HR Tech: President of First U.S. Firm to Microchip Employees Will Speak in Dallas on Workplace Wearables

Patrick McMullan will speak on how the microchip technology has impacted the employee experience and workplace productivity at Three Market Square — and address concerns about privacy, GPS tracking, and worker satisfaction.

HR Technology concept

What if your employer asked you to implant a microchip under your skin to help them keep track of you?

Three Square Market took that step, and made headlines last summer amid debate concerning invasions of privacy. It was the first company in the U.S. to offer to microchip its workforce — on a strictly voluntary basis, according to media reports.

Three Square Market President Patrick McMullan will share the experience at the upcoming 2017 Human Resources Technology Exchange in Dallas, which will take place Dec. 10-12.

“The international marketplace is wide open, and we believe that the future trajectory of total market share is going to be driven by whoever captures this arena first.”

Patrick McMullan

The Wisconsin-based provider of self-service breakroom vending machines had a “chip party” in July, during which 50 out of the company’s 85 employees agreed to trade in their employee IDs and passwords for a chip to be inserted in between their forefinger and thumb. The chipped employees can enter the building, sign into their computers, and pay for snacks, all with just a wave of the hand.

The decision to chip was driven by an aim to get ahead of the growing wearable technology trend, according to a release. By 2020, 75 million devices are predicted to be voluntarily in use.

“The international marketplace is wide open, and we believe that the future trajectory of total market share is going to be driven by whoever captures this arena first,” McMullan said in a BBC article from last summer.

Read More: http://snip.ly/4lnun#https://dallasinnovates.com/hr-tech-president-of-first-u-s-firm-to-microchip-employees-will-speak-in-dallas-on-workplace-wearables/

Las Vegas hospitals must follow regular HIPAA privacy rule

Las Vegas hospita.jpg

After natural disasters, HHS sometimes waives certain HIPAA privacy rule requirements. That’s not usually the case after man-made disasters, such as Sunday night’s massacre in Las Vegas, where more than 50 were killed and hundreds were wounded after a gunman opened fire at a music festival.

Because the HIPAA privacy rule already allows information disclosure in certain cases, such as when public safety is threatened, and because there has been no declaration of a public health emergency, HIPAA waivers have not been necessary in this case.

Local hospitals will have to be careful, especially with so many requests for information from families, friends, and the media, said Mark Swearingen, a Hall Render attorney focused on health information privacy and security.

“Hospitals are going to have to be very careful about vetting and authenticating the individuals who might be calling in to make sure that they’re the type of person they can be sharing information with,” he said.

After Hurricane Harvey struck Texas in August, HHS Secretary Dr. Tom Price waived certain HIPAA penalties, which can range from $100 to $50,000 per violation. Providers would not be penalized for failing to giving out notices of privacy practices, for instance, nor would they be hit for not granting a patient the right to request privacy restrictions.

Meanwhile, other provisions of the HIPAA privacy rule were still in effect, including those that allow providers to disclose protected health information to patients’ families or others involved in their care. Other provisions allow providers to give out protected health information—including to law enforcement—if doing so would lessen a threat to those patients or to the public.

Given those rules, “when you have a shooting, the department has taken the position that a waiver isn’t necessary,” said Marcy Wilder, a privacy and cybersecurity lawyer with Hogan and Lovells, noting that no penalties were waived after the 2016 mass shooting that killed 49 people and injured 58 at Orlando’s Pulse nightclub. “The department wants to be careful here, because if you issue a waiver, that becomes a suggestion that without a waiver, these types of disclosures aren’t permitted,” she added.

Swearingen warns that Las Vegas hospitals therefore need to be cautious. “The hospital, I would hope, in this circumstance is going to be fairly guarded.”

Read More: http://snip.ly/8u7xj#http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20171002/NEWS/171009996/las-vegas-hospitals-must-follow-regular-hipaa-privacy-rule

 

What should Entities do to avoid HIPAA fines and penalties?

What should Entities do to avoid HIPAA fines and penalties.jpg

A look at the nature and numbers of HIPAA breaches over just the couple of years makes stark reading: On the one hand, in terms of numbers; 2016, with about 16 million records breached was a pretty good year compared to the previous year, in which about seven times that number, more than 113 million, were breached. But the bad news is that 2016 saw more Covered Entities reporting breaches than in any other year since the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) started publishing its data on healthcare record breaches.

