Health Insurance Portability And Accountability Act Security Research Articles

A security framework to protect ePHI in Saudi Arabia's healthcare infrastructure

Today, protecting patient privacy and ensuring the accuracy and integrity of their data are the two most crucial concerns in the healthcare field. Unauthorized access or changes to patients' private health records can lead to serious issues. Moreover, if healthcare providers fail to update a patient's records quickly, it could result in dangerous, even life-threatening situations. Attacks on hospital computer systems also present a significant danger to patient care. Establishing strong security measures and procedures through cybersecurity frameworks can help protect sensitive patient information, known as electronic protected health information (ePHI). The Security Rule by Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), a well-established set of security guidelines, focuses on safeguarding ePHI held by healthcare organizations and their associates. This paper suggests creating a Data Cybersecurity Framework (DCF) specifically for the healthcare sector in Saudi Arabia. This framework aims to shield ePHI and align with the security recommendations of the HIPAA Security Rule. The development of this proposed framework involved consultations with healthcare cybersecurity experts and concentrated on the healthcare system in Saudi Arabia. The research concludes that enhancing the protection of patient information and raising public awareness requires the joint efforts of various entities, including government bodies.

A comparative study on HIPAA technical safeguards assessment of android mHealth applications.

Protecting personal health records is becoming increasingly important as more people use Mobile Health applications (mHealth apps) to improve their health outcomes. These mHealth apps enable consumers to monitor their health-related problems, store, manage, and share health records, medical conditions, treatment, and medication. With the increase of mHealth apps accessibility and usability, it is crucial to create, receive, maintain or transmit protected health information (PHI) on behalf of a covered entity or another business associate. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) provides guidelines to the app developers so that the apps must be compliant with required and addressable Technical Safeguards. However, most mobile app developers, including mHealth apps are not aware of HIPAA security and privacy regulations. Therefore, a research opportunity has emerged to develop an analytical framework to assist the developer to maintain a secure and HIPAA-compliant source code and raise awareness among consumers about the privacy and security of sensitive and personal health information. We proposed an Android source code analysis framework that evaluates twelve HIPAA Technical Safeguards to check whether a mHealth application is HIPAA compliant or not. The implemented meta-analysis and data-flow analysis algorithms efficiently identify the risk and safety features of mHealth apps that violate HIPAA regulations. Furthermore, we addressed API level checking for secure data communication mandated by recent CMS guidelines between third-party mobile health apps and EHR systems. Experimentally, a web-based tool has been developed for evaluating the efficacy of analysis techniques and algorithms. We have investigated 200 top popular Medical and Health & Fitness category Android apps collected from Google Play Store. We identified from the comparative analysis of the HIPAA rules assessment results that authorization to access sensitive resources, data encryption-decryption, and data transmission security is the most vulnerable features of the investigated apps. We provided recommendations to app developers about the most common mistake made at the time of app development and how to avoid these mistakes to implement secure and HIPAA-compliant apps. The proposed framework enables us to develop an IDE plugin for mHealth app developers and a web-based interface for mHealth app consumers.

Data privacy considerations for telehealth consumers amid COVID-19.

The COVID-19 emergency poses particularly high infection risks in a clinical setting, where patients and health care providers are placed in the same room. Due to these risks, patients are encouraged to avoid clinics and instead use Telemedicine for safer consultations and diagnoses. In March, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) at the U.S. Department for Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a notice titled Notification of Enforcement Discretion for Telehealth Remote Communications During the COVID-19 Nationwide Public Health Emergency (the ‘Notification’). The Notification relaxes the enforcement of privacy and security safeguards established by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) until further notice, in order to facilitate the transition to telehealth services for the broader purpose of promoting public health during the pandemic. Specifically, covered healthcare providers can use telehealth to provide all services that, in their professional judgment, they believe can be provided through telehealth. If providers make good faith efforts to provide the most timely and accessible care possible, they will not be subject to penalties for breaching the HIPAA Privacy, Security, and Breach Notification Rules. This paper examines the implications of the Notification on patients’ health information privacy. It recommends that patients should undertake a careful reading of provider privacy policies to make sure their protected health information (PHI) is not at risk before switching to telehealth consultation. Acknowledging the limitations of patient self-protection from bad privacy practices when in need for medical treatment during pandemic, the paper proposes that consumers’ data privacy should be protected through one of two alternative regulatory interventions: the FTC’s authority under §5, or HIPAA’s business associates agreements.

