respond to Board of Medicine, Department of Aging & Disability, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, HHS, DOD and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. The scribe for the American Bar Association (ABA) Joint Committee on Employee Benefits annual agency meeting with the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers, banks and other financial institutions, and others on risk management and compliance with HIPAA and other information privacy and data security rules, investigating and responding to known or suspected breaches, defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR and other federal or state agencies, reporting known or suspected violations, business associate and other contracting, commenting or obtaining other clarification of guidance, training and enforcement, and a host of other related concerns. Her clients include public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, and others. In addition to representing and advising these organizations, she also has conducted training on Privacy & The Pandemic for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans, as well as HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, medical confidentiality, insurance confidentiality and other privacy and data security compliance and risk management for Los Angeles County Health Department, ISSA, HIMMS, the ABA, SHRM, schools, medical societies, government and private health care and health plan organizations, their business associates, trade associations and others.

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer, see here.

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | Centers For Disease Control, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Disability Discrimination, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, E-Prescribing, Employee Benefits, FDA, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Hospital, Hospital, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Licensing, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, OIG, Pandemic, Patient Empowerment, Pharmacy, Prescription Drugs, Privacy, Prospective Payment, Public Policy, Substance Abuse | Tagged: controlled substance, DEA, DOJ, Drug Testing, drugs, false claims act, Grants, Health Care, Health Care Compliance, Health Care Fraud, Health Plans, HEAT, HIPAA, licensure, Medicaid, Medical Board, pain management, pharmacist, pharmacy, physical therapy, Physician | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Congress Sends Bill To Fast Track FDA Ebola Treatment Review & HHS Declaration Gives Ebola Treatment Manufacturers Special Immunity

December 11, 2014

As part of Washington’s late response to the Ebola outbreak crisis, the House and Senate in the past week have passed legislation that if signed by the President as expected will add Ebola and other filoviruses to the list of diseases eligible for fast track review by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the FDA Priority Review Voucher Program (Program).

The FDA Program awards vouchers to sponsors of human drug applications that are approved to prevent or treat designated tropical diseases. A voucher entitles the holder to have a future human drug application acted upon by the FDA within six months.

The House on December 3, 2014 and the Senate on December 10, 2014 respectively passed the “FDA Priority Review Voucher Program Act,” (S.B. 2917/H.B. 5729) (the “Bill”) that will amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to add Ebola and other filoviruses to the list of diseases covered by the Program. The Bill also seeks to expedite FDA approval of Ebola and other designated disease treatments by:

Changing the process by which infectious diseases that do not significantly impact developed nations and disproportionately affect poor and marginalized populations can be designated as tropical diseases from rulemaking to order of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Allowing priority review vouchers to be transferred between sponsors of human drug applications any number of times.
Reducing from 365 days to 90 days the advance notice required before submitting a human drug application subject to a priority review voucher.

Congress sent the Bill to the President just one day after Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Secretary Sylvia M. Burwell today announced a declaration under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act HHS says it hopes will “facilitate the development and availability of experimental Ebola vaccines in hopes of helping combat the current epidemic in West Africa and help prevent future outbreaks there.”

Fighting the disease in Africa has been the primary focus of the Obama Administration’s Ebola response. The December 9, 2014 HHS declaration provides immunity under United States law against legal claims related to the manufacturing, testing, development, distribution, and administration of three vaccines for Ebola virus disease. It does not, generally, provide immunity for a claim brought in a court outside the United States.

For many years, the U.S. has encouraged vaccine development by managing liability and compensation, starting with the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. The PREP Act was designed to facilitate the development of medical countermeasures to respond to urgent public health needs, including the development of critical vaccines like those to prevent the spread of Ebola. This U.S. declaration under the PREP act is part of a global dialogue to address these issues in the U.S., and other countries where the vaccine is being developed, manufactured and potentially used.

“My strong hope in issuing this PREP Act declaration in the United States is that other nations will also enact appropriate liability protection and compensation legislation,” said Secretary Burwell. “As a global community, we must ensure that legitimate concerns about liability do not hold back the possibility of developing an Ebola vaccine, an essential strategy in our global response to the Ebola epidemic in West Africa.”

HHS hopes the PREP Act declaration will strengthen the incentive to conduct research and spur development, manufacturing, and the potential use of the vaccines in large scale vaccination campaigns in West Africa. The PREP Act declaration provides legal protection under U.S. law for three vaccine candidates:

the GlaxoSmithKline’s Recombinant Replication Deficient Chimpanzee Adenovirus Type 3-Vectored Ebola Zaire Vaccine known as ChAd3-EBO-Z;
the BPSC1001 vaccine, known as rVSV-ZEBOV-GP, made by BioProtection Services Corporation, a subsidiary of Newlink Genetics; and
the Ad26.ZEBOV/MVA-BN-Filo vaccine manufactured by Janssen Corporation, subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson/Bavarian Nordic.

Similar PREP Act declarations have been issued, revised or renewed 14 times since the Act was signed in 2005. Past declarations have covered vaccines used in H5N1 pandemic influenza clinical trials in 2008, products related to the H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009, and the development and manufacturing of antitoxins to treat botulism in 2008. For more information about the PREP Act, see here .

The Bill and the HHS PREP Act declaration are the latest efforts to provide what many health care providers see as a long overdue response to the Ebola outbreak in the wake of the diagnosis and subsequent death of an Ebola patient in Dallas lead to his death and the infection of nurses involved in his treatment, and a small number of other Ebola victims in the United States raised national awareness and concern.

For More Information Or Assistance

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer, see here.

About Solutions Law Press

Preparing Privacy Compliance For Emergencies-Ebola Crisis Prompts HHS OCR To Share Guidance On HIPAA Privacy in Emergency Situations

November 11, 2014

The recent US Ebola scare provided an important reminder to health care providers, health insurers and health plans, health care clearinghouses, employers and others of the importance of understanding and preparing to deal with health care privacy and other challenges arising from epidemics and other emergencies. In response to the recent Ebola and other contagious disease outbreaks and just as U.S. health care and other business leaders are working to prepare for the biggest contagious disease time of the year, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is reminding health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses (Covered Entities) and their business associates that the privacy rules of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) requiring Covered Entities and their business associates to limit the use, access and disclosure of patient’s protected health information (PHI) continue to apply during emergency situations and help them understand when HIPAA allows them to share PHI in emergency situations in a new notice titled “HIPAA Privacy in Emergency Situations” (Guidance) published November 10, 2014. A business associate of a covered entity (including a business associate that is a subcontractor) also must continue to comply with HIPAA and may only make disclosures permitted by the Privacy Rule on behalf of a Covered Entity or another business associate to the extent authorized by its business associate agreement and consistent with HIPAA’s requirements.

Sharing Patient Information

The Guidance begins by reminding Covered Entities and their business associates that HIPAA’s Privacy Rule continues to apply in emergency situations and requires Covered Entities protect and prohibits their use, access or disclosure of patient’s protected health information except as allowed by HIPAA unless the patient authorizes the Covered Entity to disclose the PHI in accordance with HIPAA’s requirements for authorization set forth in 45 CFR 164.508.

The Guidance then goes on to discuss the following circumstances that the HIPAA Privacy Rule might allow Covered Entities to share PHI without getting patient authorization, subject to the reminder that in many cases, HIPAA will require that the Covered Entity limit the disclosure to the minimum necessary disclosure necessary for the allowable purpose and require other conditions to be fulfilled:

Treatment.

Under the Privacy Rule, covered entities may disclose, without a patient’s authorization, protected health information about the patient as necessary to treat the patient or to treat a different patient. Treatment includes the coordination or management of health care and related services by one or more health care providers and others, consultation between providers, and the referral of patients for treatment. See 45 CFR §§ 164.502(a)(1)(ii), 164.506(c), and the definition of “treatment” at 164.501.

Public Health Activities.

The HIPAA Privacy Rule recognizes the legitimate need for public health authorities and others responsible for ensuring public health and safety to have access to protected health information that is necessary to carry out their public health mission. Therefore, the Privacy Rule permits covered entities to disclose needed protected health information without individual authorization:

To Or At The Direction Of A Public Health Authority.

The HIPAA Privacy Rule allows Covered Entities to share protected health information with Public Health Authorities authorized by law to collect or receive such information for the purpose of preventing or controlling disease, injury or disability like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or a state or local health department. This would include, for example, the reporting of disease or injury; reporting vital events, such as births or deaths; and conducting public health surveillance, investigations, or interventions. A “public health authority” is an agency or authority of the United States government, a State, a territory, a political subdivision of a State or territory, or Indian tribe that is responsible for public health matters as part of its official mandate, as well as a person or entity acting under a grant of authority from, or under a contract with, a public health agency. See 45 CFR §§ 164.501 and 164.512(b)(1)(i). For example, a covered entity may disclose to the CDC protected health information on an ongoing basis as needed to report all prior and prospective cases of patients exposed to or suspected or confirmed to have Ebola virus disease.

The HIPAA Privacy Rule also allows Covered Entities to share information at the direction of a public health authority:

To a foreign government agency that is acting in collaboration with the public health authority. See 45 CFR 164.512(b)(1)(i); and
To persons at risk of contracting or spreading a disease or condition if other law, such as state law, authorizes the covered entity to notify such persons as necessary to prevent or control the spread of the disease or otherwise to carry out public health interventions or investigations. See 45 CFR 164.512(b)(1)(iv)

Disclosures to Family, Friends, and Others Involved in an Individual’s Care and for Notification.

The HIPAA Privacy Rule allows a Covered Entity to share protected health information:

With a patient’s family members, relatives, friends, or other persons identified by the patient as involved in the patient’s care;
About a patient as necessary to identify, locate, and notify family members, guardians, or anyone else responsible for the patient’s care, of the patient’s location, general condition, or death including where necessary to notify family members and others, the police, the press, or the public at large. See 45 CFR 164.510(b).

The Guidance reminds Covered Entities, however, that the Privacy Rule requires the Covered Entity to get verbal permission from individuals or otherwise be able to reasonably infer that the patient does not object, when possible. If the individual is incapacitated or not available, the Guidance states Covered Entities may share information for these purposes if, in their professional judgment, doing so is in the patient’s best interest.

The Guidance also confirms that Covered Entities may share protected health information with disaster relief organizations authorized by law or by their charters to assist in disaster relief efforts like the American Red Cross for the purpose of coordinating the notification of family members or other persons involved in the patient’s care, of the patient’s location, general condition, or death. It is unnecessary to obtain a patient’s permission to share the information in this situation if doing so would interfere with the organization’s ability to respond to the emergency.

Imminent Danger

The Guidance also states that Covered Entities that are health care providers may share patient information with anyone as necessary to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the health and safety of a person or the public – consistent with applicable law (such as state statutes, regulations, or case law) and the provider’s standards of ethical conduct. See 45 CFR 164.512(j).

Disclosures to the Media & Others Not Involved in the Care of the Patient/Notification

The Guidance also reminds Covered Entities of the importance of closely adhering to HIPAA’s rules when responding to information requests from the medial or others not involved in the care of a patient. The Guidance states that when the media or other other party not involved un the patient’s care asks the Covered Entity for information about a particular patient by name, a hospital or other health care facility may release limited facility directory information to acknowledge an individual is a patient at the facility and provide basic information about the patient’s condition in general terms (e.g., critical or stable, deceased, or treated and released) if the patient has not objected to or restricted the release of such information or, if the patient is incapacitated, if the disclosure is believed to be in the best interest of the patient and is consistent with any prior expressed preferences of the patient. See 45 CFR 164.510(a). In general, except in the limited circumstances authorized in the HIPAA Privacy Rule, affirmative reporting to the media or the public at large about an identifiable patient, or the disclosure to the public or media of specific information about treatment of an identifiable patient, such as specific tests, test results or details of a patient’s illness, may not be done without the patient’s written authorization (or the written authorization of a personal representative who is a person legally authorized to make health care decisions for the patient).

Minimum Necessary Restriction Requirement

The Guidance cautions Covered Entities and their business associates that for most disclosures, a Covered Entity generally must make reasonable efforts to limit the information disclosed to that which is the “minimum necessary” to accomplish the purpose. However, this minimum necessary requirement does not apply to disclosures to health care providers for treatment purposes.

Covered Entities may rely on representations from a public health authority or other public official that the requested information is the minimum necessary when making disclosures in response to request from those parties. For example, a covered entity may rely on representations from the CDC that the protected health information requested by the CDC about all patients exposed to or suspected or confirmed to have Ebola virus disease is the minimum necessary for the public health purpose.

Required Internal Restrictions On Use, Access & Disclosure

Internally, covered entities should continue to apply their role-based access policies to limit access to protected health information to only those workforce members who need it to carry out their duties. See 45 CFR §§ 164.502(b), 164.514(d).

Safeguarding Patient Information

Beyond limiting the use, access and disclosure of PHI, the Guidance also reminds Covered Entities and their business associates that even in emergency situations, HIPAA continues to require them to implement reasonable safeguards to protect patient information against intentional or unintentional impermissible uses and disclosures as well as to apply the administrative, physical, and technical safeguards of the HIPAA Security Rule to electronic PHI.

Limited Waiver

Although HHS has yet to take steps to trigger a limited waiver, the Guidance also reminds Covered Entities and their business associates that HHS has the power to do so, the effect of a limited waiver and the circumstances under which HHS could elect to apply a limited waiver to waive sanctions against a hospital for certain specific types of HIPAA violations while the waiver is in effect.

As the Guidance notes, the HIPAA Privacy Rule is not suspended during a public health or other emergency. Rather, the limited waiver rules only operates to permit the Secretary of HHS to waive certain provisions of the Privacy Rule under the Project Bioshield Act of 2004 (PL 108-276) and section 1135(b)(7) of the Social Security Act. The limited waiver only applies when the President declares an emergency or disaster and HHS declares a public health emergency. When and if these requirements are met, HHS may waive sanctions and penalties against a Covered Entity that is a hospital for failing to comply with the following HIPAA Privacy Rule provisions:

The requirements to obtain a patient’s agreement to speak with family members or friends involved in the patient’s care. See 45 CFR 164.510(b).
The requirement to honor a request to opt out of the facility directory. See 45 CFR 164.510(a).
The requirement to distribute a notice of privacy practices. See 45 CFR 164.520.
The patient’s right to request privacy restrictions. See 45 CFR 164.522(a).
The patient’s right to request confidential communications. See 45 CFR 164.522(b).