These huge numbers show that not only is there a big demand for these records in the black market -they are in greater demand than even social security and credit cards -Covered Entities and Business Associates need to all that it takes to avoid HIPAA fines and penalties.

What should Entities do to avoid HIPAA fines and penalties4

The federal government has not been lax on this aspect. It is being extremely vigilant about protecting healthcare records. It has been consistently urging the HHS to take a serious view of the increased incidence of cyberattacks that has resulted in medical records theft and has suggested many measures towards ensuring this. The fact that there has been a steady increase in the global spending on cybersecurity-related hardware, software, and services and could reach $100 billion in 2020, according to estimates by the International Data Corporation (IDC), suggests the seriousness with which this issue is being viewed not just in the US, but all over the world.

One of the primary requirements that Business Associates need to comply with is adherence to HIPAA mandates regarding the handling and use of health information. This is spelt out in the HITECH Act, a recent update made to overall HIPAA regulations. It is mandatory for a Business Associate to comply with a wide range of regulatory obligations, which include certain privacy obligations, security standards, and breach notification requirements.

What should Entities do to avoid HIPAA fines and penalties2

However, there is a lot of confusion and misunderstanding among Business Associates about their roles and requirements. They must be completely knowledgeable about all the aspects of their roles, functions and requirements before they enter into agreements of contracts with subcontractors and vendors for their services

Learning about ways of avoiding HIPAA fines and penalties

Jay Hodes, who is President and Founder, Colington Security Consulting, LLC, will be providing thorough understanding of the roles and requirements of a Business Associate and Covered Entities in HIPAA enforcement at a webinar that is being organized by MentorHealth, a leading provider of professional trainings for the healthcare industry. Please visit What should Entities do to avoid HIPAA fines and penalties? to get complete clarity of the ways of avoiding HIPAA fines and penalties.

Clarity on how to avoid HIPAA fines and penalties

What should Entities do to avoid HIPAA fines and penalties1

The aim of this learning session is to help businesses understand what it means to be a Business Associate and know what required safeguards, policies and procedures must be in place or make sure that their current compliance program is adequate and can withstand government scrutiny.

Jay will highlight the importance of being compliant with the HIPAA requirements for an organization if it has to avoid HIPAA fines and penalties. The ways by which a Business Associate or Covered Entity can provide the appropriate patient rights and controls on its uses and disclosures of Protected Health Information (PHI) and what all it has to have in place for doing so, will all be explained.

He will cover the following areas at this session:

  • Why was HIPAA created?
  • Who Must Comply with HIPAA Requirements?
  • What are the HIPAA Security and Privacy Rules?
  • What are the Consequences of being a Business Associate
  • What is a HIPAA Compliance Program for a Business Associate?
  • What is a HIPAA Risk Management Plan?
  • What is a HIPAA Risk Assessment?
  • What is the Role of the HIPAA Security Official?
  • What are HIPAA training requirements?
  • What is a HIPAA data breach and what happens if it occurs?
  • What are the penalties and fines for non-compliance and how to avoid them
  • Case Examples of HIPAA Data Breaches
  • Creating a Culture of Compliance
  • Q&A.

 

 

Hurricane Harvey HIPAA Reminder

Disasters, which can ultimately lead to a data breach, come in various forms – natural, man-made and technical. HIPAA, the HITECH Act, the Federal Trade Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission are just a handful of entities requiring that the confidentiality, integrity and availability of the sensitive information (e.g., protected health information (PHI) and personally identifiable information (PII)) remain intact. Although federal HIPAA has distinct categories (e.g., covered entity, business associate, and subcontractor), other state or federal government entities use “covered entity” to mean any person that creates, receives, maintains or transmits PHI or PII.

HIPAA sets forth three main categories of safeguards: administrative, physical, and technical safeguards. Often times, these categories overlap. For example, the administrative requirement of a sanction policy compliments the physical requirement of two-factor identification for building access.