Review of HIPAA, Part 2: Limitations, Rights, Violations, and Role for the Imaging Technologist.

This article is the second part of a continuing education series reviewing the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996. The term HIPAA should be familiar to those who work in the medical profession, but this article includes details on its rules, patients' rights, violations, breaches, and penalties. To help administer these safeguards, HIPAA requires that every organization designate a HIPAA privacy and security officer. HIPAA violations can have serious repercussions when rules are not followed; these violations can be either negligent or willful. If breaches of unsecured protected health information occur, HIPAA requires covered entities to notify affected individuals, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and in some cases the media. Violations in which the covered entity did not know of the violation are now punishable under the first tier of penalties. Unintended violations carry a minimum penalty of $100 per violation and a maximum of $50,000 per violation. All patients have a right to privacy and a right to confidential use of their medical records. The role of medical professionals includes understanding how and when to apply these HIPAA rules verbally and electronically.

HHS Adjusts Penalties for HIPAA Violations

Back to table of contents Previous article Next article ProfessionalFull AccessHHS Adjusts Penalties for HIPAA ViolationsTerri D’ArrigoTerri D’ArrigoSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:2 Jul 2019https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.pn.2019.6b11AbstractNew annual limits reflect the level of culpability when violations occur and whether corrective action was taken.The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has changed the annual maximum penalties for violating the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). The annual maximum penalties were previously capped at $1.5 million for every tier of violation. Now the annual limit is different for each tier, with only violators who demonstrate willful neglect and failure to correct violations facing a potential $1.5 million annual penalty (see table). The new penalties went into effect in April.In a notice published in the April 30 Federal Register, HHS cited “inconsistent language” in the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, which established the tiers in 2009, as the impetus for the changes.“Upon further review of the statute by the HHS Office of the General Counsel, HHS has determined that the better reading of the HITECH Act is to apply [the new] annual limits,” Roger Severino, director of the HHS Office for Civil Rights, wrote. “HHS expects to engage in future rulemaking to revise the penalty tiers in the current regulation to better reflect the text of the HITECH Act.”The tiers are defined as follows:Tier 1: The person did not know and, by exercising reasonable diligence, would not have known that the person violated the provision.Tier 2: The violation was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect.Tier 3: The violation was due to willful neglect that was corrected in a timely manner.Tier 4: The violation was due to willful neglect that was not corrected in a timely manner.APA offers HIPAA guides for members, including “APA’s HIPAA Privacy Rule Manual: A Guide for Your Psychiatric Practice” and “APA HIPAA Security Rule Manual.” They are posted here. ■“Notification of Enforcement Discretion Regarding HIPAA Civil Money Penalties” is posted here. ISSUES NewArchived

Review of HIPAA, Part 1: History, Protected Health Information, and Privacy and Security Rules.

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 has made an impact on the operation of health-care organizations. HIPAA includes 5 titles, and its regulations are complex. Many are familiar with the HIPAA aspects that address protection of the privacy and security of patients' medical records. There are new rules to HIPAA that address the implementation of electronic medical records. HIPAA provides rules for protected health information (PHI) and what should be protected and secured. The privacy rule regulates the use and disclosure of PHI and sets standards that an entity working with health data must follow to protect patients' private medical information. The HIPAA security rule complements the privacy rule and requires entities to implement physical, technical, and administrative safeguards to protect the privacy of PHI. This article-part 1 of a 2-part series-is a refresher on HIPAA, its history, its rules, its implications, and the role that imaging professionals play.

Ensuring compliance with the HIPAA Security Rule: Think twice when e-mailing protected health information.