If the Secretary issues such a waiver, Covered Entities and their business associates should keep in mind the waiver only applies to the list violations and only applies:

For so long as the waiver remains in effect;
In the emergency area and for the emergency period identified in the public health emergency declaration
To hospitals that have instituted a disaster protocol; and
For up to 72 hours from the time the hospital implements its disaster protocol.

Not Necessarily Just About HIPAA

HIPAA is not necessarily the only law that Covered Entities, business associates or others need to consider when deciding what to disclose during an emergency or otherwise. The HIPAA Privacy Rule applies to disclosures made by and Covered Entities, business associates employees, volunteers, and other members of a Covered Entity’s or Business Associate’s workforce. The Privacy Rule does not apply to disclosures made by entities or other persons who are not Covered Entities.

Beyond HIPAA, Covered Entities, their business associates or members of their workforce, employers, and other organizations also need to consider whether other federal or state laws, ethical rules, contracts or policies may restrict use or disclosure, safeguard, or take other steps to protect PHI or other information. For instance, other federal laws, state law, professional ethical rules, contracts, facility policies or procedures, or other restrictions often apply to health care provides, insurers, brokers, employers or others. Employers, health care organizations, insurers and others also need to be concerned about potential discrimination, common law and statutory privacy, retaliation, defamation and other exposures.

Prepare For Compliance Now

The recent experiences of various health care organizations intimately involved in caring for the Ebola patients highlights the importance of anticipating, preparing and conducting training, and having your workforce practice to prepare to deal with the special challenges of dealing with HIPAA and other legal responsibilities in advance of emergency events. When preparing for these events, Covered Entities and business associates need to take into account the need to comply operationally as well as to document and retain records of compliance. They should both should anticipate and prepare to respond to both typical inquiries as well as those from the media, public and others. They also should consider how various types of emergencies could create new privacy or security risks. For instance, in certain emergency situations, recordkeeping or other systems could be disrupted, impacting the ability retain and subsequently produce required documentation. Furthermore, Covered Entities also should prepare to manage the patient and public relations aspects of these events including adverse impressions that often arise when the media or others are disappointed at being denied information because of compliance obligations, from breaches or perceived breaches, or other similar events.

For More Information Or Assistance

If you need assistance reviewing or responding to these or other health care related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, may be able to help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 26 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Her experience includes advising hospitals, nursing home, home health, rehabilitation and other health care providers and health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; prevent, conduct and investigate, and respond to peer review and other quality concerns; and to respond to Board of Medicine, Department of Aging & Disability, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, HHS, DOD and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. The scribe for the American Bar Association (ABA) Joint Committee on Employee Benefits annual agency meeting with the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers, banks and other financial institutions, and others on risk management and compliance with HIPAA and other information privacy and data security rules, investigating and responding to known or suspected breaches, defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR and other federal or state agencies, reporting known or suspected violations, business associate and other contracting, commenting or obtaining other clarification of guidance, training and enforcement, and a host of other related concerns. Her clients include public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, and others. In addition to representing and advising these organizations, she also has conducted training on Privacy & The Pandemic for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans, as well as HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, medical confidentiality, insurance confidentiality and other privacy and data security compliance and risk management for Los Angeles County Health Department, ISSA, HIMMS, the ABA, SHRM, schools, medical societies, government and private health care and health plan organizations, their business associates, trade associations and others.

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer, see here.

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | Centers For Disease Control, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Disability Discrimination, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, E-Prescribing, Employee Benefits, FDA, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Hospital, Hospital, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Licensing, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, OIG, Pandemic, Patient Empowerment, Pharmacy, Prescription Drugs, Privacy, Prospective Payment, Public Policy, Substance Abuse | Tagged: controlled substance, DEA, DOJ, Drug Testing, drugs, false claims act, Grants, Health Care, Health Care Compliance, Health Care Fraud, Health Plans, HEAT, HIPAA, licensure, Medicaid, Medical Board, pain management, pharmacist, pharmacy, physical therapy, Physician | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Parkview Hospital To Pay $800K To Settle HIPAA Charges After Retiring Physician Blows The Whistle

July 6, 2014

Health care providers, health plans, heath care clearinghouses and their business associates heed both the lesson about properly protecting protected health information and the more subtle lesson about the role of employees and other whistleblowers in bringing these violations to the attention of regulators contained in the latest Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) resolution agreement.

Late last month, the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights (HHS) announced that complaints of a retiring physician over the mishandling of her patient records by Parkview Health System, Inc. (Parkview) prompted the investigation that lead Parkview to agree to pay $800,000 to settle charges that it violated HIPAA’s Privacy Rule.

The resolution agreement settles charges lodged by HHS based on an OCR investigation into the retiring physician’s allegations that Parkview violated the HIPAA Privacy Rule by failing to properly safeguard the records when it returned them to the physician following her retirement.

As a covered entity under the HIPAA Privacy Rule, HIPAA requires that Parkview appropriately and reasonably safeguard all protected health information in its possession, from the time it is acquired through its disposition.

In an investigation prompted by the physician’s complaint, OCR found that Parkview breached this responsibility in its handling of certain physician patient records in helping the physician to transition to retirement.

According to OCR, in September 2008, Parkview took custody of medical records pertaining to approximately 5,000 to 8,000 patients while assisting the retiring physician to transition her patients to new providers, and while considering the possibility of purchasing some of the physician’s practice.

Subsequently on June 4, 2009, Parkview employees, with notice that the physician was not at home, left 71 cardboard boxes of these medical records unattended and accessible to unauthorized persons on the driveway of the physician’s home, within 20 feet of the public road and a short distance away from a heavily trafficked public shopping venue. OCR concluded this conduct violated the Privacy Rule.

To settle OCR’s charges that these actions violated HIPAA, OCR has agreed to pay the $800,000 resolution amount and to adopt and implement a corrective action plan requiring Parkview to revise their policies and procedures, train staff, and provide an implementation report to OCR.

The resolution agreement highlights the role that current or former physicians, employees or others can play in helping OCR to identify HIPAA violations. Health care providers and other covered entities and their business associates should take into account the likelihood that physicians on their own or other facility medical staffs, their employees and other participants in the care delivery system often may have and be motivated to report to government sensitive information about violations of HIPAA or other laws. Since HIPAA and most other laws prohibited covered entities from forbidding or retaliating against a person for objectiving to or reporting the concern and offer whistleblowers potential participation in the reporting and prosecution of violations, employees or other workforce members increasingly make the complaints bring violations to OCR and other regulators.

Whether from an internal employee complaint, a patient or competitor complaint or other source, HIPAA violations carry significant liability risks. The HITECH Act tightened certain rules applicable to the use, access or disclosure of protected health information by covered entities and their business associates. In addition, the HITECH Act added breach notification rules, extended direct responsibility for compliance with HIPAA to business associates, increased penalties for noncompliance with HIPAA and made other refinements to HIPAA’s medical privacy rules and made certain other changes. Furthermore, enforcement of HIPAA and the resulting penalties have increased since the HITECH Act took effect.

With OCR stepping up both audits and enforcement and penalties for violations higher than ever since the HITECH Act amended HIPAA, Covered Entities and business associates should act quickly to review and update their policies, practices and training to implement any adjustments needed to maintain compliance and manage other risks under these ever-evolving HIPAA standards.

When conducting these efforts, Covered Entities and business associates not only carefully watch for and react promptly to new OCR guidance and enforcement actions, but also document their commitment and ongoing compliance and risk management activities to help support their ability to show their organization maintains the necessary “culture of compliance” commitment needed to mitigate risks in the event of a breach or other HIPAA violation and take well-documented, reasonable steps to encourage their business associates to do the same. When carrying out these activities, most covered entities and business associates also will want to take steps to monitor potential responsibilities and exposures under other federal and state laws like the privacy and data security requirements that often apply to personal financial information, trade secrets or other sensitive data under applicable federal and state laws and judicial precedent.

For Help With Investigations, Policy Review & Updates Or Other Needs

If you need assistance in auditing or assessing, updating or defending your HIPAA, or other health or other employee benefit, labor and employment, compensation, privacy and data security, or other internal controls and practices, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at cstamer@solutionslawyer.net or at (469)767-8872.

The Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer works, publishes and speaks extensively on HIPAA and other privacy and data security, health plan, health care and other human resources and workforce, employee benefits, compensation, internal controls and related matters.

For more than 23 years, Ms. Stamer has counseled, represented and trained employers and other employee benefit plan sponsors, plan administrators and fiduciaries, insurers and financial services providers, third party administrators, human resources and employee benefit information technology vendors and others privacy and data security, fiduciary responsibility, plan design and administration and other compliance, risk management and operations matters. She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on privacy and data security and other human resources, employee benefits and health care concerns. Her many highly regarded publications on privacy and data security concerns include “Privacy Invasions of Medical Care-An Emerging Perspective.” ERISA Litigation Manual. BNA, 2003-2009; “Privacy & Securities Standards-A Brief Nutshell.” BNA Tax Management and Compliance Journal. February 4, 2005; “Cybercrime and Identity Theft: Health Information Security beyond HIPAA.” ABA Health eSource. May, 2005 and many others. She also regularly conducts training on HIPAA and other privacy and data security compliance and other risk management matters for a broad range of organizations including the Association of State and Territorial Healthcare Organizations (ASTHO), the Los Angeles County Health Department, a multitude of health plans and their sponsors, health care providers, the American Bar Association, SHRM, the Society for Professional Benefits Administrators and many others. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see www.CynthiaStamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer directly.

About Solutions Law Press

Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also may be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press resources available at http://www.solutionslawpress.com including:

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Doctor, Electronic Medical Records, Employment, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Genetic Information, GINA, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Hospital, Hospital, Indian Health, Medicare Advantage, Mental Heatlh, OCR, Pharmacy, Physician, Privacy, Rural Health Care | Tagged: Civil Monetary Penalties, HIPAA, Mass General, OCR, PHI, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Health Care & Other HIPAA Covered Entities Should Review New Reports As Part of HIPAA Risk Management Efforts

June 11, 2014

Health care providers, health plans and insurers, health care clearinghouses (collectively “Covered Entities”), their business associates, and others concerned about medical privacy regulations or protections should check out two new reports to Congress about breach notifications reported and other compliance data under the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights (OCR). Reviewing this data can help Covered Entities and their business associates identify potential areas of exposures and enforcement that can be helpful to minimize their HIPAA liability as well as to expect OCR enforcement and audit inquiries.

Required by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, the two new reports discuss various details about HIPAA compliance for calendar years 2011 and 2012. They include the following:

Report to Congress on Breach Notifications, discussing the breach notification requirements and reports OCR received as a result of these breach notification requirements; and
Report to Congress on Compliance with the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules, summarizing complaints received by OCR of alleged violations of the provisions of Subtitle D of the HITECH Act, as well as of the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules at 45 CFR Parts 160 and 164 .
Covered entities and their business associates should review the finding reported as part of their compliance practices. Others concerned about medical or other privacy or data security regulations or events also may find the information in the reports of interest.

Under HIPAA, covered entities generally are prohibited from using, accessing or disclosing protected health information about individuals except as specifically allowed by HIPAA, In addition, HIPAA also requires Covered Entities to establish safeguards to protect protected health information against improper access, use or destruction, to afford certain rights to individuals who are the subjects of protected information, to obtain certain written assurances from service providers who are business associates before allowing those service providers to use, access or disclose protected health information when carrying out covered functions for the Covered Entity, and meet other requirements.

The HITECH Act tightened certain rules applicable to the use, access or disclosure of protected health information by covered entities and their business associates. In addition, the HITECH Act added breach notification rules, extended direct responsibility for compliance with HIPAA to business associates, increased penalties for noncompliance with HIPAA and made other refinements to HIPAA’s medical privacy rules and made certain other changes.

Enforcement of HIPAA and the resulting penalties have increased since the HITECH Act took effect.

Even if a Covered Entity or business associate completed the updates required to comply with the Omnibus Final Rule, however, recent supplemental guidance published by OCR means that most organizations now have even more work to do on HIPAA compliance. This includes the following supplemental guidance on its interpretation and enforcement of HIPAA against Covered Entities and business associates published by OCR since January 1, 2014 alone:

HIPAA Privacy Rule and Sharing Information Related to Mental Health published on
Spanish Language Model Notices of Privacy Practices published on 2/13/14
CLIA Program and HIPAA Privacy Rule; Patients’ Access to Test Reports published on 2/3/14; and
Proposed Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule and the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) published on 1/7/14.

Beyond this 2014 guidance, Covered Entities and their business associates also should look at enforcement actions and data as well as other guidance OCR issued during 2013 after publishing the Omnibus Final Rule such as:

For Help With Investigations, Policy Review & Updates Or Other Needs

About Solutions Law Press

Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also may be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press resources available at http://www.solutionslawpress.com including:

Latest OCR Resolution Agreement Hits Public Health Department, Shows Needs To Stay Up-To-Date

March 16, 2014

Health Department HIPAA Violations Cost County $250,000, Requires Sweeping HIPAA Reforms

Hear Update On Resolution Agreement & Other New HIPAA Developments At 3/18 North Texas Healthcare Professionals Association Meeting –

RSVP here by Noon on March 17, 2014

Skagit County, Washington will pay a $215,000 monetary settlement and work closely with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) to correct deficiencies in its HIPAA compliance program to settle potential violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy, Security, and Breach Notification Rules by the Skagit County Public Health Department (Health Department) under a Resolution Agreement announced by OCR on March 7, 2014. The Resolution Agreement makes clear the need for health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates to update and maintain their policies and practices in compliance with the constantly evolving OCR guidance and resolution agreements, as well as to timely investigate and report breaches. Interested persons are invited to hear a briefing on a series of new developments including this latest Resolution Agreement at the March 18, 2014 North Texas Healthcare Professionals Association Meeting.