Below are a couple of select sections from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), which organizations should be particularly vigilant about in relation to disasters.

•45 CFR §164.310 (Physical) – requires that policies and procedures for facility access in order to restore lost data under the disaster recovery and emergency access plan.

•45 CFR §164.308 (Administrative Safeguards) – multiple requirements are set forth under this particular section of the CFR. For example:

•Security management process

•Annual risk analysis

•Information activity review

•Workforce clearance procedure

•Security awareness training

•Contingency plan

 

Read More: http://snip.ly/duepz#http://www.diagnosticimaging.com/blog/hurricane-harvey-hipaa-reminder

Beyond the HIPAA Privacy Rule: Enhancing Privacy, Improving Health Through Research.

The Value and Importance of Health Information Privacy

Ethical health research and privacy protections both provide valuable benefits to society. Health research is vital to improving human health and health care. Protecting patients involved in research from harm and preserving their rights is essential to ethical research. The primary justification for protecting personal privacy is to protect the interests of individuals. In contrast, the primary justification for collecting personally identifiable health information for health research is to benefit society. But it is important to stress that privacy also has value at the societal level, because it permits complex activities, including research and public health activities to be carried out in ways that protect individuals’ dignity. At the same time, health research can benefit individuals, for example, when it facilitates access to new therapies, improved diagnostics, and more effective ways to prevent illness and deliver care.

The intent of this chapter1 is to define privacy and to delineate its importance to individuals and society as a whole. The value and importance of health research will be addressed in Chapter 3.

CONCEPTS AND VALUE OF PRIVACY

Definitions

Privacy has deep historical roots (reviewed by Pritts, 2008Westin, 1967), but because of its complexity, privacy has proven difficult to define and has been the subject of extensive, and often heated, debate by philosophers, sociologists, and legal scholars. The term “privacy” is used frequently, yet there is no universally accepted definition of the term, and confusion persists over the meaning, value, and scope of the concept of privacy. At its core, privacy is experienced on a personal level and often means different things to different people (reviewed by Lowrance, 1997Pritts, 2008). In modern society, the term is used to denote different, but overlapping, concepts such as the right to bodily integrity or to be free from intrusive searches or surveillance. The concept of privacy is also context specific, and acquires a different meaning depending on the stated reasons for the information being gathered, the intentions of the parties involved, as well as the politics, convention and cultural expectations (Nissenbaum, 2004NRC, 2007b).

Our report, and the Privacy Rule itself, are concerned with health informational privacy. In the context of personal information, concepts of privacy are closely intertwined with those of confidentiality and security. However, although privacy is often used interchangeably with the terms “confidentiality” and “security,” they have distinct meanings.Privacy addresses the question of who has access to personal information and under what conditions. Privacy is concerned with the collection, storage, and use of personal information, and examines whether data can be collected in the first place, as well as the justifications, if any, under which data collected for one purpose can be used for another (secondary)2 purpose. An important issue in privacy analysis is whether the individual has authorized particular uses of his or her personal information (Westin, 1967).

Confidentiality safeguards information that is gathered in the context of an intimate relationship. It addresses the issue of how to keep information exchanged in that relationship from being disclosed to third parties (Westin, 1976). Confidentiality, for example, prevents physicians from disclosing information shared with them by a patient in the course of a physician–patient relationship. Unauthorized or inadvertent disclosures of data gained as part of an intimate relationship are breaches of confidentiality (Gostin and Hodge, 2002NBAC, 2001).

 

Read More: http://snip.ly/tlhw0#https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9579/

 

Hipaa—Should I Be Worried?

This ongoing column is dedicated to providing information to our readers on managing legal risks associated with medical practice. We invite questions from our readers. The answers are provided by PRMS, Inc.  a manager of medical professional liability insurance programs with services that include risk management consultation, education and onsite risk management audits, and other resources to healthcare providers to help improve patient outcomes and reduce professional liability risk. The answers published in this column represent those of only one risk management consulting company. Other risk management consulting companies or insurance carriers may provide different advice, and readers should take this into consideration. The information in this column does not constitute legal advice. For legal advice, contact your personal attorney. Note: The information and recommendations in this article are applicable to physicians and other healthcare professionals so “clinician” is used to indicate all treatment team members.

