Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
2013 06-21 HIPPA omnibus rule
2013 06-21 HIPPA omnibus rule
2013 06-21 HIPPA omnibus rule
2013 06-21 HIPPA omnibus rule
2013 06-21 HIPPA omnibus rule
2013 06-21 HIPPA omnibus rule
2013 06-21 HIPPA omnibus rule
2013 06-21 HIPPA omnibus rule
2013 06-21 HIPPA omnibus rule
2013 06-21 HIPPA omnibus rule
2013 06-21 HIPPA omnibus rule
2013 06-21 HIPPA omnibus rule
2013 06-21 HIPPA omnibus rule
2013 06-21 HIPPA omnibus rule
2013 06-21 HIPPA omnibus rule
2013 06-21 HIPPA omnibus rule
2013 06-21 HIPPA omnibus rule
2013 06-21 HIPPA omnibus rule
2013 06-21 HIPPA omnibus rule
2013 06-21 HIPPA omnibus rule
2013 06-21 HIPPA omnibus rule
2013 06-21 HIPPA omnibus rule
2013 06-21 HIPPA omnibus rule
2013 06-21 HIPPA omnibus rule
2013 06-21 HIPPA omnibus rule
2013 06-21 HIPPA omnibus rule
2013 06-21 HIPPA omnibus rule
2013 06-21 HIPPA omnibus rule
2013 06-21 HIPPA omnibus rule
2013 06-21 HIPPA omnibus rule
2013 06-21 HIPPA omnibus rule
2013 06-21 HIPPA omnibus rule
2013 06-21 HIPPA omnibus rule
2013 06-21 HIPPA omnibus rule
2013 06-21 HIPPA omnibus rule
2013 06-21 HIPPA omnibus rule
2013 06-21 HIPPA omnibus rule
2013 06-21 HIPPA omnibus rule
2013 06-21 HIPPA omnibus rule
2013 06-21 HIPPA omnibus rule
2013 06-21 HIPPA omnibus rule
2013 06-21 HIPPA omnibus rule
2013 06-21 HIPPA omnibus rule
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

2013 06-21 HIPPA omnibus rule

757

Published on

There were statutory amendments that HITECH required that were never made, and there was a interim final proposed rule that implements the HITECH Act breach notification requirements. These rules are …

There were statutory amendments that HITECH required that were never made, and there was a interim final proposed rule that implements the HITECH Act breach notification requirements. These rules are now amended by the Omnibus rule, because they were confusing and garnered public comment that convinced HHS to make changes.

Published in: Health & Medicine, Technology
0 Comments
3 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
757
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
39
Comments
0
Likes
3
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Disclosure – NO ATTNY CLIENT RELATIONSHIP FORMED BY THIS PRESENTATION
  • HIPAA – 1996 – spawnedprivacy and security rulesPrivacy – CEs can’t use PHI w/o authorization except for payment, treatment and administrative operations.Security – established strict standards for CE’s electronic transmission of PHI. Only CEs are liable for violations.HITECH - 2009, as part of the larger American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, amend HIPAA to provide for breach reporting and increase privacy, security and enforcement provisions. There were statutory amendments that HITECH required that were never made, and there was a interim final proposed rule that implements the HITECH Act breach notification requirements. These rules are now amended by the Omnibus rule, because they were confusing and garnered public comment that convinced HHS to make changes. The Omnibus rule is a clean up rule.
  • Much of the Omnibus Rule is not new rule making, but rather the finalization of HHS Interim Final Rules and proposed rule making that was already available for public review. In short, there is very little new in the Omnibus Rule that hasn't been covered before.GINA
  • Assume 180 days for compliance for future HIPAA modifications.Existing BA agreements that are already compliant with HITECH are ok through 9/22/14, provided they are not modified or renewed before then.Covered Entities and Business Associates will be allowed to operate under existing agreements for one year beyond the compliance date of these revisions, if said agreement was already HITECH compliant.180 days is the minimum HHS can provide as a compliance period
  • These are the main provisions of the new law, and the outline of the presentation.
  • Breach – an unauthorized use or disclosure.Disclosure – when information goes outside the organization.Elimination of the harm threshold is expected to markedly increase the number of breaches reported to HHS. The agency reports that it already receives approximately 19,000 breach notifications annually, about 250 of which affect more than 500 people. OCR estimates about 6.71 million people are affected by these breaches annually. With these rule changes, that number will go up, but will also motivate covered entities and business associates to pursue safe harbors like encryption and redouble efforts to comply with these rules to prevent breaches. For the next couple of months, breaches will be analyzed under the risk of harm standard, but starting on September 23, all breaches must be assessed under the compromisation of PHI standard.