OCR investigated the Health Department after receiving a breach report that unknown parties accessed money receipts with electronic protected health information (ePHI) of seven individuals after the ePHI had been inadvertently moved to a publicly accessible server maintained by the County.

OCR reports its investigation revealed a broader exposure of protected health information involved in the incident, which included the ePHI of 1,581 individuals. Many of the accessible files involved sensitive information, including protected health information about the testing and treatment of infectious diseases.

OCR’s investigation further uncovered general and widespread non-compliance by Skagit County with the HIPAA Privacy, Security, and Breach Notification Rules.

Specifically, the Resolution Agreement between OCR and the Health Department states that OCR found the following conduct occurred (“Covered Conduct”).

From approximately September 14, 2011 until September 28, 2011, Skagit County disclosed the ePHI of 1,581 individuals in violation of the Privacy Rule by providing access to ePHI on its public web server;
From November 28, 2011 until present, Skagit County failed to provide notification as required by the Breach Notification Rule to all of the individuals for whom it knew or should have known that the privacy or security of the individual’s ePHI had been compromised as a result of the breach incident;
From April 20, 2005 until present, Skagit County failed to implement sufficient policies and procedures to prevent, detect, contain, and correct security violations;
From April 20, 2005 until June 1, 2012, Skagit County failed to implement and maintain in written or electronic form policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure compliance with the Security Rule; and
From April 20, 2005 until present, Skagit County failed to provide security awareness and training to all workforce members, including its Information Security staff members, as necessary and appropriate for the workforce members to carry out their functions within Skagit County.

To resolve OCR’s allegations of these breaches, Skagit County agrees under the Resolution Agreement to pay HHS $215,000.00 and to ensure that the Health Department implements a series of corrective actions. Among other things, the Resolution Agreement requires that the Health Department:

Provide substitute Breach Notification to individuals not previously notified of the breach of their ePHI in accordance with the Resolution Agreement
Revise to the satisfaction of OCR and adopt revised accounting for disclosure, hybrid entity designations, policies on safeguarding PHI, including its sample business associate agreements;
Conduct an accurate and thorough assessment of the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of electronic protected health information (ePHI) held by the covered health care components of Skagit County as identified in its hybrid entity documentation approved by HHS and implement security measures sufficient to reduce the risks and vulnerabilities identified in the risk analysis to a reasonable and appropriate level.
Create and revise, as necessary, written policies and procedures for its covered health care components to comply with the Federal standards that govern the privacy, security, and breach notification of individually identifiable health information;
Comply with strict workforce training requirements;
Notify and OCR of the occurrence of some reported breaches, its investigation and corrective actions;
Provide a summary of the reported events and the status of any corrective and preventative action relating to all such Reportable Events; and
Provide OCR with an attestation signed by an officer of Skagit County attesting that he or she has reviewed the Annual Report, has made a reasonable inquiry regarding its content and believes that, upon such inquiry, the information is accurate and truthful.

In addition to bringing its policies and practices up to date with OCR regulations in effect at the time of the breach that resulted in the Resolution Agreement, the Health Department also will have to update its polic9ies and practices to meet changes to OCR’s HIPAA rules that have taken effect since the breach under the revised rules published by OCR in its Modifications to the HIPAA Privacy, Security, Enforcement, and Breach Notification Rules Under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act; Other Modifications to the HIPAA Rules; Final Rule (Omnibus Final Rule) OCR published January 25, 2013 as well as a series of recently issued OCR rules such as the following:

Covered Entities & Business Associates Should Review & Tighten Practices in Response To Resolution Agreement & Other New Guidance

Other covered entities and their business associates should carefully evaluate and tighten their existing practices in response to the Resolution Agreement and other recent guidance. In the past, OCR officials have stated it expects that other health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates will review resolution agreements like this one along with other emerging OCR guidance and update their practices as necessary to address concerns within their own organization that might be similar to those reflected in the applicable resolution agreement. The Resolution Agreement documents this expectation by specifically incorporating this requirement as part of its terms.

Hear Stamer’s Update On Resolution Agreement & Other New HIPAA Developments At 3/18 North Texas Healthcare Professionals Association Meeting

Scribe for the American Bar Association Annual Agency Meeting with OCR for the fourth year, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will overview these and other HIPAA developments when she presents “Tutoring On OCR’s Latest HIPAA Homework” at the North Texas Healthcare Professionals Association Study Group Luncheon on Tuesday, March 18, 2014 from 11:30 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. at the offices of the Dallas Ft Worth Hospital Council, 250 Decker Drive, Irving, TX 75062-2706. A complimentary luncheon will be served to guests to who register in advance. There is no charge to particulate but space is limited. RSVP here by Noon on March 17, 2014.

For More Information Or Assistance

Her insights on these and other related matters appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. If you need assistance responding to concerns about the matters discussed in this publication or other health care concerns, wish to obtain information about arranging for training or presentations by Ms. Stamer, wish to suggest a topic for a future program or update, or wish to request other information or materials, please contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer, see here.

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | Controlled Substances, DEA, Doctor, E-Prescribing, FDA, GINA, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health IT, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Hospital, Licensing, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, OIG, Physician, Physician Licensing, Prescription Drugs, Substance Abuse | Tagged: Business Associates, Compliance, controlled substance, Covered Entities, DEA, Drug Testing, drugs, false claims act, Health Care, Health Care Compliance, Health Care Fraud, HEAT, HIPAA, licensure, Medicaid, Medical Board, Medical Privacy, pain management, pharmacist, pharmacy, PHI, physical therapy, Physician | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Hospital Will Pay $75K For Refusing To Hire Disabled Worker

March 10, 2014

Osceola Community Hospital Refused To Hire Child Care Worker With Cerebral Palsy Who Had Worked As Volunteer

Osceola Community Hospital in Sibley, Iowa will pay $75,000 and furnish other relief to settle an Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for its refusal to hire a child care worker with cerebral palsy. The case shows both the need for health care and other employers to have sufficient evidence to support decisions not to hire disabled workers for safety reasons as well as the potential risks that hospitals or other face when refusing to hire disabled individuals who have been allowed to work as volunteers in their organizations.

The EEOC charged a day care center operated by the hospital, Bright Beginnings of Osceola County, unlawfully failed to hire a volunteer employee into a paid position for which she was qualified because of her cerebral palsy. Although the woman who brought the charge of discrimination against the hospital already volunteered in the day care center and held a job driving a school bus, the EEOC’s investigation revealed the county refused to hire her into a paying job in the center out of an unfounded fear that her disability meant that she could not safely care for the children.

Judge Mark Bennett entered a consent decree on February, 28, 2014, resolving the brought by the EEOC in EEOC v. Osceola Community Hospital d/b/a Bright Beginnings of Osceola County, Civil Action No. 5:12-cv-4087 (N.D. Iowa, Sept. 26, 2012 that orders Osceola Community Hospital to pay $75,000 to the discrimination victim. The decree also requires the hospital to institute a policy prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability and to distribute the policy to all of its employees. The hospital also must train its employees and report regularly to the EEOC on its compliance with the ADA.

The lawsuit provides another example to health care and other employers of their growing exposure to disability discrimination claims under the ADA. The EEOC action and lawsuit highlights the importance of employers ensuring that decisions to refuse to hire disabled workers for safety reasons are based upon appropriate evidence of actual safety concerns that prevent the worker from safely performing the assigned duties with or without reasonable accommodation.

The fact that the worker in this case had in fact worked as a volunteer likely created additional challenges in defending the decision. The use of volunteer workers in health industry businesses is a common practice that may justify special care before those organizations deny employment to a former volunteer on the basis of safety concerns associated with the disabilities of the applicant or worker both to document the reasonable basis of the safety concern and that the concern could not be adequately resolved through reasonable accommodation.

Health Care Providers Must Strengthen Disability Compliance & Risk Management

Employment discrimination isn’t the only disability discrimination risk that hospitals and other health industry organizations need to worry about in today’s liability charged environment. Enforcing federal discrimination laws is a high priority of the Obama Administration. The Departments of Labor, Health & Human Services, Education, Justice, Housing & Urban Development, and others all have both increased enforcement, audits and public outreach, as well as have sought or are proposing tighter regulations.

The expanding applicability of nondiscrimination rules coupled with the wave of new policies and regulatory and enforcement actions should alert private businesses and state and local government agencies of the need to exercise special care to prepare to defend their actions against potential disability or other Civil Rights discrimination challenges under employment, Medicare, housing and a broad range of other laws.

The Obama Administration is targeting disability discrimination by health care organizations in a broad range of areas as part of its Barrier Free Health Care Initiative (Initiative). Launched on the 22^nd anniversary of the ADA in July 2012, the Initiative is a partnership of the Civil Rights Division and 40 U.S. Attorney’s offices across the nation, that targets ADA and other disability discrimination law enforcement efforts on a critical area for individuals with disabilities.

Part of a broader enforcement initiative of the Obama Administration to enforce and expand federal protections for individuals with disabilities, the Initiative seeks to protect patients with disabilities against illegal disability discrimination by prosecuting health care providers under the ADA and the Rehab Act.

Section 504 of the Rehab Act requires recipients of Medicare, Medicaid, HUD, Department of Education, welfare and most other federal assistance programs funds including health care, education, housing services providers, state and local governments to ensure that qualified individuals with disabilities have equal access to programs, services, or activities receiving federal financial assistance.

The ADA extends the prohibition against disability discrimination to private providers and other businesses as well as state and local governments including but not limited to health care providers reimbursed by Medicare, Medicaid or various other federal programs The ADA requirements extend most federal disability discrimination prohibits to health care and other businesses even if they do not receive federal financial assistance to ensure that qualified individuals with disabilities have equal access to their programs, services or activities.

In many instances, these federal discrimination laws both prohibit discrimination and require health care and other regulated businesses to put in place reasonable accommodations needed to ensure that their services are accessible and available to persons with disabilities. The public accommodation provisions of the ADA, for instance, generally require those doctors’ offices, medical clinics, hospitals, and other health care providers, as well as other covered businesses to provide people with disabilities, including those with HIV, equal access to goods, services, and facilities. The ADA also may compel health care providers to adjust their practices for delivering care and/or providing access to facilities to accommodate special needs of disabled individuals under certain circumstances. Meanwhile the Civil Rights Act and other laws prohibit discrimination based on national origin, race, sex, age, religion and various other grounds. These federal rules impact almost all public and private health care providers as well as a broad range housing and related service providers.

The Justice Departments campaign against disability discrimination by health care providers is supported and enhanced by the concurrent efforts of OCR. Along side the Justice Department’s efforts, OCR recently has announced several settlement agreements and issued letters of findings as part of its ongoing efforts to ensure compliance with the Rehab Act and the ADA well as various other federal nondiscrimination and civil rights laws. Through its own antidiscrimination campaign, OCR is racking up an impressive list of settlements with health care providers, housing and other businesses for violating the ADA, Section 504 or other related civil rights rules enforced by OCR. See, e.g. Genesis Healthcare Disability HHS OCR Discrimination Settlement Reminder To Use Interpreters, Other Needed Accommodations For Disabled. Meanwhile, both the Justice Department and OCR also are encouraging victims of discrimination to enforce their rights through private action through educational outreach to disabled and other individuals protected by federal disabilities and other civil rights laws to make them aware of and to encourage them to act to enforce these rights.

Health Care Organizations & Providers Should Act To Manage Patient-Related Disability Discrimination Risks

Prosecutions and settlements by these and other federal agencies show the need for health care providers and other public and private organizations to strengthen their disability discrimination compliance and management practices to defend against rising exposures to actions by the Justice Department, OCR, the EEOC and other agencies as well as private law suits. Hospitals, health care clinics, physicians and other health care providers should take steps to guard against joining the growing list of health care providers caught in the enforcement sights of the Initiative by reviewing and updating practices, policies, training and oversight to ensure that their organizations can prevent and defend against charges of disability discrimination.

Defending or paying to settle a disability discrimination charge brought by a private plaintiff, OCR or another agency, or others tends to be financially, operationally and politically costly for a health care organization or public housing provider. In addition to the expanding readiness of OCR and other agencies to pursue investigations and enforcement of disability discrimination and other laws, the failure of health care organizations to effectively keep up processes to appropriately include and care for disabled other patients or constituents with special needs also can increase negligence exposure, undermine Joint Commission and other quality ratings, undermine efforts to qualify for public or private grant, partnerships or other similar arrangements, and create negative perceptions in the community.

In light of the expanding readiness of the Justice Department, OCR, HUD, EEOC and other agencies to investigate and take action against health care providers for potential violations of the ADA, Section 504 and other federal discrimination and civil rights laws, health care organizations and their leaders should review and tighten their policies, practices, training, documentation, investigation, redress, discipline and other nondiscrimination policies and procedures. In carrying out these activities, organizations and their leaders should keep in mind the critical role of training and oversight of staff and contractors plays in promoting and maintaining required operational compliance with these requirements. Reported settlements reflect that the liability trigger often is discriminatory conduct by staff, contractors, or landlords in violation of both the law and the organization’s own policies.

To achieve and maintain the necessary operational compliance with these requirements, organizations should both adopt and policies against prohibited discrimination and take the necessary steps to institutionalize compliance with these policies by providing ongoing staff and vendor training and oversight, contracting for and monitoring vendor compliance and other actions. Organizations also should take advantage of opportunities to identify and resolve potential compliance concerns by revising patient and other processes and procedures to enhance the ability of the organization to learn about and redress potential charges without government intervention.

For More Information Or Assistance

If you need assistance reviewing or tightening your policies and procedures, conducting training or audits, responding to or defending an investigation or other enforcement action or with other health care related risk management, compliance, training, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, may be able to help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 24 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Her experience includes advising hospitals, nursing home, home health, rehabilitation and other health care providers and health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; prevent, conduct and investigate, and respond to peer review and other quality concerns; and to respond to Board of Medicine, Department of Aging & Disability, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, HHS, DOD and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns.

