The Office of Civil Rights (OCR) released its Q1 2022 Cybersecurity Newsletter March 17. Letโs review OCRโs guidance for HIPAA-Covered Entities (CEs) who house and transmit protected health information (PHI).
Note: CEโs arenโt only hospitals and insurers; health plans (Plans) are CEs under HIPAA. Employers who sponsor such Plans typically “perform” actions required by the HIPPA. Plans’ brokers and advisers may also be CEs under HIPAA, as well as being Business Associates (BAs) of the Plan.ย Therefore, they too must follow HIPAAโs Security Rule regulations to protect the Planโs electronic PHI (ePHI).
Backgroundโฆ
The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) published its new software modernization strategy February 1, 2022. Russia invaded the Ukraine February 24, 2022. Searching โRussian cyber-attacksโ this afternoon generated 45.5 million results. Given rising fear of cyber attacks, this quarterโs OCR newsletter brings urgent energy to review of information systems of CEs who often take HIPAA security compliance less seriously (and often poorly applied) than necessary.
The Problemโฆ
HIPAA compliance isnโt glamourous, and it can be complicated. Due to such lackluster complexity, compliance management is often overlooked or at the bottom of the list when purse strings tighten. Too bad; itโs a required preventive scheme. ย HIPAA compliance is more sturdy work boot than sassy heel.
When the DOD feels their โadaptability increasingly relies on software and the ability to securely and rapidly deliver resilient software capabilityโ then perhaps itโs worth the extra time and investment for a CE to evaluate the effectiveness of their HIPAA compliance. Because HIPAA requires CEs to comply (and because everyoneโs ePHI is flowing within the encrypted-universeโs river), itโs time to protect and strengthen those work boots for the long haul.
The Solutionโฆ โActive Preventionโ
I dubbed the term, โactive preventionโ to illustrate that a CEs HIPAAโs Security Rule compliance must not collect dust on the shelf. It requires a perspective shift in conducting business. Letโs illustrate with metaphors: instead of HIPAA compliance being Sisyphus, endlessly trudging up a hill only to retreat daily and start again, think about compliance as brushing your teeth. Dental cleaning is a daily โactive preventionโ; cybersecurity should also be a regular assessment of the health of systems (monthly, even annually is better than most).
Gingivitis and cavities may never occur if dental hygiene is attended. Similarly, โphishingโ of e-mails and ePHI breaches are less likely to occur with diligent care given to systems supporting PHI within an organization. Letโs not forget that vulnerabilities do exist. โActive preventionโ identifies these if we critically assess systems and ask questions about behaviors.
To bookend this comparison, letโs chat fluoride. Fluoride? Yes, fluoride, a โsafeguard.โ Sugar is a common vulnerability to the maintenance of dental health. We may not consider the volume of our daily sugar intake. Consuming web content is a common vulnerability to maintenance of a strong IT system. Employees using company hardware are consuming content in the form of spam e-mail, streaming content, marketing pop-ups, and website cookies. These โsweetsโ are common vulnerabilities that if not mitigated using encryption software (a cybersecurity safeguard, i.e., the fluoride), may lead to a breach of ePHI.
OCRโs Guidanceโฆ
Whatโs a CE to do? Actively prepare and prevent in accordance with HIPAA Rules. That seems a bit broad, I know. And no joke, HIPAA is vast, and the Security Rule is complex to implement. For this post, letโs narrow our focus to cybersecurity respecting three threats OCR recommends watching for, the underlying HIPAA regulation to support guarding against this threat, and solutions to mitigate each risk.
Threat 1: Phishing
Underlying HIPAA Regulations:
Solution 1:
Threat 2: Exploiting Known Vulnerabilities
Underlying HIPAA Regulations:
Solution 2:
CONDUCT a Risk Analysis (RA) and do so regularly. The RA is what I call the โholy grailโ of a strong security program. A CE worth its salt should not avoid conducting a RA or think that a โone and doneโ approach will suffice. Known vulnerabilities will be exposed with regular analysis of systems. Itโs hard to fix a problem if you donโt know where one exists, and even harder to prepare for it if you donโt what youโre dealing with from the beginning.
The RA is a living process and must be documented and maintained regularly (I recommend at least annually, not to mention anytime a CE undergoes major business operations changes or installs new systems or software). In fact, the Security Rule states:
Keep up to date on cybersecurity news; hackers are savvy and so too should be CEs responsible for protecting their PHI. The OCR recommends the following to mitigate known vulnerabilities:
Threat 3: Weak Cybersecurity Practices
The final (and I would argue, the simplest) recommendation from OCR in the newsletter is to implement strong internal cybersecurity practices. Think of it as checking off the โlow hanging fruitโ boxes of implementing a security management program.
Underlying HIPAA Regulation:
Solution 3:
Thereโs that RA again! Conducting a RA is not only essential to identify vulnerabilities, but necessary to establish strong cybersecurity practices. Once the RA is complete, the process of shaping an effective security program begins. Then, at the one-year mark (or when operations dictate or the security team determines), a new RA should be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of security practices.
Donโt take it from me, listen to the OCR on actions for regulated entities:
Itโs simple folks, and OCR said it well, โstandards and implementation specifications of the HIPAA Security Rule provide a baseline for protecting ePHI.โย ย