  • Under the prior rule, breaches were not reported unless they posed a “significant risk of reputational, financial or other harm” to individuals. Under these final rules, the determination of whether an incident is a breach depends not on the likelihood affected individuals might be harmed, but rather on the risk that PHI has been “compromised.” Low probablilityUses and not just disclosures are potential breachesIncidents that violate the privacy rule, do not meet an exemption, and are not subject to a safe harbor are presumed to be breaches. Can defeat this presumption by doing a risk analysis.
  • The risk analysis must be documented and retained to meet the covered entity’s burden of proof to demonstrate that unreported incidents did not rise to the level of a “breach.” This is a big change and will require your outfit to figure out a process to follow in every case. Example – provider’s fax goes astray. Wrong mh provider, who calls and says she’s destroyed it. Low probability of compromization.Stanford - five big breaches usually an unencrypted laptop but also posted 20,000 names, addresses, phone numbers, and medical diagnosis to student website.
  • Need to document the RA to bear burden of proof that unreported incidents did not rise to the level of a breach.
  • The same exceptions to the term “breach” are provided and address limited circumstances when: PHI could not reasonably be retained;PHI is accessed inadvertently by a CE’s or BA’s workforce member unintentionally and in good faith; an inadvertent disclosure is made by a person at the CE or BA to another person authorized to access PHI at the same CE or BA(or at an organized health care arrangement in which the they participate). In each case, further impermissible use, or disclosure of, PHI would render the exceptions inapplicable.
  • Notification provisions remain the same.Covered entities to notify affected individuals, HHS and, in some cases, the media. (Breaches affecting 500 or more individuals)whereas breaches affecting less than 500 individuals can be logged and reported to HHS on an annual basis. Business associates that discover a breach must notify covered entities, and subcontractors must notify business associates who then notify covered entities.
  • HHS continues to provide a safe harbor from breach notification requirements for PHI that is encrypted or disposed of in keeping with its earlier guidance on the topic. Encryption will continue to be a critical tool in minimizing the risk of breach reporting
  • The second thing in our presentation outline is Increased Business Associate Liability. We’ve been talking about BAs – who are they? BAs are and continue to be entitles that perform services, functions or activities on behalf of CEs that involve use or disclosure of PHI. examples include vendors like IT vendors, billing and coding, accountable care organizations (ACOs), and third party administrators, lawyer in some cases, quality analysis (peer review),any entity that handles your PHI.The final rule clarifies that entities that merely store PHI are also BAs even shredding companies although the storage is limited.
  • Business associates will need to bring their subcontractors into the loop by asking them to execute appropriate HIPAA contracts (a.k.a., business associate agreements). While that should have occurred under current rules, the requirement is not explicit. Motivation to do so should be high since business associates can now be held directly liable for any failure in this regard. Lack of a contract between the parties will not prevent this designation. Test is not based on contract but on activities of subcontractor – same test as for BAs - do they use or disclose PHI in their performance of a function for the BA?Conduit exception only for couriers like US Postal Service and ISPs (internet service providers) supposedly only applies to couriersCompanies providing PHRs, like e prescribing gateways, are excluded from list of entities that merely transmit electronic info. PHRs are only BAs if they act on behalf of CEs – if act or receive PHI only from individuals, not BAs.
  • Numerous provisions of HIPAA now apply expressly to BAs and their subs.Use and disclosure requirements of Privacy Rule – includes minimum necessary rule, a fundamental tenet of HIPPA that only the minimum amount of info necessary to complete a particular task should be collected, divulged or used in the process.HIPAA requires dozens of documented policies and procedures, as well as time-consuming implementation of technical requirements, like conducting a security risk analysis and developing a mitigation plan, producing a contingency plan, potentially encrypting ePHI, and preparing systems to log and monitor user activity. Once implemented, compliance also necessitates workforce training, and that training also must be documented. Since CEs are liable for BAs, both will be more vigilant about requirements. BAs should expect a lot more attn from their CE clients – increased audits, security reviews, and diligence.
  • Need to identify all service providers that access PHI and request that they execute appropriate business associate agreements. final rules necessitate a review of business associate agreements Many more entities now should have BAs in placeupdates are advisable if your contracts do not speak to increased business associate compliance obligations,, which include:many substantive provisions of the Privacy Rule all of the Security Rule. security breach response and reporting carrying out obligations related to individuals’ privacy rights, such as the right to receive copies of PHI. BA’s rights if discover CE’s material non-compliance.