Her insights on these and other related matters appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. If you need assistance responding to concerns about the matters discussed in this publication or other health care concerns, wish to obtain information about arranging for training or presentations by Ms. Stamer, wish to suggest a topic for a future program or update, or wish to request other information or materials, please contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides business and management information, tools and solutions, training and education, services and support to help organizations and their leaders promote effective management of legal and operational performance, regulatory compliance and risk management, data and information protection and risk management and other key management objectives. Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ also conducts and help businesses and associations to design, present and conduct customized programs and training targeted to their specific audiences and needs. For additional information about upcoming programs, to explore becoming a presenting sponsor for an upcoming event, e-mail your request to info@Solutionslawpress.com These programs, publications and other resources are provided only for general informational and educational purposes. Neither the distribution or presentation of these programs and materials to any party nor any statement or information provided in or in connection with this communication, the program or associated materials are intended to or shall be construed as establishing an attorney-client relationship, to constitute legal advice or provide any assurance or expectation from Solutions Law Press, Inc., the presenter or any related parties. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future Alerts or other information about developments, publications or programs or other updates, send your request to info@solutionslawpress.com. CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: The following disclaimer is included to comply with and in response to U.S. Treasury Department Circular 230 Regulations. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN. ©2013 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C. All rights reserved.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, ADA, DME, Doctor, Electronic Health Records, Employer, Employment, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health IT, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Hospital, OCR, Physician | Tagged: ADA, Disability Discrimination, EEOC, Health Care, Hospital, OCR | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OCR Assigns More HIPAA Compliance Work To Health Care Providers

March 5, 2014

Think your health care organization or health plan has health care privacy covered? Think again.

A series of supplemental guidance issued by the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights (OCR) in recent weeks is giving health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses (Covered Entities) and their business associates even more to do in reviewing and updating their policies, practices and training for handing protected health information (PHI) beyond bringing their policies and practices into line with OCR’s restatement and update to the Modifications to the HIPAA Privacy, Security, Enforcement, and Breach Notification Rules Under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act; Other Modifications to the HIPAA Rules; Final Rule (Omnibus Final Rule) OCR published January 25, 2013.

Covered Entities generally have been required to comply with most requirements the Omnibus Final Rule’s restated regulations restating OCR’s regulations implementing the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy, Security and Breach Notification Rules to reflect HIPAA amendments enacted by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act since the Omnibus Final Rule took effect on March 26, 2013 and to have updated business associate agreements in place since September 23, 2013. Meanwhile, the Omnibus Final Rule generally has required business associates have updated business associate agreements in place and otherwise to have come into compliance with all of the applicable requirements of the Omnibus Final Rule since September 23, 2013. Although these deadlines are long past, many Covered Entities and business associates have yet to complete the policy, process and training updates required to comply with the modifications implemented in the Omnibus Final Rule.

Even if a Covered Entity or business associate completed the updates required to comply with the Omnibus Final Rule, however, recent supplemental guidance published by OCR means that most organizations now have even more work to do on HIPAA compliance. This includes the following supplemental guidance concerning its interpretation and enforcement of HIPAA against Covered Entities and business associates published by OCR since January 1, 2014 alone:

When conducting these efforts, Covered Entities and business associates not only carefully watch for and react promptly to new OCR guidance and enforcement actions, but also document their commitment and ongoing compliance and risk management activities to help support their ability to demonstrate their organization maintains the necessary “culture of compliance” commitment needed to mitigate risks in the event of a breach or other HIPAA violation and take well-documented, reasonable steps to encourage their business associates to do the same. When carrying out these activities, most covered entities and business associates also will want to take steps to monitor potential responsibilities and exposures under other federal and state laws like the privacy and data security requirements that often apply to personal financial information, trade secrets or other sensitive data under applicable federal and state laws and judicial precedent.

For More Information Or Assistance

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer, see here.

About Solutions Law Press

CMS To Host Provider Webinar To Celebrate National Health IT Week

September 13, 2013

In celebration of the third annual National Health IT Week is September 16-20, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will host several webinars and launching new eHealth tools and resources that it intends to help providers participate in eHealth programs. These programs may be of interest to providers as well as payers who are interested in what providers are doing to use eHealth tools.

Details of Webinar

The eHealth Provider Webinar will be held on Thursday, September 19^th from 12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. ET. CMS plans to present an overview of the eHealth programs and its eHealth initiative—an initiative that aligns health IT and electronic standards programs on:

Administrative Simplification
eRx Incentive Program
ICD-10
Quality Measurement

A portion of the webinar will also be dedicated to Q&A.

Registration Information

Space is limited. Register now to secure your spot for the eHealth Provider Webinar. Once registration is complete, you will receive a follow-up email with step-by-step instructions on how to log-in to the webinar. Listserv messages are sent prior to each webinar session with registration information.

If you’d like to view past webinars, the PowerPoint presentations and recordings can now be accessed on the Resources page of the eHealth website. For more information about CMS’ eHealth Initiatives, visit the CMS eHealth website for the latest news and updates on CMS’ eHealth initiatives.

For More Information Or Assistance

If you need assistance responding to this invitation or with other health industry regulatory, enforcement or other developments, reviewing or tightening your policies and procedures, conducting training or audits, responding to or defending an investigation or other enforcement action or with other health care related risk management, compliance, training, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, may be able to help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 25 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Her experience includes extensive work advising, representing and training health industry and other clients on HIPAA and other privacy, data protection and breach and other related matters. She also advises hospitals, nursing home, home health, rehabilitation and other health care providers and health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; prevent, conduct and investigate, and respond to peer review and other quality concerns; and to respond to Board of Medicine, Department of Aging & Disability, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, HHS, DOD and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. Scribe for the ABA JCEB annual Technical Sessions meeting with OCR for the past three years, Ms. Stamer also is recognized for her extensive publications and programs including numerous highly regarding publications and programs on HIPAA and other privacy and data security concerns as well as a wide range of other workshops, programs and publications on other compliance, operational and risk management, and other health industry matters. Ms. Stamer also has extensive other public policy and regulatory experience with HHS and other U.S. federal and state agencies as well as internationally. Her insights on these and other related matters appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. If you need assistance responding to concerns about the matters discussed in this publication or other health care concerns, wish to obtain information about arranging for training or presentations by Ms. Stamer, wish to suggest a topic for a future program or update, or wish to request other information or materials, please contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer, see here.

About Solutions Law Press

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here. For important information about this communication click here. THE FOLLOWING DISCLAIMER IS INCLUDED TO COMPLY WITH AND IN RESPONSE TO U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR 230 REGULATIONS. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Affordable Care Act, Ambulatory care, Anti-KickBack, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Conditions of Participation, Consumer Driven Health Care, Controlled Substances, Corporate Compliance, Disability Discrimination, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, E-Prescribing, Employee Benefits, Employment, Evidence Based Medicine, Federal Health Center, Genetic Information, Grants, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Qulity, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance Exchange, Health Plan, Health Plans, Health Policy, HIPAA, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Indian Health, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Licensing, Meaningful Use, Medicaid, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, Medicare Fee Schedule, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Mental Heatlh, Money Laundering, OCR, OIG, Outcomes Data, Outpatient, Pandemic, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Peer Review, Physician, Physician Licensing, Prescription Drugs, Privacy, Prospective Payment, Public Policy, Real Estate, Rehabilitation Act, Reimbursement, Reproductive Rights, Rural Health Care, Stark, Substance Abuse, Swine Flu, Technology, Telemedicine, Veterans Health, Veterans Health Care | Tagged: Breach Notification, CMS, eHealth, Health IT, HHS, HIPAA Privacy, Hospital, Physicians, Providers, Security | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Tell HHS What You Think-Comment On HHS Strategic Plan Now!

September 9, 2013

Health care providers, health plans, employers and others concerned about the regulatory and enforcement activities of the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) can make their concerns known by speaking up now. Share your input on the draft HHS strategic plan that will guide HHS’ regulatory and enforcement agenda for the next 4 years.

Every 4 years, HHS updates its strategic plan, which describes its work to address complex, multifaceted, and ever-evolving health and human service issues, including:

Health Care
Research and Innovation
Prevention and Wellness

HHS is inviting public input on the draft HHS Strategic Plan for FY 2014-2018. The comment period is open until October 15, 2013. Individuals or organizations wishing to respond to this invitation can read the HHS Strategic Plan FY 2014-2018 (Draft) and submit your comments several ways including:

Submit your comments online here
Via Email to: strategicplanning@hhs.gov
Via Fax: (202) 690-8252
U.S. Mail (not recommended as security screening results in significant delay.

For More Information Or Assistance

If you need assistance responding to this invitation for comment or other health industry regulatory, enforcement or other developments, reviewing or tightening your policies and procedures, conducting training or audits, responding to or defending an investigation or other enforcement action or with other health care related risk management, compliance, training, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, may be able to help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 25 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Her experience includes extensive work advising, representing and training health industry and other clients on HIPAA and other privacy, data protection and breach and other related matters. She also advises hospitals, nursing home, home health, rehabilitation and other health care providers and health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; prevent, conduct and investigate, and respond to peer review and other quality concerns; and to respond to Board of Medicine, Department of Aging & Disability, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, HHS, DOD and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. Scribe for the ABA JCEB annual Technical Sessions meeting with OCR for the past three years, Ms. Stamer also is recognized for her extensive publications and programs including numerous highly regarding publications and programs on HIPAA and other privacy and data security concerns as well as a wide range of other workshops, programs and publications on other compliance, operational and risk management, and other health industry matters. Ms. Stamer also has extensive other public policy and regulatory experience with HHS and other U.S. federal and state agencies as well as internationally. Her insights on these and other related matters appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. If you need assistance responding to concerns about the matters discussed in this publication or other health care concerns, wish to obtain information about arranging for training or presentations by Ms. Stamer, wish to suggest a topic for a future program or update, or wish to request other information or materials, please contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer, see here.

About Solutions Law Press

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here. For important information about this communication click here. THE FOLLOWING DISCLAIMER IS INCLUDED TO COMPLY WITH AND IN RESPONSE TO U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR 230 REGULATIONS. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Affordable Care Act, Ambulatory care, Anti-KickBack, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Conditions of Participation, Consumer Driven Health Care, Controlled Substances, Corporate Compliance, Disability Discrimination, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, E-Prescribing, Employee Benefits, Employment, Evidence Based Medicine, Federal Health Center, Genetic Information, Grants, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Qulity, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance Exchange, Health Plan, Health Plans, Health Policy, HIPAA, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Indian Health, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Licensing, Meaningful Use, Medicaid, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, Medicare Fee Schedule, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Mental Heatlh, Money Laundering, OCR, OIG, Outcomes Data, Outpatient, Pandemic, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Peer Review, Physician, Physician Licensing, Prescription Drugs, Privacy, Prospective Payment, Public Policy, Real Estate, Rehabilitation Act, Reimbursement, Reproductive Rights, Rural Health Care, Stark, Substance Abuse, Swine Flu, Technology, Telemedicine, Veterans Health, Veterans Health Care | Tagged: Breach Notification, HHS, HIPAA Privacy, Hospital, Security | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

55 Hospitals To Pay $35M+ To Settle FCA Claims Charges On Kyphoplasty Procedures

July 6, 2013

Whistleblowers Played A Big Role, Collectively Will Receive $5.5 Million From Settlement Proceeds

Fifty-five hospitals in 21 states will pay a total of more than $34 million to settle Justice Department allegations that the health care facilities submitted false claims to Medicare for a minimally-invasive procedure used to treat certain spinal fractures that often are due to osteoporosis known as “kyphoplasty.”

The settlement stems from charges by the Justice Department and Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) that the settling hospitals frequently billed Medicare for performing kyphoplasty procedures on the more costly inpatient basis, rather than an outpatient basis, in order to increase their Medicare billings when the kyphoplasty could have been performed safely and effectively as an outpatient procedure without any need for a more costly hospital admission.

With the settlements announced July 1, the Justice Department says it has now reached settlements with more than 100 hospitals totaling approximately $75 million to resolve allegations that they mischarged Medicare for kyphoplasty procedures. Justice Department officials credited whistleblowers with helping it to identify the charged misconduct in virtually all of the cases. They collectively will receive an estimated $5.5 million of the total of $34 million to be paid under the settlements.

55 Settlements Impact Systems & Providers Across The Nation

According to the Justice Department’s July 1 announcement of the settlements, the settling facilities, and the amounts they have agreed to pay, include 23 hospitals affiliated with HCA Inc., Nashville, TN, who have agreed to pay a total of $7,145,842.72. These include:

Aventura Hospital & Medical Center, Aventura, FL
Capital Regional Medical Center, Tallahassee, FL
Coliseum Medical Center, Macon, GA
Coliseum Northside Hospital, Macon, GA
Conroe Regional Medical Center, Conroe, TX
Denton Regional Medical Center, Denton, TX
Doctors Hospital of Sarasota, Sarasota, FL
Edmond Regional Medical Center, Edmond, OK
Fawcett Memorial Hospital, Port Charlotte, FL
Fort Walton Beach Medical Center, Fort Walton Beach, FL
Garden Park Medical Center, Gulf Port, MS
JFK Medical Center, Atlantis, FL
Los Robles Regional Medical Center, Thousand Oaks, CA
North Florida Regional Medical Center, Gainesville, FL
Northlake Medical Center, Tucker, GA
Oklahoma University Medical Center, Oklahoma City, OK
Palmyra Medical Center, Albany, GA
Redmond Regional Medical Center, Rome, GA
Southwest Florida Regional Medical Center, Fort Myers, FL
St. Lucie Medical Center, Port Saint Lucie, FL
Summit Medical Center, Hermitage, TN
Sunrise Hospital & Medical Center, Las Vegas, NV
Wesley Medical Center, Wichita, KS

Also 6 hospitals affiliated with Lifepoint Hospitals, Inc., Brentwood, TN, have agreed to pay a total of $2,522,502.69. These include:

Andalusia Regional Hospital, Andalusia, AL
Jackson Purchase Medical Center, Mayfield, KY
Lake Cumberland Regional Hospital, Somerset, KY
Minden Medical Center, Minden, LA
Russellville Hospital, Russellville, AL
Western Plains Medical Complex, Dodge City, KS

Also, 5 hospitals affiliated with Trinity Health, Livonia, MI, have agreed to pay a total of $3,910,017.53. These include:

Mercy Medical Center, – Dubuque, Dubuque, IA
Mercy Medical Center – Sioux City, Sioux City, IA
St. Joseph Mercy Hospital, Pontiac, MI
Mercy Health Partners, Muskegon, MI
Mount Carmel New Albany Surgical Hospital, New Albany, OH

Justice Department officials also report that 4hospitals affiliated with Morton Plant Mease BayCare Health System, Clearwater, FL, have agreed to pay a total of $2,378,325.45. These include:

Morton Plant Hospital, Clearwater, FL
Morton Plant North Bay Hospital, New Port Richey, FL
Mease Dunedin Hospital, Dunedin, FL
Mease Countryside Hospital, Safety Harbor, FL

Justice Department officials also say 3 hospitals affiliated with Baptist Memorial Health Care Corporation, Memphis, TN, have agreed to pay a total of $691,168. These are:

Baptist Memorial Hospital-Golden Triangle, North Columbus, MS
Baptist Memorial Hospital-Collierville, Collierville, TN
Baptist Memorial Hospital-Memphis, Memphis, TN

In addition, Justice Department officials say 2 hospitals affiliated with Covenant Health, Knoxville, TN, have agreed to pay a total of $1,845,641.74. These are Parkwest Medical Center in Knoxville, TN and Methodist Medical Center of Oak Ridge in Oak Ridge, TN.