QUESTION

I have been hearing about the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) for years, but I have not heard of very much enforcement by the government. Do I really need to be concerned about being found liable for HIPAA violations?

ANSWER

Yes. While it is true that the federal government’s enforcement of HIPAA’s Privacy and Security Rules has been limited in the past, this will no longer be true in the future.

OVERVIEW OF HIPAA ENFORCEMENT

Healthcare providers required to comply with HIPAA, a federal statute, are subject to enforcement actions for violations of the Privacy Rule1 and the Security Rule,2 federal regulations enacted under the HIPAA statute. The Office for Civil Rights (OCR), an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services, is responsible for civil enforcement of the Privacy Rule and the Security Rule. OCR can impose civil monetary penalties on covered entities up to $50,000 or more per violation, with an annual cap of $1.5 million for identical violations. The Department of Justice (DOJ) is responsible for the investigation and prosecution of criminal violations of the HIPAA regulations. Under HIPAA, the maximum criminal penalties are $250,000 and 10 years imprisonment.

 

Read More: http://snip.ly/ojh0m#https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3552464/

New HIPAA rules: Make sure you are in compliance because your liability has increased

Healthcare providers have until September 23 to put into place internal policies and procedures needed to comply with sweeping changes coming to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

In January, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released a set of rules, known collectively as the omnibus rule, designed to supplement and modify the privacy, security, breach notification, and enforcement rules governing patient health information in HIPAA. HHS has made it clear that the September 23 compliance deadline is final. Penalties can range from $100 to $1.5 million depending on the violation.

For primary care and other physicians in private practice, compliance will mean:

  • conducting and documenting a risk analysis, which HHS defines as “an accurate and thorough assessment of the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability” of electronic protected health information (PHI) in your practice;

  • reviewing the practice’s policies and procedures for when PHI is lost or stolen or otherwise improperly disclosed, and making sure your staff members are trained in them;

  • ensuring that the electronic PHI your practice holds is encrypted so that it cannot be accessed if it is lost or stolen (see “Encrypting your patients’ health information”);

  • modifying the practice’s  electronic health record (EHR) system so that you can flag information a patient does not want shared with an insurance company;

  • having the ability to send patients their health information in an electronic format;

  • reviewing your contracts with any vendors that have access to your practice’s PHI; and

  • updating your practice’s notice of privacy practices.

Other provisions

Other provisions of the omnibus rule include restrictions on selling PHI or using it for marketing and fundraising purposes without obtaining the patient’s permission and loosening some of the restrictions on sharing PHI with family members or other caregivers of deceased patients. Disclosure is only permitted, however, to the extent that the PHI is relevant to the role the family member or caregiver played in the decedent’s treatment. Moreover, release is not permitted in cases in which the individual expressly stated before death that he or she did not want the PHI released.

The omnibus rule also permits doctors in states with compulsory vaccination laws to disclose a child’s immunization records to schools without obtaining formal authorization from parents. Physicians now can do so with only a verbal agreement, provided they document that they obtained the permission. Lastly, the rule prohibits health plans from using or disclosing genetic information for the purpose of insurance underwriting.

The rule also sets and describes the four categories of penalties for violating the rules and the dollar amounts for each.

The omnibus rule is the latest step in a process that began when Congress enacted the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act in 2009. Among other provisions, the HITECH Act required HHS to strengthen HIPAA’s privacy and security protections for health information. HHS adopted interim rules for doing so in 2010 and finalized the rules with adoption of the omnibus rule.

Growth in EHRs drive changes

Driving many of the changes in the omnibus rule is the proliferation of EHRs and the accompanying digitization of patient information, says Jeffrey J. Cain, MD, FAAFP, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP).

“The [original] HIPAA legislation is 15 years old now and was enacted at a time when EHRs were nothing more than a gleam in Microsoft’s eye, but now everyone’s using them, and the rules were seen to be in need of tightening up,” he says.

Angela Dinh Rose, director of health information management excellence for the American Health Information Management Association, says, “HITECH was a huge factor in pushing the adoption of health information technology, so along with that, Congress saw the need for improved privacy and security practices to protect patient information now that so much of it is becoming electronic.”