  • Don’t think too hard about who is liable for what. Everybody is liable for their own violations and their agents’ violations. Agency depends on the authority to direct activities - ongoing instructions. If a CE and BA are both liable, HHS can penalize both. HHS’s new authority over BAs and subcontractors multiply its enforcement authority. Business associates will be subject to audits, compliance reviews, and enforcement actions by HHS as are covered entities. Same goes for their subcontractors.
  • Examples of hybrid entities include academic medical centers, which teach students (not HIPAA covered) and treat patients (HIPAA covered), and retailers that sell groceries (not HIPAA covered) and fill prescriptions (HIPAA covered).any parts of your organization that act like covered entities need to comply with HIPAA, and any parts of your organization that provide services and support to those business units, and also access PHI, will likewise need to comply with HIPAA.Now, it is optional for CE’s to designate their BA-like business units as part of the HIPAA covered health care components in a hybrid entity. Under the omnibus rule, it will become required.
  • The Third area we are covering is the enhanced enforcement authority of HHS.The Omnibus Rule eliminates an exception under the previous rule that shielded covered entities from civil penalties stemming from the conduct of their business associates if certain conditions were met. Under the Omnibus Rule, covered entities and business associates are liable for the acts of their respective business associate agents. If the notice given to HHS following a preliminary review of the facts suggests willful negligence by the covered entity or business associate, then HHS is required to investigate. If willful neglect is indicated,, HHS must conduct a compliance review. Eliminates HHS’s discretion. Since the agency always requests copies of HIPAA policies in these reviews, it’s definitely time to update your policy book. HHS need not only fine one party. HHS has discretion to tally monetary penalties and can take into acct the nature of potential harms, like the inability to seek care, damage to finances or reputation.
  • If you discover a violation, correct it promptly and in no more than 30 days. Delaying beyond that timeframe will foreclose certain defenses that could decrease monetary penalty amounts HHS retains the authority to charge multiple violations related to a single event, such as a breach. As such, it is important to recall that the maximum annual cap of $1.5 million is applied on a “per provision” basis. It can still be multiplied several times over depending on the number of provisions violated.
  • Impermissible use or disclosure is a HIPAA privacy violation. So by reporting, admitting to at least a privacy violation. HHS may separately tally the two violations.
  • There are a number of updates to the privacy rules that deserve mention.Persons long dead have no HIPAA privacy rights. The recently deceased are still covered. Access = Disclosure. Read only or view only protests that there was no disclosure are baseless. HHS’s clarification of the definition of “disclosure” nowto expressly include access. Covered entities should ensure that business associates comply with the applicable provisions of the Privacy Rule. Increased vigilance is advisable not only because covered entities can be directly liable for business associate noncompliance, but also due to enhanced breach notification requirements (covered entities must report breaches caused by business associates unless they contract otherwise) and the agency’s enhanced fining authority. Business associates should undertake Privacy Rule implementation now and redouble any existing efforts to comply prior to the September 23, 2013 compliance deadline
  • Particular components to the Privacy Rule amendments deal with requiring authorization for marketing, fundraising, sale of PHI and research. Proposed rules on this issued in 2009 were too confusing, so HHS adopted a simpler, stricter approach. Since the HIPAA Privacy Rule went into effect in 2003, pharmacies, health plans, and other covered entities have been permitted to send communications to patients about products and services of third parties, as long as these communications are for purposes of treatment or to recommend alternative therapies. Prior authorization of patients has not been required to send such communications, even where the covered entity has been paid to send the communications by a third party whose products/services are the subject of the communications. The Omnibus Final Rule modifies the definition of “marketing” in the Privacy Rule and will require as of the compliance deadline (September 23, 2013) that covered entities obtain patient authorizations before sending such communications paid for by third parties.Written communications that are intended to promote purchase or use of a third party’s products or services will require prior individual authorization if the covered entity receives financial remuneration from or on behalf of that third party in exchange for sending the communication, with only a few exceptions. to trigger this requirement, the financial remuneration received must have been provided in exchange for sending the communication. “Financial remuneration” means direct or indirect payment from or on behalf of a third party whose product or service is being described.
  • In order to trigger the authorization requirement, the financial remuneration received must have been provided in exchange for sending the communication. If a third party provides a covered entity with funds to implement a disease management program, for example, the covered entity may send communications encouraging participation in the new program without individual authorization because the payment it received from the third party was not paid in exchange for sending the communications. Targeting pharmaceutical companies and health plans where they pay the provider to push alternative treatments.