Meanwhile, 2 hospitals affiliated with Bayhealth Medical Center, Newark, DE, also reportedly have agreed to pay a total of $1,115,306.37. These are Bayhealth Kent General Hospital, Dover, DE and Bayhealth Milford Memorial Hospital, Milford, DE.

In addition to these hospitals, the following facilities have agreed to pay the following settlements:

Atrium Medical Center, Middletown, OH, has agreed to pay $4,232,992.50
Altru Health System, Grand Forks, ND, has agreed to pay $1,492,690
Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, has agreed to pay $1,485,846
Des Peres Hospital, St. Louis, MO, has agreed to pay $900,000
Mount Sinai Medical Center, Miami, FL, has agreed to pay $1,846,194.00
New England Baptist Hospital, Boston, MA, has agreed to pay $374,814.48
St. Anne’s Hospital, Fall River, MA, has agreed to pay $552,745
The Queen’s Medical Center, Honolulu, HI, has agreed to pay $1,055,249.57
Trover Health System, Madisonville, KY, has agreed to pay $1,162,837
Wayne Memorial Hospital, Goldsboro, NC, has agreed to pay $1,250,000.

In addition to today’s settlement, the government previously settled with Medtronic Spine LLC, the corporate successor to Kyphon Inc., for $75 million to settle allegations that the company defrauded Medicare by counseling hospital providers to perform kyphoplasty procedures as inpatient rather than outpatient procedures.

According to Tom O’Donnell, Special Agent in Charge of the Office of Investigations of the HHS-OIG New York Regional Office, “The settlements related to kyphoplasty billing that have been reached with over 100 hospitals represent one of the largest and most successful multi-party health care investigations in the nation.”

While these settlements relate specifically to kyphoplasty procedures, they send a message impacting all procedures and practice areas that they risk OIG and/or Justice Department prosecution if procedures are performed in a most costly manner to increase reimbursement which is not medically necessary. Justice Department officials warned health care providers that Justice and OIG will act “Whenever hospitals knowingly overcharge Medicare, critically needed resources are wasted and health costs are driven up.”

Whistleblower Involvement Played Big Role

As in other recently announced settlement agreements, see e.g., Whistleblower Collects $2.7 M of $14.5M Sound Inpatient Physicians Overbilling Settlement, whistleblower involvement played a key role in helping OIG and Justice to identify and prosecute the alleged misconduct.

According to the Justice Department, all but four of the settling facilities announced today were named as defendants in a qui tam, or whistleblower, lawsuit brought under the False Claims Act, which permits private citizens to bring lawsuits on behalf of the United States and receive a portion of the proceeds of any settlement or judgment awarded against a defendant. The lawsuit was filed in federal district court in Buffalo, N.Y., by Craig Patrick and Charles Bates. Mr. Patrick is a former reimbursement manager for Kyphon, and Mr. Bates was formerly a regional sales manager for Kyphon in Birmingham, Ala. The whistleblowers will receive a total of approximately $5.5 million from the settlements.

Mitigate Risks With Effective Oversight of Both Documentation & Operations

As Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division Stuart F. Delery noted in the settlement announcement. “Physicians who participate in Medicare and other federal health care programs must document and bill for their services accurately and honestly.” With qui tam and other whistleblower participation, the Justice Department, HHS and other federal and state fraud investigators go beyond merely challenging whether the medical record documentation supports the charges billed to question whether the medical record itself accurately reflects the care in fact delivered by relying upon testimony of employees or other “insiders” often with an axe to grind against the provider.

To mitigate these exposures, health care providers clearly should work diligently both to ensure that their billing and other compliance programs accurately, honestly and completely document the care provided and code and bill for those services in accordance with the currently applicable federal program rules. While these compliance and risk management programs are indispensable components of any effective health care fraud compliance program, health care providers also should recognize that the effectiveness of their health care fraud and other compliance program also may depend on the effectiveness of their operational and workforce oversight and management. Along with effective billing and other fraud detection and compliance programs, providers also need effective medical quality and records documentation, provider and workforce performance and management, investigations and other management programs.

As a key element of these activities, providers should constantly be on watch for evidence of gaps between the medical and billing documentation and the factual realities looking at broad range of sources. Providers should target these activities to cover both specific medical documentation, coding and care, and other operational indicators that could show a problem. With qui tam and other whistleblower claims rising, however, providers should keep in mind that mere auditing of records and billing patterns alone often fails to uncover key evidence of potential concerns.

To help identify potential areas of scrutiny, providers should carefully monitor and examine the adequacy of their compliance and risk management agreements against corporate integrity agreements with other providers who have reached settlements with the Department of Justice, HHS Office of Inspector General or other agencies like the TranS1 Inc. Corporate Integrity Agreement .

Health care providers also should take into account a plethora of other potential indicators including but not limited to peer review and quality assurance data, deficient as well as inexplicably exceptional medical record or other record keeping documentation, hotline, exist interview and other workforce feedback, disagreements among providers in patterns of care, political and interpersonal differences, and a host of other indicators that could show a valid compliance concern or a developing hostility that could become the incentive for a whistleblower or other complaint. Providers should document these and other efforts to investigate, monitor and redress potential concerns In addition, providers also should guard against qui tam, retaliation and other claims by ensuring that their human resources, peer review, credentialing, background and other investigations, privacy and other operational activities are designed, documented to be both legally compliant and defensible.

For More Information Or Assistance

Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health care providers and other health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies and to respond to DEA and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns including a number of programs and publications on OCR Civil Rights rules and enforcement actions. Her insights on these and other related matters appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. If you need assistance with these or other compliance concerns, wish to ask about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Affordable Care Act, Anti-KickBack, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Conditions of Participation, Corporate Compliance, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, false claims act, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Reform, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, Hospital, Laws, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Mental Heatlh, Money Laundering, OIG, Outpatient, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pharmacy, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Public Policy, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, Stark, Substance Abuse | Tagged: false claims act, HEAT, Hospitals, Medicaid Fraud, Medicare Fraud, Overbillng, Physicians, qui tam, Upcoding | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Whistleblower Collects $2.7 M of $14.5M Sound Inpatient Physicians Overbilling Settlement

July 6, 2013

Former employee-turned Whistleblower Craig Thomas will collect $2.7 million out of the $14.5 million settlement that Sound Inpatient Physicians Inc. (SIP) will pay $14.5 million to settle allegations that it overbilled Medicare and other federal health care programs under a settlement announced by the Justice Department on July 3, 2013. The SIP announcement comes the same day the Justice Department announced medical device manufacturer TranS1 Inc., now known as Baxano Surgical Inc., will pay $6 million to resolve whistleblower-prompted FCA allegations that TranS1 Inc. caused health care providers to submit false claims to Medicare and other federal health care programs for minimally-invasive spine surgeries.

Both the SIP and TranS1 Inc. charges and settlement clearly show the ever-growing risk of Justice Department prosecution that providers face when billing Medicare or other government programs for care beyond the level delivered and documented in the medical record. The litigation and resulting settlement also show the too-often underappreciated rule that employees, vendors and other whistleblowing insiders increasingly play in the initiation and success of these prosecutions and how they impact the ability of providers charged with fraud to prove they have billed Medicare or other federal health plans accurately and honestly for services actually delivered in the manner documented in the record and in accordance with applicable Federal program rules.

To mitigate these exposures, health care providers both should strengthen their health care medical record documentation, billing and other fraud and compliance programs and their employee, vendor and other workforce relations and management processes.

Former SIP Employee’s Qui Tam Claim Prompted Suit

The settlement resolves charges that SIP fraudulently inflated billings to government programs brought in U.S. ex rel. Craig Thomas v. Sound Inpatient Physicians, Inc. and Robert A. Bessler, Civil Action No. C09-5301RBL (W.D. Wash.) that initially came to the government’s attention through a lawsuit filed by former SIP employee, Craig Thomas, under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act (FCA). The FCA allows private citizens to bring civil actions on behalf of the government and share in any recovery. Thomas will receive $2.7 million of the $14.5 million settlement for exposing Sound Physicians’ inflated claims.

In the lawsuit, the Justice Department alleged that SIP, a Tacoma, Washington-based employer of more than 700 hospitalists and post-acute physicians at 70 hospitals and a growing network of post-acute facilities in 22 states, between 2004 and 2012, knowingly submitted inflated claims to federal health benefits programs for its hospitalist employees for higher and more expensive levels of service than documented by hospitalists in patient medical records.

The SIP civil settlement illustrates the growing reliance on whistleblowers and other FCA tools by the Federal government in its rising campaign against false claims and other health care fraud by physicians, hospitals and other health care providers under the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) initiative announced in May 2009 by Attorney General Eric Holder and Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. Since January 2009, the Justice Department claims to have recovered a total of more than $14.7 billion through FCA cases, with more than $10.7 billion of that amount recovered in cases involving fraud against federal health care programs.

TranS1 Inc. Whistleblower Gets $1M+ Out of $6M Settlement

Whistleblower claims also prompted the charges and settlement announced against medical device manufacturer TranS1 Inc. The Justice Department announced July 3 that TranS1 Inc. has agreed to pay the United States $6 million to resolve allegations under the FCA. Whistleblower Kevin Ryan, whose qui tam claim prompted the investigation that lead to the settlement will collect $1,020,000 from the settlement.

The settlement resolves Justice Department charges developed out of the qui tam action of a former employee that TranS1 knowingly caused health care providers to submit claims with incorrect diagnosis or procedure codes for minimally-invasive spine fusion surgeries using Trans1’s AxiaLIF System. That device was developed as alternative to invasive spine fusion surgeries. The United States alleges that TranS1 improperly counseled physicians and hospitals to bill for the AxiaLIF System by using incorrect and inaccurate codes intended for more invasive spine fusion surgeries. The Justice Department alleged that, as a result, health care providers received greater reimbursement than they were entitled to for performing the minimally-invasive AxiaLIF procedures.

The Justice Department also claimed TranS1 knowingly paid illegal remuneration to certain physicians for participating in speaker programs and consultant meetings intended to induce them to use TranS1 products, in violation of the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b), and thereby caused false claims to be submitted to federal health care programs. The Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits offering or paying remuneration to induce referrals of items or services covered by federally-funded programs and is intended to ensure that a physician’s medical judgments are not compromised by improper financial incentives and are based solely on the best interests of the patient.

In addition, the Justice Department alleged that TranS1 promoted the sale and use of its AxiaLIF System for uses that were not approved or cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, including use in certain procedures to treat complex spine deformity, and which were thus not covered by federal health care programs.

“A medical device manufacturer violates the law when it advises physicians and hospitals to report the wrong codes to federal health insurance programs in order to increase reimbursement rates,” said Rod J. Rosenstein, U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland. “Health care providers are required to bill federal health care programs truthfully for the work they perform.”

As part of the settlement, TranS1 has agreed to enter into a corporate integrity agreement with the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services. That agreement provides for procedures and reviews to be put in place to avoid and promptly detect conduct similar to that which gave rise to this matter.

Mitigate Risks With Effective Oversight of Both Documentation & Operations

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press

OIG Urges CMS To Step Up Efforts To Recover “Overpayments”

July 2, 2013

The Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) is recommending that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) step-up efforts to collect Medicare overpayments to providers currently considered uncollectable because the provider has failed to repay overpayments identified and demanded by CMS six or more months after CMS demands repayment. The recommendations made in OIG’s Medicare’s Currently Not Collectible Overpayments Report (Report) reflect the ever-growing emphasis of HHS on reducing Medicare and other federal program costs by aggressive enforcement of Medicare and other federal regulations against providers. While CMS has not concurred with all of OIG’s recommendations in the Report, providers can expect CMS to further tighten its overpayment processes in response to these and other OIG recommendations.

According to the Report, CMS identifies billions of dollars in alleged Medicare overpayments to health care providers each year. In fiscal year (FY) 2010, overpayments totaled $9.6 billion. While CMS identifies these amounts, the Report notes that CMS does not recover all overpayments. Under CMS current accounting policies, CMS classifies overpayments for which the provider has not repaid at least 6 months after the due date on the Medicare demand letter as “currently not collectible” (CNC). CMS does not report these CNC amounts in CMS’s annual financial statements because it considers these amounts unlikely to be recovered.