Are healthcare providers violating the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 when a patient's protected health information is e-mailed?1 They could be if they are not complying with the HIPAA Security Rule.2 Nonadherent healthcare providers could face sizeable monet

HIPAA security compliance challenges: The case for small healthcare providers

More than 60% of physicians in the U.S. practice as small healthcare providers. The realm of small healthcare providers includes dental offices, orthodontists, chiropractors, massage therapists, optometrists, long-term care facilities and other small, independent clinics that typically have 1 –30 employees. While studies have reported variable levels of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) information security (InfoSec) compliance among hospitals and large medical facilities (Anthony DL, Appari A, Johnson ME. Institutionalizing HIPAA compliance: Organizations and competing logics in U.S. health care. J Health Soc Behav 2014;55(1):108–24; Brady, JW. Securing health care: Assessing factors that affect HIPAA security compliance in academic medical centers. Proceedings of the 2011 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Manoa, Hawaii; 2011.), small healthcare providers face even more challenges in their effort to be HIPAA compliant. This paper will use a case study to examine factors that affect the small healthcare providers’ effort in meeting HIPAA InfoSec compliance. The paper also discusses services and technologies available to them to become compliant and how they can maintain continued compliance once they become compliant. Both a process model and an action compass are proposed to guide small healthcare providers. This case study provides support to existing compliance theories. The proposed guidance is useful for not only small healthcare providers but also mid-sized and large businesses in general.

A Matter of Trust: The Cost of HIPAA Non-Compliance

A Matter of Trust: The Cost of HIPAA Non-Compliance

A tale of two standards: strengthening HIPAA security regulations using the PCI-DSS

This paper both illustrates the inadequacy of current Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) regulations in protecting health-care information and proposes a more cohesive strategy to protect such information based on the organizational model that undergirds the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards (PCI-DSS). The evidence indicates that the industry consortium model used to develop the PCI-DSS works rapidly and effectively. The success of these standards suggests that their strengths provide a favorable base from which to develop a robust set of standards to enhance information security within health care. A national organization consisting of industry representatives that is devoted to creating a more comprehensive and less vague set of security standards is required to protect health-care information more effectively than is possible under the current HIPAA approach.

HIPAA Compliance and Cloud Computing

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) privacy and security regulations are two crucial provisions in the protection of healthcare data. Governance, compliance and auditing are becoming as important pedagogical subjects as long established financial auditing and financial control. Designing sound IT governance, compliance, and auditing is a challenging task. This paper elaborates the concept of HIPAA compliance in cloud computing by taking a look at the history and dynamics. Cloud computing changes the astir of certain parts of HIPAA Security requirements. We briefly describe the cyber warfare as a premise to enforce the reasons for complying with government regulations for information systems. We discuss the compliance issues of HIPAA with specific reference to cloud computing.

Text Messaging to Communicate With Public Health Audiences: How the HIPAA Security Rule Affects Practice

Text messaging is a powerful communication tool for public health purposes, particularly because of the potential to customize messages to meet individuals' needs. However, using text messaging to send personal health information requires analysis of laws addressing the protection of electronic health information. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Security Rule is written with flexibility to account for changing technologies. In practice, however, the rule leads to uncertainty about how to make text messaging policy decisions. Text messaging to send health information can be implemented in a public health setting through 2 possible approaches: restructuring text messages to remove personal health information and retaining limited personal health information in the message but conducting a risk analysis and satisfying other requirements to meet the HIPAA Security Rule.

Design of RSA-CA Based E-Health System for Supporting HIPAA Privacy-Security Regulations

The privacy and the security regulations are two essential requirements of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), recognized by US congress in 1996 as the US Federal Law followed by global e-health industry, in the protection of healthcare privacy. In this paper, a certificate authority (CA) based duality solution has been proposed to fulfill the HIPAA privacy and security regulations that supports both contract and smart card based systems. It presents a patient-centric e-health system based on RSA based public key certificate that allows secure sharing of healthcare information through internet. Doctors and relevant medical staff must have to take patients’ permission for online access to patients’ PHI data stored in the national medical center server (MCS). A copy of PHI text-data is stored in patients’ e-health smart card to support the duality. A random session key is generated in each appointment after prior authentication to upload and retrieve patients’ PHI data to or from MCS. One advantage is that the proposed CA based e-health system is easy implementable using existing security standards, tools and products. Discussions regarding the fulfillment of HIPAA regulations and comparison with the existing schemes have been provided to show the better performance of our scheme.