  • Notably, the Final Rule does not change the existing exception to the authorization requirement for marketing communications that are made face-to-face by a CE to an individual. This exception covers both verbal and written communications: “[A] health care provider could, in a face to face conversation with the individual, recommend, verbally or by handing the individual written materials such as a pamphlet, that the individual take a specific alternative medication, even if the provider is otherwise paid by a third party to make such communications.Rationale for the face-to-face exception that “[i]n this context, the individual can readily stop any unwanted communications, including any communications that may otherwise meet the definition of ‘marketing.’All forms of communication that are not conveyed “in person” may be subject to these requirements, including those conducted by phone, fax, mail, electronic mail and text message. The Final Rule also retains the exception to the authorization requirement for subsidized marketing communications where the “communication” is a “promotional gift of nominal value” provided by the covered entity to the individual. HHS has previously explained that this exception allows a covered entity to distribute calendars, pens, and the like, that display the name of a product. Most are probably distributed in face to face encounters, so that exemption would apply. Also, unlikely PHI is used in any of these encounters. But, would allow health care providers and health plans to send such gifts through the mail without patient authorization, even where the covered entity is paid by a third party for doing so and makes a profit from the activity. For example, the exception would appear to allow a pharmacy to send a product-branded calendar with refill reminder stickers to be applied by the patient to the appropriate days/months, even where the pharmacy is paid by the drug manufacturer for doing so and such payment exceeds the pharmacy’s costs.Narrow exemption - Excluded from definition of marketing are refill reminders, adherence reminders, or other communications about a drug or a generic that is currently being prescribed for the individual, require no authorization as long as any financial remuneration received by the covered entity in exchange for making the communication is “reasonably related” to the covered entity’s cost of making the communication; “reasonably related” to the cost of making the communication - HHS has clarified that it considers such costs to include only labor, supplies and postage related to the communication. The payment cannot cover costs unrelated to the communication nor can it provide even a marginal profit.
  • Communications about health in general, such as healthy living or encouraging routine diagnostic tests such as annual mammograms
  • The final rules do not require that the communications themselves include an opt-out mechanism. Rather, the initial authorization would advise individuals of their right to revoke that authorization, as is required by HIPAA for all valid individual authorizations
  • As originally implemented, the HIPAA Privacy Rule permitted only the use of demographic information and dates of care for fundraising purposes, like name, address, other contact information, age, gender, and date of birth.The Omnibus Rule now also permits the use of department of service, treating physician, outcome information, and health insurance status. This means that a covered entity seeking to raise funds for a specific program can target its fundraising campaign to patients who have experienced positive outcomes and have conditions related to the program.More targeted but notice of privacy practices must describe the covered entity’s intent to send fundraising communications and describe the individual’s right to opt out. Must be clear and conspicuous right to opt out of future fundraising communications.
  • The Omnibus Rule prohibits the sale of PHI unless the individual has authorized it. The requisite authorization must acknowledge that the covered entity will receive remuneration in exchange for PHI. The Final Rule defines the term “sale of PHI” for the first time. The term “sale” is not limited to transfers of ownership of PHI, but also includes agreements to access PHI, licenses to use PHI, and lease agreements.For the sales restriction to apply, the remuneration – and not only financial, as in marketing, but in-kind as well - must be provided in exchange for the PHI rather than a product or service that results in the disclosure of PHI. In other words, the restriction does not apply where the disclosure of PHI is a “byproduct” of the arrangement, like research. For example, HHS states in the rules’ preamble that fees paid to a health information exchange are not considered to be remuneration paid in exchange for PHI; rather, the payment of those fees compensates the health information exchange for the services it provides, not the PHI itself.
  • Cost of preparing and transmitting the PHI is reasonable, cost based fee.By contrast, a sale of PHI will occur if a covered entity “primarily is being compensated to supply data it maintains in its role as a covered entity (or business associate).” Datamining.
  • Essentially combination authorizations.authorization for a use or disclosure of psychotherapy notes may only be combined with another authorization for a use or disclosure of psychotherapy notes, and may not be combined with other authorizations. It would also be useful to consider in advance how future revocations will operate, and to develop a means of soliciting from individuals revocations that are clear in terms of their scope and effect. In other words, where compound authorizations are used, it may be difficult to determine whether an individual revoking that authorization in the future intends to revoke it in whole or in part. Absent clarity on this point, the revocation would have to be deemed a complete revocation of the entire compound authorization. To avoid confusion on this point in the future, covered entities should consider what means they have available to establish clear, delineated revocation options from individuals if they prefer to only partially revoke compound authorizations.Historically, HHS has interpreted the Privacy Rule to require that authorizations for research be study-specific due to the Privacy Rule’s requirement that valid authorizations include a description of each purpose of use or disclosure of PHI. That interpretation appeared to rule out, or at least cast doubt on, the validity of authorizations in which the individual agreed to use and disclosure of PHI for potential future research, since future research could not be described in detail. HHS provides that authorizations for future research “must adequately describe [future research] purposes such that it would be reasonable for the individual to expect that his or her protected health information could be used or disclosed for such future research.” The agency does not provide clear guidance on the types of statements that would satisfy its modified interpretation
  • individuals have a right to request copies of PHI in any form they choose, provided PHI is “readily producible” in that format. If PHI is not readily producible in the requested form, then the covered entity must agree with the individual on an alternate form and format If the PHI requested is maintained electronically in one or more designated record sets, the covered entity will be required to produce an electronic copy of PHI if the individual requests it.