The Report summaries the results of an OIG study of these CNC amounts. In the study, OIG requested details from CMS about CNC overpayments in FY 2010 and summary financial data for FYs 2007 to 2010. CMS provided most of the data from its Healthcare Integrated General Ledger Accounting System (HIGLAS). OIG also surveyed CMS and all its claims processing contractors to identify (1) hindrances to debt collection and (2) strategies to reduce the number and dollar amount of overpayments that become CNC.

According to the Report, CMS reported $543 million in new CNC overpayments across all contractors in FY 2010. However, CMS provided detailed information on $69 million in CNC overpayments for only seven contractors. Citing contractor transitions, CMS did not provide detailed data for the remaining 32 contractors. For 54 percent of CNC overpayments associated with the seven contractors, the provider type was missing in HIGLAS. For the seven contractors, 97 percent of FY 2010 CNC overpayments were not recovered. According to contractors, inaccurate provider contact information delays or prevents some overpayment demand letters from reaching providers. In addition, CMS and contractors reported that expanding the types of provider identifiers used to recover payments could improve debt collection efforts.

Based on these findings, OIG recommended that CMS should:

Ensure the HIGLAS variable for provider type is populated for all overpayments,
Ensure that demand letters are mailed to the contacts and addresses identified by the provider, and
Use tax identification numbers and provider transaction access numbers in addition to national provider numbers for the collection of overpayments.

According to OIG, CMS partially concurred with the first recommendation, did not agree with our second recommendation, and concurred with our third recommendation. Accordingly, at minimum, providers should expect that CMS will step up use of tax identification and provider transaction access numbers in tracking down and collecting overpayments demanded by OIG.

The Report is just one of a plethora of activities that OIG, CMS and other HHS agencies, alone or in conjunction with the Department of Justice and other federal and state agencies are conducting in their campaign to control Medicare and other federal program costs by targeting provider reimbursements.With health care fraud and other billing audits and enforcement rising, hospitals and other health care providers should heed these reports as continuing reminders to tighten their billing practices to ensure defensibility in the event of an audit or other enforcement action.

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press

HHS Continues Preparations For Health Care Marketplace By Awarding $32M Of Grants To Up CHIP & Medicaid Enrollment

July 2, 2013

As part of its continuing efforts to promote enrollment in the Health Insurance Marketplace slated to take effect January 1, 2014, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) today (July 2, 2013) announced the award of nearly $32 million in grants for efforts to identify and enroll children eligible for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The Connecting Kids to Coverage Outreach and Enrollment Grants were awarded to 41 state agencies, community health centers, school-based organizations and non-profit groups in 22 states; two grantees are multistate organizations. The announcement follows the recent rollout of online tools to aid consumers enroll in the new Health Care Marketplace scheduled to launch January 1, 2014 as part of the continuing implementation of reforms enacted as part of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act).

Announced Grants Target Increased CHIP & Medicaid Enrollment

In amounts ranging from $190,000 to $1 million out of the $140 million included in the Affordable Care Act and the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (CHIPRA) of 2009 for enrollment and renewal outreach, HHS Reports the grants awarded to the grantees listed here focus on 5 areas:

Engaging schools in outreach, enrollment and retention activities (9 awards);
Reducing health coverage disparities by reaching out to subgroups of children that are less likely to have health coverage (8 awards);
Streamlining enrollment for individuals participating in other public benefit programs such as nutritional or other assistance programs (3 awards);
Improving application assistance resources to provide high quality, reliable Medicaid and CHIP enrollment and renewal services in local communities (13 awards); and
Training communities to help families understand the new application and enrollment system and to deliver effective assistance to families with children eligible for Medicaid or CHIP (8 awards).

According to HHS, the grants will build on the Secretary’s Connecting Kids to Coverage Challenge to find and enroll all eligible children and support outreach strategies that have been shown to be successful.

According to HHS, Connecting Kids to Coverage Outreach and Enrollment Grant Awards (Cycle III) Efforts to streamline Medicaid and CHIP enrollment and renewal practices, combined with robust outreach activities, have helped reduce the number of uninsured children. Since 2008, HHS claims 1.7 million children have gained coverage and the rate of uninsured children has dropped to 6.6 percent in 2012

“Today’s grants will ensure that more children across the nation have access to the quality health care they need,” said Secretary Sebelius. “We are drawing from successful children’s health coverage outreach and enrollment efforts to help promote enrollment this fall in Medicaid and the new Health Insurance Marketplace.”

Continuing Preparations For New Health Care Marketplace

The grant awards are part of a much broader effort by HHS to prepare Americans to enroll in the newly reformed Health Insurance Marketplace that the Obama Administration is working to implement as part of the sweeping reforms enacted by the Affordable Care Act.

Enrollment is the Health Insurance Exchanges also to be included in the new federal health care marketplace is scheduled to begin October 1, 2013. In anticipation of this deadline, HHS recently also announced its rollout of new consumer health care education and decision-making tools on its newly designed www.healthcare.gov website.

In announcing its launch of its Health Insurance Marketplace educational tools here on June 24, 2013, the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) repeated recent claims that HHS and the states are on target to begin enrollment on October 1, 2013 in the federal and state health care exchanges now retitled “Health Insurance Marketplace” by the Administration, to meet other key milestones and to the beginning coverage under the newly created Health Insurance Marketplaces beginning January 1, 2014.

As part of these preparations, HHS kicked off an aggressive Health Insurance Marketplace education effort by announcing the deploying of with newly designed “consumer-focused” HealthCare.gov website and the 24-hours-a-day consumer call center that HHS claims provide all the necessary tools to prepare Americans for open enrollment and ultimately sign up for private health insurance.

While HHS says its tools and other preparations will get the Health Care Marketplaces and Americans ready for the conversion of the U.S. health care system slated to begin January 1, 2014, others are less confident. For instance, GAO officials recently found that major work that federal and state officials must complete to timely begin enrollment by October 1 remains unfinished, making it unclear if they will meet the impending October 1, 2013 enrollment kickoff deadline. See GAO Report and GAO Report.

Businesses concerned about impending “pay-or-play” and other mandates that require many employers that fail to provide minimum essential coverage also have been critical about delayed guidance on these and other Affordable Care Act mandates, which employers claim have left them confused and with inadequate time and guidance to prepare.

Despite these concerns, HHS is marching ahead on its efforts to implement the law by launching these and other enrollment and educational outreach.

For Representation, Training & Other Resources

If you need assistance understanding and responding to health care reforms, monitoring health and health plan related risk management and compliance, operations, regulatory, policy or enforcement developments, or to review or respond to these or other health care or health IT related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer may be able to help.

Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 24 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health care providers, health plans, their business associates and other health industry clients to establish and administer medical privacy and other compliance and risk management policies, to health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. She regularly designs and presents HIPAA and other risk management, compliance and other training for health plans, employers, health care providers, professional associations and others.

The scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits agency meeting with OCR, Ms. Stamer also regularly advises and represents clients in dealings with, and monitoring and responding to developments of HHS, IRS, DOL, Departments of Health & Insurance and other agencies, Congress and other legislators, and advises clients, publishes and speaks extensively on health care reform, medical and other privacy and data security, health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. Her insights on health care reform and a broad range of other health care, health plan and other industry publications Among others, she has conducted privacy training for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans (ASTHO), the Los Angeles Health Department, the American Bar Association, the Health Care Compliance Association, a multitude of health industry, health plan, insurance and financial services, education, employer employee benefit and other clients, trade and professional associations and others.

You can get more information about her HIPAA and other experience here.

If you need assistance with these or other compliance concerns, wish to ask about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

You can review other recent publications and resources and additional information about the other experience of Ms. Stamer here. Examples of some recent publications that may be of interest include:

If you need help investigating or responding to a known or suspected compliance, litigation or enforcement or other risk management concern, assistance with reviewing, updating, administering or defending a current or proposed employment, employee benefit, compensation or other management practice, wish to ask about federal or state regulatory compliance audits, risk management or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Ms Stamer here or at (469) 767-8872.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Electronic Health Records, Employee Benefits, Employment, Health Care, Health IT, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Hospital, OCR, Physician | Tagged: ACA, Affordable Care Act, Health Care Marketplace, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance Exchange, Health Insurance MArketplace | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Hospital Pay $275K To Settle HIPAA Charges After Sharing PHI With Press, Workforce In Response To Fraud Reports

June 14, 2013

Health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates should confirm their existing policies, practices and training for communicating with the media and others comply with the Privacy Rule requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule in light of a Resolution Agreement with Shasta Regional Medical Center (SRMC) announced by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights today (June 14, 2013).

Under the Resolution Agreement, SRMC agrees to pay $275,000 and implement a comprehensive corrective action plan (CAP) to settle an investigation that resulted when SRMC used and disclosed protected health information (PHI) of a patient to members of the media and its workforce while trying to do damage control against fraud or other allegations of misconduct involving individual patient information or circumstances. The Resolution Agreement shows how efforts to respond to press or media reports, patient or other complaints, physician or employee disputes, high profile accidents, or other events that may involve communications not typically run by privacy officers can create big exposures.

Talking Out Of Turn To Media & Others Violated HIPAA

OCR investigated SRMC after a January 4, 2012 Los Angeles Times article reported two SRMC senior leaders had met with media to discuss medical services provided to a patient. OCR’s investigation indicated that SRMC failed to safeguard the patient’s protected health information (PHI) from impermissible disclosure by intentionally disclosing PHI to multiple media outlets on at least three separate occasions, without a valid written authorization. OCR’s review also revealed senior management at SRMC impermissibly shared details about the patient’s medical condition, diagnosis and treatment in an email to the entire workforce. Further, SRMC failed to sanction its workforce members for impermissibly disclosing the patient’s records pursuant to its internal sanctions policy.

Among other things, the specific misconduct uncovered by HHS’s investigation indicated that from December 13 – 20, 2011, SRMC failed to safeguard the patient’s PHI from any impermissible intentional or unintentional disclosure on multiple occasions in connection with its response to media coverage arising from a Medicare fraud story including:

On December 13, 2011, for instance, OCR reports SRMC’s parent company sent a letter to California Watch, responding to a story about Medicare fraud. The letter described the patient’s medical treatment and provided specifics about her lab results even though SRMC did not have a written authorization from the patient to disclose this information to this news outlet.
On December 16, 2011, two of SRMC’s senior leaders also met with The Record Searchlight’s editor to discuss the patient’s medical record in detail even though SRMC did not have a written authorization from the patient to disclose this information to this newspaper.
On December 20, 2011, SRMC sent a letter to The Los Angeles Times, which contained detailed information about the treatment the patient received when, again, SRMC did not have a written authorization from the patient to disclose this information to this newspaper.

In addition, OCR found SRMC impermissibly used the affected party’s PHI when on December 20, 2011, SRMC sent an email to its entire workforce and medical staff, approximately 785-900 individuals, describing, in detail, the patient’s medical condition, diagnosis and treatment. SRMC did not have a written authorization from the patient to share this information with SRMC’s entire workforce and medical staff.

SRMC Must Correct & Pay $$275K Penalty

Under the Resolution Agreement, SRMC pays a $275,000 monetary settlement and agrees to comply with a CAP for the next year.

The CAP requires SRMC to update its policies and procedures on safeguarding PHI from impermissible uses and disclosures and to train its workforce members. The CAP also requires fifteen other hospitals or medical centers under the same ownership or operational control as SRMC to attest to their understanding of permissible uses and disclosures of PHI, including disclosures to the media.

The Resolution Agreement specifically requires that Shasta Regional Medical Center, among other things:

To update policies to include specific policies about sharing PHI with the media, members of the workforce not involved in an individual patient’s care and others to comply with HIPAA;.
To provide updated policies to OCR for approval;
To provide training documented with certification of all workforce members before allowing them to access PHI;

SRMC is one of several Prime Healthcare Services facilities under common ownership and control. The Resolution Agreement also requires corrective action at these commonly owned facilities including California-based Alvarado Hospital Medical Center in San Diego, Centinela Hospital Medical Center in Inglewood, Chino Valley Medical Center in Chino, Desert Valley Hospital in Victorville, Garden Grove Hospital Medical Center in Garden Grove, La Palma Intercommunity Hospital in La Palma, Paradise Valley Hospital in National City, San Dimas Community Hospital in San Dimas, Shasta Regional Medical Center in Redding, and West Anaheim Medical Center in Anaheim; Saint Mary’s Regional Medical Center in Reno, Nevada; Pennsylvania based Lower Bucks Hospital in Bristol and Roxborough Memorial Hospital in Philadelphia;and Texas-based Dallas Medical Center in Dallas, Harlingen Medical Center in Harlingen, Pampa Regional Medical Center in Pampa. Among other things, the Resolution Agreement requires that for each of these related facilities:

The CEO and Privacy Officer of each facility must give OCR a signed affidavit stating that they understand that the Privacy Rule protects an individual’s PHI is protected by Privacy Rule even if such information is already in the public domain or even though it has been disclosed by the individual; and that disclosures of PHI in response to media inquiries are only permissible pursuant to a signed HIPAA authorization; and
Ensure all members of their respective workforce are informed of this policy.

The Resolution Agreement highlights the difficulty that health care providers and other covered entities often face in properly recognizing and handling PHI in the case of fraud or other disputes. While health care providers have an understandable desire to defend themselves in the media and elsewhere in response to charges of misconduct, today’s settlement shows that improperly sharing PHI of each patient in the process will make matters much worse. It’s important to keep in mind that just omitting to mention the name or other common identifying information may not overcome this concern because information about a patient can be considered individually identifiable and to enjoy protection under HIPAA where the facts and circumstances would allow another person to know or determine who the individual is, even if the specific name, address or more common identifying information is not shared.

Furthermore, the settlement also makes clear that merely because the patient or some other party has shared the same information with the media or others does not excuse the health care provider or other covered entity or business associate from the obligation to keep confidential the PHI unless it gets proper consent or otherwise can show that an exception to HIPAA applies.

While this means that health care providers or other covered entities and business associates may find themselves in the uncomfortable situation of facing unsavory reports and rumors without the ability to respond, the significant civil and even criminal penalties that can arise from violation of HIPAA make it critical that covered entities exercise discipline in responding to avoid sharing PHI improperly.