According to a study of breaches reported on the HHS Web site by Kaufman Rossin & Co., an accounting and consulting firm based in Miami, Florida, the number of individuals affected by data breaches doubled from 2010 to 2011, even though the number of entities involved in a breach declined (see “Summary of health breach information reported to HHS, 2010 to 2011,” below). The largest cause of breaches was theft (53%), followed by unauthorized access (20%) and loss (14%).

New rules for data breaches

The changes likely to have the greatest effect on medical practices are those concerning how PHI should be secured and kept private and what practices must do in case of a  breach—meaning the PHI is lost, stolen, or otherwise made available to someone who should not have it. Why? Whereas before the omnibus rule, breaches only had to be reported if they involved a “significant risk of harm,” now the presumption is that virtually any unauthorized disclosure of PHI may be a breach, unless the practice can demonstrate a low probability that the information has been compromised, explains Kenneth Rashbaum, JD, a health law attorney with Rashbaum Associates in New York, New York.

“These changes are a big deal because  the standard [of what constitutes a reportable breach] is much lower, and as a result there’s now a presumption of harm to the patient by virtue of the breah by the entity that made the disclosures,” Rashbaum says.

Given the new standard, the most important action practices can take to protect themselves against penalties, experts emphasize, is to encrypt patient data, both within the practice itself and when they are taken outside the practice in a laptop computer, smartphone, or other portable device.  Why? “In the [omnibus] rule now, they’re defining a breach as the loss of unsecured PHI,” explains Juli A. Ochs, CPA, healthcare engagement director for the consulting and accounting firm CliftonLarsonAllen LLP. “So anything that renders the data ‘unusable, unreadable, or undecipherable’ is now not considered a breach.”  (See “Encrypting your patient’s health information” below for suggestions on how to encrypt data in a way that meets HHS requirements.)

Determining risk of harm

Whenever a breach does occur, it is presumed to be reportable to HHS unless the practice can demonstrate a low risk of probability that the PHI will be compromised, meaning that anyone will be harmed as a result. Demonstrating the risk contains four components:

  • The nature and extent of the data involved. “Was the information just a list of patients? Did it include identifying data like Social Security numbers or other financial information? Were there intimate medical or psychotherapy records? Those are the types of questions that need to be asked,” says Aldo Leiva, JD, a data security and privacy attorney in Coral Gables, Florida.

  • The unauthorized person who used the PHI or to whom it was disclosed (something you can’t know if the breach resulted from a device being lost or stolen).

  • Whether the PHI was actually acquired or viewed.

  • The extent to which the risk has been mitigated after the fact. An example, Leiva says, might be having a contractor to whom the PHI accidentally was sent sign a non-disclosure agreement.

In addition, the rule requires practices to notify patients whose PHI has been breached within 60 days of discovery of the breach. If the breach affects more than 500 patients, then HHS and the local news media must be notified within the same 60-day timeframe. Practices must keep a log of all breaches regardless of the number of patients affected, and they must submit the log annually to HHS.

Another requirement of the rule is that practices and other covered entities conduct a risk analysis. The purpose of the exercise is to discover where the practice might be vulnerable to having its patient information lost or stolen—through theft of a laptop computer on which data are stored, for example—and putting in place policies and procedures to reduce those vulnerabilities.

“People get overwhelmed by this, because they think it needs to be a formal process,” Ochs says, “but it can be just everyone in the practice sitting down to talk about where are we vulnerable, assessing the risk of each vulnerability, deciding how to address it, and then documenting that they’ve gone through the process.”

In addition, practices should appoint a privacy and security officer with the responsibility for making sure the practice has policies and procedures for complying with the rules and that staff members are trained in them. Practices can—and often do—assign the responsibilities to a current employee rather than hire someone new, Ochs says. “The main thing is just that it’s assigned,” she adds.

Violators of the privacy and security rules will be fined in amounts ranging from $100 to $50,000 per violation (see “HIPAA rule violation categories and penalty amounts”). The maximum a practice or other covered entity can be fined in a year is $1.5 million.