  • The final rules permit covered entities to charge a “reasonable, cost-based fee” for preparing the copy, provided the fee covers only labor associated with copying materials (whether the PHI was provided in paper or electronic form) and postage if the individual requested the copy be mailed. The agency has removed a provision in the rules that gave covered entities 60 days to respond to requests for PHI when that PHI is stored offsite. All requests must be addressed (granted or denied) within 30 days, although covered entities are still permitted to grant themselves a one-time 30-day extension with notice given to the individual of the reasons for the delay.
  • that covered entities capture individuals’ written acknowledgement of warnings the covered entity provides regarding unencrypted emails, or to contemporaneously document that the warning was given if done verbally. • HHS confirms in its preamble to the final rules that covered entities are not responsible for safeguarding information once delivered to the individual.
  • A covered entity does have some discretion to decline an individual’s request for this type of restriction, such as if the disclosure is for treatment purposes, if the individual did not pay in full for the health care item or service in question, if some or all of the payment was made by the health plan, or if the disclosure in question is not to a health plan. Recipient alone does not have to pay – could be someone else as other party is not the health plan HHS notes that when a provider is required by law to disclose PHI, it will not be obligated to honor an individual’s request to restrict disclosures, such as where participation in a federal health plan like Medicare or Medicaid requires disclosure of the PHI in question.
  • Although HHS undoubtedly meant well in loosening the restrictions on disclosures to family members and others who cared for a decedent, the new provisions in this regard create a minefield for the unwary covered entity. Disclosures of PHI regarding decedents made to family members and other “involved” individuals must be limited to only PHI that is relevant to the nature of the recipient’s involvement, a subjective standard. In addition, the disclosures must be consistent with any preference the decedent may have expressed to the contrary and that is known to the covered entity. If one family member claims to have been told by the decedent that another family member should not be made aware of certain PHI, will the covered entity be considered to “know” the decedent’s wishes? disclosures about decedents are permitted, not required, so in cases of doubt covered entities may prefer to err on the side of declining to disclose PHI. Consistent with Vermont patient privilege statute: VT patient privilege statute 12 V.S.A. 1612, requires the disclosure of information regarding the mental or physical condition of a deceased patient if the privilege of confidentiality is waived by the decedent’s personal representative, the surviving spouse or the next of kin of the decedent. Vermont law does not specify which relatives qualify as “next of kin.” Also note that this disclosure requirement is voided in the event that the practitioner concludes that the disclosure “would tend to disgrace the memory of the decedent.” No further guidance has been provided by either legislation or court precedent to define the scope of this contingent provision.Regarding disclosure of immunization records to schools, covered entities may rely on essentially any form of agreement (e.g., in person, by phone, via email) to the disclosure, but need to document that such agreement was obtained. Retaining a copy of a written request may suffice if the request makes clear the nature of the request (that it was made to obtain immunization records for a school). If the request was not received in writing, then a covered entity must document the request in order to rely on this new provision. HHS opines that a notation in the patient’s medical records would suffice. The documentation regarding the request or agreement need not be a full-blown HIPAA authorization. • State law variations may affect disclosures of immunization records. For example, state law will dictate which schools are required to receive such records. HHS also notes that where state law mandates such disclosures to schools, the disclosure may be permitted by the Privacy Rule without regard to this new provision since the rule allows disclosures of PHI that are required by law. Where state law permits but does not require the disclosure, then this new HIPAA provision will imply and require written agreement by the appropriate party.
  • HHS states that covered entities do not have to update notices if they already made changes to implement HITECH, provided the provisions of current notices are consistent with the interim final rules’ requirements. However, several of the modifications described in these final rules are unlikely to have been anticipated and so may not have been taken into account in updated versions of notices.
  • HHS has modified the method by which health plans are to notify participants of material changes to their notices of privacy practices. Health plans that post their notices on their websites may prominently post the change or its revised notice, and in its next annual mailing must provide the revised notice, or information about the material change and how to obtain the revised notice. Health plans that do not post their notice on their websites must provide the revised notice, or information about the material change and how to obtain the revised notice, to participants within 60 days of the revision. Health plans are still required to remind participants of the availability of the notice at least once every three years. modifications will constitute material changes, meaning that covered entities must promptly post or redistribute their notices before or on the compliance date. Providers thatpost the revised notice and health plans will be required to republish or recirculate their notices in one if the ways permitted by the Rules.