Enforcement Actions Highlight Growing HIPAA Exposures For Covered Entities

The SRMC Resolution Agreement again shows the growing risk of enforcement that health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates face as OCR continues its audits and enforcement, new Omnibus HIPAA Regulations implementing the HITECH Act amendments to HIPAA and state and federal liability grows.. See e.g., $1.5 Million HIPAA Settlement Reached To Resolve 1st OCR Enforcement Action Prompted By HITECH Act Breach Report; HIPAA Heats Up: HITECH Act Changes Take Effect & OCR Begins Posting Names, Other Details Of Unsecured PHI Breach Reports On Website.

In response to these expanding exposures, all covered entities and their business associates should review critically and carefully the adequacy of their current HIPAA Privacy and Security compliance policies, monitoring, training, breach notification and other practices taking into consideration OCR’s investigation and enforcement actions, emerging litigation and other enforcement data; their own and reports of other security and privacy breaches and near misses, and other developments to determine if additional steps are necessary or advisable.

As part of this process, covered entities should ensure they look outside the four corners of their Privacy Policies to ensure that appropriate training and clarification is provided to address media, practice transition, workforce communication and other policies and practices that may be covered by pre-existing or other policies of other departments or operational elements not typically under the direct oversight and management of the Privacy Officer such as media relations. Media relations, physician and patients affairs, outside legal counsel, media relations, marketing and other internal and external departments and consultants dealing with the media, the public or other inquiries or disputes should carefully include and coordinate with the privacy officer both to ensure appropriate policies and procedures are followed and proper documentation created and retained to show authorization, account, or meet other requirements.

For more information about the PCS Resolution Agreement and HIPAA compliance and risk management tips, see here.

For Representation, Training & Other Resources

If you need assistance monitoring HIPAA and other health and health plan related regulatory policy or enforcement developments, or to review or respond to these or other health care or health IT related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer may be able to help.

Scheduled to serve as the scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits agency meeting with OCR, Ms. Stamer also regularly works with OCR and other agencies, publishes and speaks extensively on medical and other privacy and data security, health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. For instance, Ms. Stamer for the second year will serve as the appointed scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Agency meeting with OCR. Her insights on HIPAA risk management and compliance often appear in medical privacy related publications of a broad range of health care, health plan and other industry publications Among others, she has conducted privacy training for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans (ASTHO), the Los Angeles Health Department, the American Bar Association, the Health Care Compliance Association, a multitude of health industry, health plan, insurance and financial services, education, employer employee benefit and other clients, trade and professional associations and others.

You can get more information about her HIPAA and other experience here.

If you need help investigating or responding to a known or suspected compliance, litigation or enforcement or other risk management concern, assistance with reviewing, updating, administering or defending a current or proposed employment, employee benefit, compensation or other management practice, wish to inquire about federal or state regulatory compliance audits, risk management or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Ms Stamer here or at (469) 767-8872.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Electronic Health Records, Employee Benefits, Employment, Health Care, Health IT, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Hospital, OCR, Physician | Tagged: covered entity, Health Care, Health Plan, HIPAA, Hospital, Media, OCR, PHI, Physician, Press, Privacy, Protected Health Information | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OCR Makes Technical Corrections To HIPAA Omnibus Final Rule; September 2013 Enforcement Deadline Looming

June 7, 2013

The Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights (OCR) is publishing Technical Corrections (Technical Corrections) to the Modifications to the HIPAA Privacy, Security, Enforcement, and Breach Notifications Rules Under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act; Other Modifications to the HIPAA Rules; Final Rule (Omnibus Rule) previously published on January 25, 2013. The Technical Corrections will appear in the June 7, 2013 Federal Register. Physicians, hospitals, clinics and other health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses (Covered Entities) and their business associates should take into account the Technical Corrections as they rush to update business associate agreements, policies, practices, training and other HIPAA compliance to comply with the Omnibus Rule changes by the September 2013 deadline.

Technical Corrections To Omnibus Rule Released

OCR published the Omnibus Rule to implement changes to the HIPAA Privacy, Security, Enforcement, and Breach Notification Rules (“the HIPAA Rules”) enacted by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (“the HITECH Act”) and section 105 of Title I of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, as well as to address public comment received on the interim final Breach Notification Rule and to other changes to the HIPAA Rules. The Technical Corrections are scheduled for publication in the Federal Register on June 7, 2013.

The Technical Corrections correct various typographical errors and other oversights in the Omnibus Regulations as originally published. While many of these corrections have limited material impact, certain corrections do have substantive implications. For instance, by correcting errors in references to other provisions of the Omnibus Regulations, the Technical Corrections clarify that the authority of OCR to extend the time pursuant to § 160.508(c)(5) for violations before February 18, 2009 also applies to violations occurring on or after February 18, 2009, as there is for violations occurring prior to February 18, 2009.

Covered Entities and their business associates will need to review and take into account the Technical Corrections as they work to review and update their policies and practices for handling and disclosing personally identifiable health care information (“PHI”) in response to the Omnibus Rule.

Get Moving To Update HIPAA Compliance For New Omnibus Rule Requirements As Amended By Technical Corrections

Covered Entities and their business associates have a lot to accomplish between now and September to update their business associates and comply with other changes made by the Omnibus Rule by its September 2013 deadline. Among other things, the Omnibus Regulations:

Revise OCR’s HIPAA regulations to reflect the HITECH Act’s amendment of HIPAA to add the contractors and subcontractors of health plans, health care providers and health care clearinghouses that qualify as business associates to the parties directly responsible for complying with and subject to HIPAA’s civil and criminal penalties for violating HIPAA’s Privacy, Security, and Breach Notification rules;
Update previous interim regulations implementing HITECH Act breach notification rules that require Covered Entities including business associates to give specific notifications to individuals whose PHI is breached, HHS and in some cases, the media when a breach of unsecured information happens;
Update interim enforcement guidance OCR previously published to implement increased penalties and other changes to HIPAA’s civil and criminal sanctions enacted by the HITECH Act;
Implement HITECH Act amendments to HIPAA that tighten the conditions under which Covered Entities are allowed to use or disclose PHI for marketing and fundraising purposes and prohibit Covered Entities from selling an individual’s health information without getting the individual’s authorization in the way required by the Omnibus Regulations;
Update OCR’s rules about the individual rights that HIPAA requires that Covered Entities to afford to individuals who are the subject of PHI used or possessed by a Covered Entity to reflect tightened requirements enacted by the HITECH Act that allow individuals to order their health care provider not to share information about their treatment with health plans when the individual pays cash for the care and to clarify that individuals can require Covered Entities to provide electronic PHI in electronic form;
Revise the regulations to reflect amendments to HIPAA made as part of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) which added genetic information to the definition of PHI protected under the HIPAA Privacy Rule and prohibits health plans from using or disclosing genetic information for underwriting purposes; and
Clarifies and revises other provisions to reflect other interpretations and information guidance that OCR has issued since HIPAA was passed and to make certain other changes that OCR found appropriate based on its experience administering and enforcing the rules.

Liability & Enforcement Risks Heighten Need To Act To Review & Update Policies & Practices

The restated rules in the Omnibus Rule make it imperative that Covered Entities review the revised rules carefully and updated their policies, practices, business associate agreements, training and documentation to comply with the updated requirements and other enforcement and liability risks. OCR even prior to the regulations has aggressively investigated and enforced the HIPAA requirements. See, e.g., OCR Hits Alaska Medicaid For $1.7M+ For HIPAA Security Breach; OCR Audit Program Kickoff Further Heats HIPAA Privacy Risks; $1.5 Million HIPAA Settlement Reached To Resolve 1st OCR Enforcement Action Prompted By HITECH Act Breach Report; HIPAA Heats Up: HITECH Act Changes Take Effect & OCR Begins Posting Names, Other Details Of Unsecured PHI Breach Reports On Website; Providence To Pay $100000 & Implement Other Safeguards.

Coupled with statements by OCR about its intolerance, the HONI and other settlements provide a strong warning to covered entities of the need to carefully and appropriately manage their HIPAA encryption and other Privacy and Security responsibilities. Covered entities are urged to heed these warning by strengthening their HIPAA compliance and adopting other suitable safeguards to minimize HIPAA exposures.

All Covered Entities should review critically and carefully the adequacy of their current HIPAA Privacy and Security compliance policies, monitoring, training, breach notification and other practices taking into consideration OCR’s investigation and enforcement actions, emerging litigation and other enforcement data; their own and reports of other security and privacy breaches and near misses; and other developments to decide if additional steps are necessary or advisable. In response to these expanding exposures, all covered entities and their business associates should review critically and carefully the adequacy of their current HIPAA Privacy and Security compliance policies, monitoring, training, breach notification and other practices taking into consideration OCR’s investigation and enforcement actions, emerging litigation and other enforcement data; their own and reports of other security and privacy breaches and near misses, and other developments to decide if tightening their policies, practices, documentation or training is necessary or advisable.

For More Information Or Assistance

A board certified labor and employment attorney widely known for her extensive and creative knowledge and experience with health plan privacy and data security matters, Ms. Stamer serves as the scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Technical Session meeting with OCR each May and has worked, spoken and published extensively on these and other privacy and data security concerns and controls. Extensively published and a popular speaker on HIPAA and other data security matters, Ms. Stamer works extensively with health care providers, health plans, employers, insurance and financial services, technology and other clients on privacy, data seurity and other privacy and cybercrime concerns. She also serves as the Scribe for the ABA JCEB Agency Techical Sessions Meetings with the Office of Civil Rights which occur each May in Washington, D.C.

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Affordable Care Act, Anti-KickBack, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Corporate Compliance, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Reform, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, Hospital, Laws, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Mental Heatlh, Money Laundering, OIG, Outpatient, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pharmacy, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Public Policy, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, Stark, Substance Abuse | Tagged: Acute Care, CMS, Hospital, Medicare, PPS, Prospective Payment, Skilled Nursing, SNF | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

National Provider Calls: Medicare Shared Savings Program Application Process — Register Now

May 24, 2013

Medicare Fee For Service (FFS) providers and others interested in participating in Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) should consider participating in the two National Provider Calls that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) plans to host on the Medicare Shared Savings Program (Shared Savings Program) outlined in final regulations published October 20, 2011 of the Affordable Care Act.

On Thursday, June 20, CMS subject matter experts will provide an overview and updates to the Shared Savings Program application process for the January 1, 2014 start date. A question and answer session will follow the presentations.
On Thursday, July 18, CMS subject matter experts will be available to answer questions about the Shared Savings Program and application process for the January 1, 2014 start date.

The Shared Savings Program Application web page has important information, dates, and materials on the application process. CMS encourages call participants to review the application and materials before the call.

To receive call-in information, interested participants must register for the call on the CMS Upcoming National Provider Calls registration website. Registration will close at 12pm on the day of the call or when available space has been filled. Since CMS says it will make no exceptions, interested persons should plan to register as soon as possible.

Following the conference calls, CMS plans to post the presentation on the FFS National Provider Calls web page. In addition, a link to the slide presentation will be emailed to all registrants on the day of the call.

CMS says certain continuing education credit may be awarded for participation in certain CMS National Provider Calls. Visit the Continuing Education Credit Information web page to learn more.

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press

Former White House Cybersecurity Coordinator Schmidt, Stamer & Others Share Key HIPAA & Other Privacy & Data Security Insights 5/21 In LA

May 3, 2013

SLP Readers Get Discount: Go to
blocked::http://securitysummitla.eventbrite.com/” href=”http://securitysummitla.eventbrite.com/” data-mce-href=”http://securitysummitla.eventbrite.com/”://securitysummitla.eventbrite.com/ and enter Promotional Code: Health_Summit_125

Former White House Cybersecurity Coordinator Howard Schmidt and Solutions Law Press, Inc. editor attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer are two of an impressive lineup of leaders scheduled to share key HIPAA & other privacy and data security compliance and risk management strategies at the Healthcare HITECH Privacy and Security Summit at the Fifth Annual Information Security Summit on May 21 in Los Angeles. The program offers essential insights for hospitals, physicians, and other health care providers, health plans and insurers, employers and other health plan sponsors, fiduciaries and administrators, their business associates and other business partners and others on what their organizations should do to cope with the rapidly changing and expanding privacy and data security obligations of HIPAA and other federal and state laws.

With the rapidly approaching and privacy and data breach penalties and enforcement rising, health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates must get moving to update business associate contracts, policies and notices and processes to meet changing HIPAA rules while managing ongoing compliance and risks.

Former Cybersecurity Coordinator Schmidt Keynotes

The Healthcare HITECH Privacy and Security Summit will bring together leaders in Privacy and Security within government and private industry for a day of collaboration, networking and presentations by leading Privacy and Security professionals sharing who HIPAA covered entities and business associates need to know to comply with new HITECH rules and OCR investigations.

Stamer Speaks On Latest HIPAA Rules & Developments

Solutions Law Press, Inc. editor attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will help lay the foundation for the workshop by briefing participants on changes made to HIPAA rules by the new Omnibus HIPAA Rulemaking changes that the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) plans to start enforcing in September, 2013.

Armed with the latest insights from serving as the scribe for the ABA JCEB annual agency meeting with the Office of Civil Rights (OCR), Ms. Stamer, a practicing attorney and widely published author and speaker, will discuss required changes and other recommended steps and strategies that covered entities and their business associates should take to maintain HIPAA compliance and manage HIPAA and other related risks in light of the Omnibus HIPAA Rulemaking changes, new OCR guidance for health care providers about disclosures to avert threats to health or safety, recent audit and enforcement activities and other changing risks and responsibilities including:

The latest on OCR’s regulatory guidance, audit and investigation and enforcement rules, actions and strategies and their implications on covered entities and business associates;
Changes to breach notification rules and their implications on covered entities and their business associates;
Practical implications of new rules on who is covered and their responsibilities;
Required and recommended updates to policies, business associate and other agreements, privacy notices and other HIPAA compliance arrangements;
Effective training and other risk management strategies;
Planning for, investigating and mitigating PHI privacy breaches and other compliance concerns under new rules other selected events; and
Other selected strategies for coordinating HIPAA and other privacy and data breach responsibilities and risk management; and
Participant questions.