Patient Information Privacy Basics

You have accessThe ASHA LeaderBottom Line1 Sep 2011Patient Information Privacy Basics Kate RomanowJD Kate Romanow Google Scholar More articles by this author , JD https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.BML1.16092011.3 SectionsAbout ToolsAdd to favorites ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In ASHA recently hosted an online private-practice institute for audiologists and speech-language pathologists that focused on how to establish, manage, and grow a profitable private practice. Recorded lectures covered topics such as strategic business planning, fees and pricing, employment law basics, managing a fee-for-service practice, increasing referrals, using web-based and social media marketing, coding updates, Medicare billing, and claims and denials. Many of the participants in one of the sessions, “Data Privacy, Security, and Enforcement: HIPAA and More,” raised several questions during and after the institute on the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). This article clarifies points discussed during the institute to help other clinicians understand HIPAA policies. The HIPAA privacy rule protects personal health information and outlines patients’ rights with respect to that information, while allowing disclosure of information needed for patient care. The HIPAA security rule specifies a series of administrative, physical, and technical safeguards that ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of electronic protected health information. Electronic protected health information includes, for example, patient data stored on a computer hard drive, or data transmitted via a computer for billing purposes. The following questions and answers outline basic HIPAA privacy and security regulations. Q: Do the HIPAA regulations apply to me? HIPAA compliance is required by all “covered entities,” defined as health plans, health care clearinghouses, and health care providers that transmit any health information in electronic form in connection with “transactions” covered under HIPAA. If you are a provider who, for example, sends patient information electronically to a billing company, then you are a “covered entity” and must comply with HIPAA regulations. Q: What transactions are covered under HIPAA? HIPAA regulations define “transaction” as the transmission of information between two parties to carry out financial or administrative activities related to health care. It includes the following types of information transmissions: Health care claims or equivalent encounter information. Health care payment and remittance advice. Coordination of benefits. Health care claim status. Enrollment and disenrollment in a health plan. Eligibility for a health plan. Health plan premium payments. Referral certification and authorization. First report of injury. Health claims attachments. Other transactions that the secretary of health and human services may prescribe by regulation (45 C.F.R. Section 160.103). Q: What does “electronic form” mean? HIPAA does not define “electronic form.” It does, however, define “electronic media” as the following: Electronic storage media including memory devices in computers (hard drives) and any removable/transportable digital memory medium, such as magnetic tape or disk, optical disk, or digital memory card. Transmission media used to exchange information already in electronic storage media. Transmission media include, for example, the Internet, extranet (using Internet technology to link a business with information accessible only to collaborating parties), dial-up lines, leased lines, private networks, and the physical movement of removable/transportable electronic storage media. Certain transmissions, including those by paper (facsimile) and by voice (telephone), are not considered e-transmissions via electronic media because the information did not exist in electronic form before the transmission (45 C.F.R. Section 160.103). Q: If I am a covered entity, what do I need to do to comply with HIPAA? You must protect the privacy of patient information. You must safeguard patient information sent electronically. For example, you must inform patients about the HIPAA privacy practices you observe and train employees about HIPAA requirements. Q: Are there sample notices of privacy practices? More information about HIPAA privacy notices is available at the Department of Health and Human Services website. ASHA includes a sample notice of privacy practices in its Practice Management Tools for SLPs available in the ASHA online store. Q: Where I can get more information? ASHA’s reimbursement web page includes an extensive section on HIPAA. An article in The ASHA Leader also outlines some basics. The Office of Civil Rights, which enforces the privacy and security rule, has information on its website. The Workgroup for Electronic Data Interchange [PDF] (of which ASHA is a member) has information to help small practices comply with HIPAA. The full HIPAA regulations are available at the Department of Health and Human Services website. (Be aware, however, that the most current version may not be posted.) Author Notes Kate Romanow, JD, director of health care regulatory advocacy, can be reached at [email protected]. Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Additional Resources FiguresSourcesRelatedDetails Volume 16Issue 9September 2011 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in print: Sep 1, 2011 Metrics Current downloads: 271 Topicsasha-topicsleader_do_tagasha-article-typesleader-topicsCopyright & Permissions© 2011 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationLoading ...