  • Security measures include: periodic risk analyses; sanction policies; information system activity review (such as system logging and monitoring); procedures to authorize, supervise, modify, and terminate workforce access to ePHI; training; incident response procedures; data backup plans; contingency plans; disaster recovery plans; periodic program evaluations; facility access controls; workstation security; portable media controls; emergency access procedures; unique user IDs; encryption; integrity controls; and appropriate written agreements with contractors. Covered entities should ensure that business associates comply with the Security Rule and other applicable portions of these rules that now apply directly to them. That increased vigilance is advisable not only because covered entities can be directly liable for business associate noncompliance, but also due to enhanced breach notification requirements (covered entities must report breaches caused by business associates unless they contract otherwise) and the agency’s enhanced fining authority• Business associates will need to execute compliant business associate agreements with their subcontractors, and can expect to see their covered entity clients pushing out tougher business associate agreements that will seek liability protections such as indemnification.
  • permit covered entities (and now business associates) to take into account their size and capabilities, the cost of the security measures, and the nature of the security risks they face when deciding which security measures to implement. VOIP (voice over internet protocol, like skype) and electronic fax are not “electronic media” subject to the Security Rule if the fax started out in paper form and the phone discussion or voice message started out as an oral communication just before they were transformed into electronic communications. But the message that resulted and that sits in your Outlook application and on your email exchange server is in electronic storage and is covered by the Security Rule. Individually identifiable genetic information in electronic form will be subject to Security Rule requirements (when handled by entities subject to HIPAA); that was a logical application of the rules prior to this modification, but now the agency has confirmed that HIPAA Rules apply to genetic information.The retention of the “flexibility of approach” in the Security Rule means that security still will not be a “one size fits all” proposition for covered entities and business associates. Although that is good news, do not forget that the Security Rule always requires documentation to support your decision not to implement the security measures it mandates. If you choose an alternative measure, you have not complied with this rule until your decision is analyzed, justified, and documented using the factors the rule presents.
  • HHS was persuaded, however, to exclude issuers of long-term care policies from the prohibition, recognizing the impact such a prohibition would have on that particular insurance market.
  • Genetic information includes manifestations of a disease or disorder in the individual’s family members. That’s fancy talk for good old-fashioned family medical history.
  • To wrap up:HIPAA covered entities and business associates should act now to take the following measures:•Revise Business Associate Agreement template forms;•Evaluate existing contractor arrangements to determine whether modifications or new agreement provisions are necessary, including to existing Business Associate Agreements;•Revise HIPAA Policies and Procedures, including modifications to address response to potential breaches involving unsecured PHI;•Update and redistribute Notices of Privacy Practices;•Analyze current arrangements for compliance with restrictions on the sale of PHI, and marketing and fundraising restrictions; and•Train employees on updated obligations.I have a blog post on six tips for compliance – if anyone would like this, give me your card and I can make sure we send you the tips.
  • Transcript

    1. 2013 HHS HIPAA OMNIBUS RULE Vermont Mental Health & The Law June 21, 2013 Presenter: Eileen Elliott, Esq. 1
    2. Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act • Strengthened privacy, security, and enforcement provisions • 2009 2
    3. Most of the changes in the new rule are already law under 2009 HITECH ACT Amalgam of four interim and proposed rules: • HIPAA Privacy, Security, and Enforcement Rules • Final rule adopting changes to the HIPAA Enforcement Rule to incorporate the increased and tiered civil money penalty structure • Breach Notification for Unsecured Protected Health Information under HITECH • Final rule modifying the HIPAA Privacy Rule as required by the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) 3
    4. Effective dates • Omnibus Rule became effective on March 26, 2013 • Compliance date September 23, 2013 • Deferred compliance date is provided in certain cases for existing business associate agreements. At the latest, all of these contracts must be compliant by September 22, 2014. • Default compliance period of 180 days from effective date for future HIPAA rules 4
    5. Major Effects of Omnibus Rule 1. Enhanced breach notification requirements 2. Increased Business Associate liability 3. HHS enhanced fining authority 4. Extension of GINA to all plans subject to HIPAA 5
    6. 1. Strengthened Breach Reporting • Eliminated the harm standard • Prior rule: Breaches were not reported unless they posed a “significant risk of reputational, financial or other harm” to individuals. • As Amended: The determination of whether an incident is a breach depends not on the likelihood affected individuals might be harmed, but rather on the risk that PHI has been “compromised.” 6