For a complete agenda, to register, to get details on sponsorship or for other information, see here.

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Affordable Care Act, Anti-KickBack, ASC, Border Health, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Consumer Driven Health Care, Corporate Compliance, DME, Durable Medical Equipment, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Reform, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, Hospital, Laws, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Mental Heatlh, Money Laundering, OIG, Outpatient, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pharmacy, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Public Policy, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, Stark, Substance Abuse | Tagged: Breach Notification, Data Breach, Data Security PHI, HIPAA, personal financial information, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

CMS Proposes To Further Tighten Medicare Provider Enrollment Rules

May 1, 2013

The proposed rule would also strengthen certain provider enrollment provisions including allowing HHS to deny enrollment of providers affiliated with an entity that has unpaid Medicare debt, deny or revoke billing privileges for individuals with felony convictions, and revoke privileges for providers and suppliers who are abusing their billing privileges.

Since provider enrollment is the gateway to Medicare, CMS routinely evaluates its provider enrollment policies, and has implemented new safeguards as a result of the Affordable Care Act. In the February 2011 final screening rule (72 FR 5862). CMS identified additional changes in enrollment policy that would increase the integrity of the Medicare program. Now, CMS is proposing include the following provisions:

Add the ability to deny the enrollment of providers, suppliers and owners affiliated with an entity that has unpaid Medicare debt. This proposal would prevent individuals and entities from being able to incur substantial debt to Medicare, leave the Medicare program and then re-enroll as a new business to avoid repayment of the outstanding Medicare debt. We are proposing that CMS would only enroll individuals or entities if they repay the debt or enter into a repayment plan, if they are otherwise eligible for the program.
Deny enrollment or revoke the billing privileges of a provider or supplier if a managing employee has been convicted of certain felony offenses. This provision ensures that CMS can block or remove bad actors from the Medicare program to protect beneficiaries and safeguard the Medicare Trust Fund.
Permit CMS to revoke billing privileges of providers and suppliers that have a pattern or practice of billing for services that do not meet Medicare requirements. This proposal is intended to address providers and suppliers that regularly submit inaccurate claims in such a way that it poses a risk to the Medicare program.
Make the effective date of billing privileges consistent across certain provider and supplier types. Most practitioners and practitioner groups may only submit bills as of the filing date of their enrollment application. CMS is proposing to eliminate ambulance suppliers’ current ability to bill for up to a year prior to enrollment in the Medicare program. CMS is also proposing to require that ambulance providers and other provider and supplier types submit any claims within 60 days of revocation of billing privileges, consistent with the requirements for practitioners and practitioner groups.

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press

HHS Proposes Increasing Health Care Fraud Reporting Rewards To Up To $9.9 Million

May 1, 2013

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) plans to increase rewards paid to Medicare beneficiaries and others whose tips about suspected fraud lead to the successful recovery of funds to as high as $9.9 million. Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced proposed regulations that would increase the penalties on April 24. In addition, a new funding opportunity released this month supports the expansion of Senior Medicare Patrol (SMP) activities to educate Medicare beneficiaries on how to prevent, detect and report Medicare fraud, waste and abuse.

The Obama Administration has made health care fraud prosecutions and settlement a key element of its health care cost containment plan. Over the last three years, the administration claims its enforcement efforts have recovered over $14.9 billion in fraud, some of which resulted from fraud reporting by individuals.

Summary Of The SMP Incentive Reward Program Proposals

The SMP is a national, volunteer-based program that empowers Medicare beneficiaries to prevent and report Medicare fraud, waste, and abuse. Since 1997, HHS reports more than 7,000 referrals have been made to CMS and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for investigation since 1998.

Under the proposed changes, CMS is proposing to increase the potential reward amount for information that leads to a recovery of Medicare funds from 10 percent to 15 percent of the final amount collected. HHS currently offers a reward of 10 percent up to $1,000 under the current incentive reward program. In changes are modeled on an IRS program that has returned $2 billion in fraud since 2003, HHS proposes to increase the portion of the recovery on which CMS will pay a reward up to the first $66 million recovered – this means an individual could receive a reward of $9.9 million if CMS recovers $66 million or more.

HHS began paying rewards to individuals who reported tips that led to the recovery of funds in 1998. According to HHS, to date, HHS has recovered approximately $3.5 million as a result of this program and paid just $16,000 for 18 rewards. The proposed changes are similar to the IRS whistleblower program that has resulted in recoveries of over $2 billion since 2003.

To expand the SMP program’s capacity to reach more Medicare beneficiaries, the Administration for Community Living issued a new funding opportunity. Each of the current 54 SMP projects is eligible for varying funding levels, up to a total of $7.3 million across the program.

HHS says thhese proposed changes will support the administration’s comprehensive approach to program integrity, including the work being done with the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team, a joint effort between HHS and the Department of Justice to fight health care fraud. The Obama Administration credits this joint effort with recovering a record $4.2 billion in taxpayer dollars in fiscal year 2012.

The proposed increase in the reward for blowing the whistle on health care fraud is intended to fuel further reports by beneficiaries, workers and others of suspected health care fraud. Health care providers should share any concerns about the proposed increase in the rewards as well as review and tighten their health care fraud prevention and risk management to defend against rising exposures.

For more details, read a fact sheet on the proposed rule available here for more details.

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press

CMS Proposes Changes To Accute Care Hospital & Skilled Nursing Facility Propective Payment Rules

May 1, 2013

Acute care hospitals and skilled nursing facilities participating in Medicare should review proposed changes to key Medicare reimbursement rules and act quickly to share feedback on any provisions of significant concern.

The Centers For Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is proposing changes to its Prospective Payment Systems and other reimbursement key reimbursement rules for Hospitals and Skilled Nursing Facilities for Fiscal Year (FY) 2014. Advance copies of the proposed rules were made available May 1.

CMS’ proposed rules on Prospective Payment System and Consolidated Billing for Skilled Nursing Facilities for FY 2014 are scheduled for official publication on May 1, 2013.

CMS’ proposed rules on Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems for Acute Care Hospitals and Long Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System, etc. are scheduled for official publication on May 10, 2013.

Acute care hospitals and skilled nursing facilities should evaluate the implications of the proposed changes and provide relevant feedback as necessary to CMS.

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press

OCR Shares New Tools to Educate Consumers and Providers about HIPAA Privacy and Security

April 30, 2013

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has developed an array of new tools to educate consumers and health care providers about the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy and Security Rules.

Many consumers are unfamiliar with their rights under the HIPAA Privacy Rule. With that in mind, OCR has posted a series of factsheets, also available in eight languages, to inform consumers about their rights under the HIPAA Privacy Rule. These materials are available on OCR’s website here.

The fact sheets compliment a set of seven consumer-facing videos released earlier this year on OCR’s YouTube channel. An additional video, The HIPAA Security Rule, has been designed for providers in small practices and offers an overview of how to establish basic safeguards to protect patient information and comply with the Security Rule’s requirements. The videos are available on the HHS OCR YouTube Channel at here.

OCR has also launched three modules for health care providers on compliance with various aspects of the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules, available at Medscape.org:

Patient Privacy: A Guide for Providers at here;
HIPAA and You: Building a Culture of Compliance here; and
Examining Compliance with the HIPAA Privacy Rule here.

The Medscape modules offer free Continuing Medical Education (CME) credits for physicians and Continuing Education (CE) credits for health care professionals.

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Affordable Care Act, Anti-KickBack, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Corporate Compliance, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Reform, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, Hospital, Laws, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Mental Heatlh, Money Laundering, OIG, Outpatient, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pharmacy, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Public Policy, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, Stark, Substance Abuse | Tagged: Covered Entities, Data, Health Care, Health Plans, HIPAA, HIPAA Audits, OCR, Privacy, Security | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

HHS Publishes Medicaid Expansion Final Regs, Invites Public Comment

April 1, 2013

The Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) has published its final rule with a request for comments that provides, effective January 1, 2014, the federal government will pay 100 percent of the cost of certain newly eligible adult Medicaid beneficiaries. These payments will be in effect through 2016, phasing down to a permanent 90 percent matching rate by 2020. The Affordable Care Act authorizes states to expand Medicaid to adult Americans under age 65 with income of up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level (approximately $15,000 for a single adult in 2012) and provides unprecedented federal funding for these states.

Under the Affordable Care Act, states that cover the new adult group in Medicaid will have 100 percent of the costs of newly eligible Americans paid for by the federal government in 2014, 2015, and 2016. The federal government’s contribution is then phased-down gradually to 90 percent by 2020, and remains there permanently. For states that had coverage expansions in effect prior to enactment of the Affordable Care Act, the rule also provides information about the availability of an increased FMAP for certain adults who are not newly eligible.

For the full text of the final rule, see http://www.ofr.gov/inspection.aspx.

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Affordable Care Act, Anti-KickBack, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Corporate Compliance, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Reform, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, Hospital, Laws, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Mental Heatlh, Money Laundering, OIG, Outpatient, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pharmacy, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Public Policy, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, Stark, Substance Abuse | Tagged: Covered Entities, Data, Health Care, Health Plans, HIPAA, HIPAA Audits, OCR, Privacy, Security | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Hospitals with 2012 CMS Adverse Complaint Inspection Reports in AHCJ Data Bank Should Prepare Response

March 27, 2013

Acute-care and critical access hospitals that had adverse complaint inspections in 2012 by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) may want to prepare to respond to press and public inquiries. The Association of Health Care Journalists (AHCJ) updated its website, healthcareinspectionreports.com, to include details about deficiencies cited during complaint inspections at acute-care and critical access hospitals throughout the United States since January 1, 2011 obtained from CMS.

Although AHCJ cautions in its website that the posted data should not be used to rank hospitals because of omissions and limitations in the data, hospitals with posted reports in the data bank should expect that the reports on their hospital may draw the attention of the media, patients, health plans and others.

AHCJ publishes the reports, which historically have not been easily accessible to the general public. AHCJ cautions that the data is not necessarily complete and should not be used to rank hospitals within a state. AHCJ says data on acute-care and critical hospital access hospitals is incomplete because CMS has just begun gathering this data and releasing it in electronic format. AHCJ also says some reports are missing narrative details. Beyond that, CMS acknowledges that other reports that should appear may not. It does not include results of routine inspections or those of psychiatric hospitals or long-term care hospitals. It also does not include hospital responses to deficiencies cited during inspections. Those can be obtained by filing a request with a hospital or the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).AHCJ to make future iterations of this data more complete. At this time, this data should not be used to rank hospitals within a state or between states. It can be used to review issues identified at hospitals during recent inspections.

Subject to these limitations, an individual wishing to review the available data can click on a state on the map will retrieve a list of all hospitals with their violations grouped together.

In anticipation of potential media or public review and reaction to the AHCJ website posting, hospitals with adverse reports posted on the website should consider acting proactively. Hospitals should consult with counsel and their public relations team to plan and prepare a factually accurate response to the shared reports and other suitable mitigation activities.

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Affordable Care Act, Anti-KickBack, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Corporate Compliance, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Reform, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, Hospital, Laws, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Mental Heatlh, Money Laundering, OIG, Outpatient, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pharmacy, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Public Policy, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, Stark, Substance Abuse | Tagged: health care quality, Health Plans, Hospitals, Public Relations | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OCR Invites Comments On Plans to Survey HIPAA Covered Entities Audited Under 2012 HIPAA Audit Program

March 25, 2013

The Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) wants to ask the 115 health plans, health care clearinghouses, and health care providers (covered entities) that OCR audited in 2012 for compliance with Privacy and Security Rules of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) under its HIPAA Audit Program to share feedback about their experience. The planned survey announcement follows OCR’s recent released of restated HIPAA Privacy & Security Rules scheduled to take effect in September, 2013 and as OCR continues and expanding its HIPAA Audit Program in 2013. All together, the signs are clear that covered entities should update and strengthen their HIPAA compliance and risk management practices to withstand the tightened rules and enforcement.

OCR initiated the HIPAA Audit Program in 2012 to comply with Section 13411 of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act’s requirement that it audit covered entity and business associate compliance with the HIPAA privacy, security, and breach notification rules. While it continues its HIPAA Audit Program in 2013, OCR also is evaluating the effectiveness of the HIPAA Audit Program audits in 2012.

To this end, OCR currently is conducting a review of the HIPAA Audit program to determine its efficacy in assessing the HIPAA compliance efforts of covered entities. As part of that review, OCR plans to ask covered entities audited under the HIPAA Audit Program in 2012 to complete an online survey about their experience. In anticipation of its conduct of the proposed surveys, OCR is inviting public comment on the burden to Covered Entities to complete the planned online survey, which OCR estimates will take two hours to complete through May 20, 2013. According to OCR, the survey will gather information on the effect of the audits on the audited entities and the entities’ opinions about the audit process. The online survey will be used to:

Measure the effect of the HIPAA Audit program on covered entities;
Gauge their attitudes towards the audit overall and in regards to major audit program features, such as the document request, communications received, the on-site visit, the audit report findings and recommendations;
Obtain estimates of costs incurred by covered entities, in time and money, spent responding to audit-related requests;
Seek feedback on the effect of the HIPAA Audit program on the day-to-day business operations; and
Assess whether improvements in HIPAA compliance were achieved as a result of the Audit program.

OCR says it will use the information, opinions, and comments collected using the online survey to produce recommendations for improving the HIPAA Audit program.

For instructions to comment or more details, see here.

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Affordable Care Act, Anti-KickBack, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Corporate Compliance, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Reform, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, Hospital, Laws, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Mental Heatlh, Money Laundering, OIG, Outpatient, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pharmacy, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Public Policy, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, Stark, Substance Abuse | Tagged: Covered Entities, Data, Health Care, Health Plans, HIPAA, HIPAA Audits, OCR, Privacy, Security | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

HIPAA Update: The Latest On Security, Patient Access & Other HIPAA Developments

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Recent Posts

Archives

About Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Share this blog

Archives

Solutions Law Press Health Care Update