Relations with business associates

After changes to the PHI security and breach notification rules, the omnibus rule changes of greatest interest to practices are those affecting their relationships with “business associates,” vendors that have access to a practice’s PHI. Such vendors are now directly responsible to HHS for securing and guarding the privacy of PHI in the same way that practices are, and they are subject to the same penalties.

“Before [the omnibus rule], physicians and medical organizations might be protecting patient data the way they were supposed to, but their third-party providers were not obligated except under the terms of their contract with the providers,” notes Jorge Rey, CISA, CISM, director of security and compliance for Kaufman, Rossin & Co. “Now the rules say that if you have access to patient healthcare-related information, you need to comply with all the privacy requirements.” The rule also puts subcontractors to practice vendors under HHS jurisdiction.

The increased responsibility of business associates does not let doctors off the hook entirely. That’s because even if the business associate loses PHI or has it stolen, the medical practice ultimately is responsible for notifying affected patients and reporting the breach to HHS.

Leiva notes that many health information technology (HIT) vendors and consultants include boilerplate language in their contracts absolving them from liability for data loss. Consequently, he advises reviewing all contracts with HIT vendors to ensure that their wording conforms with the omnibus rules governing relations between covered entities and their business associates. (A sample business associate agreement is available from the government at http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/coveredentities/contr…)

Greater patient control

The third part of the omnibus rule affecting doctors’ practices concerns patients’ rights related to their own health information.

The rules gives patients the right to:

  • obtain copies of their health information in an electronic format within 30 days of requesting it, with one 30-day extension permitted, and

  • instruct his or her doctor not to share information about a test or treatment for which the patient has paid out-of-pocket with his or her insurance company.

In addition, the rule requires practices to update their notice-of-privacy practices (NPPs) to reflect the changes to patients’  rights included in the omnibus rule and requires sending the updated NPP to all patients and posting it prominently in the practice and on the practice’s Web site.

Complying with the changes likely will be challenging for doctors due to the limitations of EHR systems. “EHRs were designed so that you could share information easily between healthcare providers and insurance providers,” notes the AAFP’s Cain. “Now we have this law saying that if a patient pays cash, the condition won’t be revealed to insurance providers, which is problematic for the way most EHRs are built.”

The design of EHRs also makes it difficult to share information with individuals who don’t have EHRs, Cain notes. “That’s going to be a problem and something the vendors will have to help us with,” he says.

In the meantime, possible alternatives include joining a private health information exchange network or a one of the regional or statewide networks many states are establishing. Regional extension centers and state and local medical societies are good sources of information about health information exchange networks.

Doctors should ask their EHR vendors about a timetable for implementing a function that allows them to meet the requirement by the September 23 deadline, advises Lisa Gallagher, CISM, vice president of technology solutions for the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society.  If a vendor won’t be ready to provide such a feature, then the practice will have to still find a way to meet the requirement, maybe through a different way of recording the patient’s data until the function is available, Gallagher says.

“Sometimes regulatory requirements are misaligned,” she adds. “What’s happened here is the requirement for the provider to do something, and the requirement hasn’t made its way down to the vendor. But the important thing for everyone to realize is that HHS has said this requirement is going into effect and you have to meet it.”

Cain says that most AAFP members understand the need to provide patients with greater control over who can see their information and the need to guard confidentiality generally. Nevertheless, “it does add another layer of administrative complexity to managing an office practice,” he says.

 “All the rules are well-intentioned, but they may interact in ways that aren’t understood when they are developed,” Cain adds. “The law of unintended consequences is challenging for office-based physicians.”


What would you like to know about HIPAA? Post your questions to our Facebook page at www.facebook.com/MedicalEconomics or email us at medec@advanstar.com. We’ll present answers in future articles.


HIPAA rule violation categories and penalty amounts

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act omnibus rule establishes four “tiers” of violations, based on what it terms “increasing levels of culpability,” with a rage of fines for each tier.

Violations of the same requirement or prohibition for any of the categories are limited to $1.5 million per calendar year.

The language of the rule states that actual dollar amounts will be based on “the nature and extent of the violation, the nature and extent of the resulting harm, and other factors…includ[ing] both the financial condition and size of the covered entity or business associate.”