    7. Strengthened Breach Reporting, cont. • Incident is presumed a breach unless a risk analysis reveals a “low probability” that PHI has been compromised • Impermissible uses of PHI, and not only impermissible disclosures, are potentially subject to breach notification. • Now required to do a risk analysis 7
    8. Risk Analysis RA must include at least the following factors: • The nature and extent of the PHI involved, including the types of identifiers and the likelihood of re- identification; • The unauthorized person who used the PHI or to whom the disclosure was made; • Whether PHI was actually acquired or viewed; and • The extent to which any risk to PHI has been mitigated. 8
    9. Risk Analysis, cont. • Notification will be required if the risk analysis reveals there is greater than a “low probability” that the PHI will be or has been compromised. • RA must be documented and retained 9
    10. Exceptions to Breach • Could not reasonably be retained • Inadvertent access, unintentional and in good faith • Inadvertent disclosure to another at the same entity who is authorized • Further impermissible use destroys any exception 10
    11. Notification Requirements • Affected individuals, HHS and, in some cases, the media • 500 or more individuals - HHS contemporaneous with the notice to individuals • < 500 individuals can be logged and reported to HHS on an annual basis • Cascading notifications – BAs, CEs and subcontractors • Required without unreasonable delay and in no case later than 60 days from the date the breach is discovered • Notification delays allowable if law enforcement advises that notification might impede their investigation 11
    12. Breach Safe harbors • Encryption • Disposal 12
    13. Business Associates • An entity that performs functions or services for covered entities that involve uses or discloses of PHI • BAs may "create, receive, maintain, or transmit” PHI • Entities merely storing PHI also are business associates 13
    14. Subcontractors are BAs • Subcontractors are HIPAA BAs if they create, receive, maintain or transmit PHI • “on the hook" for compliance with applicable rules like the Breach Notification Rule, HIPAA Security Rule, HIPAA Privacy Rule, etc. • Organizations providing personal health records (PHRs) on behalf of CEs are business associates. • "conduit exception" still applies but narrow 14
    15. New Requirements for BAs • Huge ramifications • Security Rule Compliance required • Use/disclosure requirements of Privacy Rule • Provide copies of ePHI • Maintain accounting of disclosures • Provide HHS w/ PHI during review or audit 15
    16. Contracting Ramifications • CEs still must contract with BAs, but no need to contract with BA’s Subcontractors • BAs must enter into agreements with Subcontractors • Many more entities are considered BAs 16
    17. Liability for Violations by BAs • Business associates can be directly liable for HIPAA noncompliance, including compliance reviews, fines, equitable relief and audits • Subcontractors of BAs are now also defined as BAs, and can also be directly liable for violations 17
    18. Hybrid Entities • When organization carries out some HIPAA covered functions and some non-HIPAA covered functions, it is a hybrid entity. • Business units that perform business associate- like support functions, such as the IT or Legal Departments need to comply w/ HIPAA • HIPAA permits hybrid entities to designate which “components” of its business are HIPAA covered and, once documented, only those designated components have to comply with HIPAA. 18
    19. Enforcement and Penalties • “willful neglect” by the CE or BA requires HHS to conduct compliance reviews and investigate complaints • HHS may fine any CE, BA or subcontractor responsible for a violation. • Violations are counted up “based on the nature of the…obligation to act or not act.” • New factors in fining calculus - number of persons affected by the violation and potential harm to those persons’ reputations 19
    20. Fines • Violation was not known and could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence – potential penalty per violation - $100 – $50,000 • Reasonable cause for violation, not due to willful neglect – potential penalty per violation $1,000 – $50,000 • Violation due to willful neglect, but corrected in 30 days – potential penalty per violation $10,000 – $50,000 • Violation due to willful neglect, not corrected in 30 days – potential penalty per violation $50,000 • Maximum - $1,500,000 for all violations of an identical provision 20
    21. Fines, cont. • Monetary penalties will be tallied on a per person and per day basis. • Breaches usually yield at least two violations: impermissible use or disclosure and a safeguards violation. 21
    22. Privacy Rule • PHI remains protected 50 years after death • Provision of access to PHI is a disclosure • Business associates are directly required to comply with Privacy Rule – Expressly prohibited from using/ disclosing PHI other than as permitted by their BA agreements – Prohibited from uses or disclosures of PHI that would not be permitted if done by CE client • HIPAA Rules apply to genetic information 22
    23. Marketing An individual’s express authorization is required before a covered entity may make communication regarding treatment or health care operations where: • The CE receives financial remuneration from (or on behalf of) a third party in exchange for sending the communication; and • The communication is intended to encourage purchase or use of a product or service offered by the third party. 23