HIPAA for Cancer Educators: Are You Correctly Using PHI?

Privacy and confidentiality policies and practices, including Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) policies, may vary from institution to institution because they are developed to be institution-specific. HIPAA privacy and security regulations represent the minimum standards, and the expectation is that institutions will develop policies and practices that are reasonable and appropriate for their institution. These privacy and information security safeguards impact the use of sensitive and protected data often used by cancer educators. Therefore, it is important for cancer educators to be familiar with the policies, rules, and guidelines their institution has developed to comply with HIPAA. However, despite institutional differences, certain principles related to the confidentiality, protection, and uses of a patient's health information remain consistent. HIPAA provides two sets of regulations that directly impact the work of many cancer educators: privacy and information security. The HIPAA Privacy Rule includes some security requirements, and HIPAA Security Regulations were designed to ensure privacy of the patient's protected health information (PHI). This paper focuses primarily on the privacy factors.

Privacy Act Basics for Private Practitioners

Privacy Act Basics for Private Practitioners

A hybrid public key infrastructure solution (HPKI) for HIPAA privacy/security regulations

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) has set privacy and security regulations for the US healthcare industry. HIPAA has also established principles for security standards that global e-health industry tends to follow. In this paper, a hybrid public key infrastructure solution (HPKI) is proposed to comply with the HIPAA regulations. The main contribution is the new e-health security architecture that is contract oriented instead of session oriented which exists in most literatures. The proposed HPKI has delegated the trust and security management to the medical service provider during the contract period, which is more realistic. It is much an analogy to existing paper based health care systems in terms of functional structure. The cryptographically strong PKI scheme is deployed for the mutual authentication and the distribution of sensitive yet computational non-intensive data while efficient symmetric cryptographic technology is used for the storage and transmission of high volume of medical data such as medical images. One advantage is that the proposed HPKI can be constructed from existing cryptographic technologies where various relevant security standards, tools and products are available. Discussion has been provided to illustrate how proposed schemes can address the HIPAA privacy and security regulations.

HIPAA Security Enforcement Is Here

Enforcement has been slow in coming for the administrative simplification rules under the US's Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). For more than five years, the Office of Civil Rights in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has been responding to criticism that it has not been enforcing HIPAA's privacy rule as evidenced by its lack of formal enforcement penalties during this period. At the same time, although reports of security breaches continue to grow, no enforcement efforts have occurred related to HIPAA's security rule. This now appears to be changing, at least incrementally, with three new enforcement developments in the information security area. These actions, taken together, clearly demonstrate that we've entered a new era for HIPAA enforcement. They also provide healthcare companies with a wide range of useful information about areas of potential concern for security compliance, along with clues as to how HHS might proceed.

Ethics Committees in the Rural Midwest: Exploring the Impact of HIPAA

Confidentiality of personal health information is an ethical principle and a legislated mandate; however, the impact of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) on ethics committees ethics committees is limited. This study investigates the prevalence, activity, and composition of ethics committees located in rural central and southern Illinois. Additionally, the impact of the HIPAA Officer serving on the committee is reported. Surveys were mailed to the "Administrator or Ethics Committee Chairperson" at rural Illinois hospitals and skilled care facilities. Survey items included committee composition and perception of HIPAA-related involvement. Over one third (36.7%) of the facilities reported having formal ethics committees. Hospitals were more likely (79.3%) to have ethics committees than skilled nursing facilities (20.7%). Ethics committee members usually include an administrator, nurse, and physician. The smaller the facility (based on number of beds), the more likely it was to have a HIPAA Officer on the committee. Committees with a HIPAA Officer were more likely to be involved in monitoring and/or remediation of HIPAA privacy and security violations. Most respondents, however, did not feel the committee should be involved in these issues. Although the sample size is too small to generalize, HIPAA does seem to have an effect on the issues discussed by ethics committees. Furthermore, ethics committees that include a HIPAA Officer in the membership report increased committee involvement in HIPAA related issues.

The State of Information Security Law: A Focus on the Key Legal Trends

Information security is rapidly emerging as one of the most critical legal issues facing companies today. Concerns regarding corporate governance, individual privacy, accountability for financial i...