    24. Marketing Authorization Required • Communications that may be subject to this requirement include those regarding: – Appointment reminders; – Treatment reminders; – Alternative treatments; – Health care products or services. 24
    25. Marketing Authorization not required • Communications that are not subject to this requirement continue to include: – Face-to-face communications; – Promotional gifts of “nominal” value; – Refill reminders, adherence reminders for current scripts, if reasonably reflect costs. 25
    26. No authorization required, cont. • Communications about health in general, i.e. prevention, healthy habits • Communications about government or government-sponsored programs that benefit the public, such as eligibility for Medicare or Medicaid 26
    27. Authorization requirements • HIPAA mandates a certain form and content for valid authorizations • CEs must disclose in their marketing authorizations that they are receiving financial remuneration in exchange for sending marketing communications. • Right to revoke 27
    28. Fundraising • CE may use, or disclose to a BA or an institutionally related foundation, certain PHI for its own fundraising w/o authorization • Opt-out mechanism that does not place an undue burden on the individual • Cannot condition treatment or payment on the individual’s choice • Notice of privacy practices must describe the covered entity’s intent to send fundraising communications and describe the individual’s right to opt out 28
    29. Sale of PHI • Prohibited unless authorized • Authorization must disclose that remuneration will be received • Sale = a CE or BA receives remuneration, financial or otherwise, directly or indirectly, from or on behalf of the recipient in exchange for the PHI 29
    30. Sale exceptions • Disclosures for research purposes where the remuneration represents a reasonable cost- based fee • Disclosures by BAs or their subcontractors where remuneration is provided by the CE or BA to compensate for the activities performed by the BA or subcontractor • Sales must be included in authorization forms 30
    31. Research Changes • Authorization for the use or disclosure of PHI for a research study may be combined with any other type of written permission for the same or another research study. – Therapy notes • Revocation • Research authorizations need not be study specific where they pertain to future research. 31
    32. Individual’s Right to Request PHI • In any format as long as readily producible • Even if maintained electronically • CEs must provide copies of PHI to other parties if designated by the individual. –Written and signed –Clearly identify recipient and where to send 32
    33. Right to Request PHI, cont. • Reasonable, cost-based fee – labor and postage • 60 day response period is gone, now only 30 –CE can still give itself an additional 30 days 33
    34. Email HHS provides that covered entities are permitted to send individuals unencrypted emails including ePHI if the individual requests it, provided the covered entity has advised the individual of the risk and the individual still prefers to receive the message by unencrypted email. 34
    35. Restrictions on Disclosures • Individuals have right to restrict certain disclosures of PHI to health plans, where – Disclosure is for payment or operations – Recipient paid in full – Not otherwise required by law • Flag the PHI to identify the restriction. 35
    36. Additional Allowable Disclosures • Decedents and individuals “not present” –Narrow, but a minefield of subjectivity • Schools –Immunization records if required by state law –Needs agreement of parents, guardian or emancipated minor 36
    37. Notice of Privacy Practices • Modifications needed: • Revised description of uses and disclosures that require an authorization –Marketing, selling PHI –Fundraising • Opt out rights 37
    38. Changes to Notice of Privacy • Right to be notified of security breaches • Providers must explain restriction rights for PHI paid-in-full out of pocket • Plans must explain GINA obligations • Plans must explain how it will notify beneficiaries of changes to notice 38
    39. Security Rule • The Security Rule now applies in full to BAs and their subcontractors. • Variety of comprehensive security measures • CEs remain liable for BAs • BAs need to enter into agreements with subs • Compliance date is 9/23/13 • Higher fines 39
    40. Security Rule, cont. • Retained Flexibility of Approach • Internet, extranets and intranets are forms of electronic media because they transmit data electronically • Not electronic media if it did not exist in electronic form immediately before the transmission • Genetic information is “health information” and subject to HIPAA rules if it is individually identifiable. 40
    41. GINA Requirements • Makes all plans that are subject to HIPAA subject to GINA • Forbids using genetic information for underwriting • “genetic information” included in the definition of “health information” 41
    42. GINA, cont. • Genetic Information defined as: – Genetic tests of individual or family members – Manifestation of a disease or disorder in the individual’s family members; – Any request for, or receipt of, genetic services, or participation in clinical research by individual or family 42
    43. To-Do List 1. Revise BA agreements 2. Revise and distribute Notice of Privacy Practices 3. Evaluate existing contractor relationships 4. Revise HIPAA policies and procedures for breach reporting 5. Conduct training 43

    ×