Overview of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 - Module 1 of 5
See Also:
Module 1: Overview of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed into law
the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, known as HIPAA. HIPAA
regulates the privacy and security of health information in the United States.
Congress passed HIPAA with several goals in mind.
First, it sought to ensure that an
employee can keep her health insurance coverage when changing employment. Second, HIPAA was meant to control healthcare
costs by preventing healthcare provider fraud and abuse, such as billing
for services not provided or duplicate billing. The National Health Care Anti-Fraud Association
estimates that as much as 10 percent of total healthcare costs are lost to
fraudulent and abusive practices by healthcare providers, amounting to $230
billion annually.[1] Congress also found that the burden of
paperwork associated with medical records increased the costs of medical care.[2] The bill therefore sought to control
healthcare costs in a variety of ways.
In this module, we will explore
HIPAA and present an overview of the law by defining key terms and rules such
as the Privacy Rule, Security Rule, Enforcement Rule and Omnibus Rule.
The Privacy Rule
The Department of Health and Human
Services is the agency responsible for implementing HIPAA. Not only has the HHS adopted national standards for electronic
healthcare transactions and code sets, unique health identifiers, and security,
it has also adopted the Privacy Rule, also known as the Standards
for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information, which provides national standards for the
protection of certain health information.[3]
The Privacy Rule balances privacy
against the need for the free exchange of health information necessary for
providing high quality healthcare. For
example, several different entities may process a person’s health insurance
claim after he receives medical care, including the medical professional and
the patient’s insurance company. The claimant’s private information, such as
his health history, vitals, and other medical information passes through
numerous hands and there’s always a possibility that this data could be
compromised.
The Privacy Rule applies to
“covered entities” which are health plans, healthcare clearinghouses, and to
any healthcare provider who transmits a person’s health information in
electronic form.[4]
A health plan is defined as an individual or
group plan that pays the cost of medical care or provides medical care.[5] It can be employer-sponsored,
government-sponsored, or a multi-employer group health plan. It can also cover
a wide array of medical services other than healthcare, including dental,
vision, and prescription drug costs.
A healthcare clearinghouse
processes nonstandard health data information into standard data elements.
Examples of these include billing services companies, community health
management information systems, and value-added networks that provide
healthcare providers with secure ways to send and share data with counterparts.
The Privacy Rule applies to most
healthcare providers. Every healthcare provider, regardless of size, that
electronically transmits health information in connection with certain
transactions, is a covered entity. Since health information is nearly always
electronically transmitted, it applies to nearly every physician, dentist,
nurse, pharmacist, and psychologist, as well as hospital, laboratory, and
pharmacy, in the United States.[6]
The Privacy Rule protects most
patient information from disclosure, including:[7]
· demographic
and other information relating to the past, present, or future physical or
mental health or condition;
· the past, present, or future payment of
healthcare to the healthcare plan;
·
information traceable to a
patient by one or more of 18 identifiers that include an individual’s name,
date of birth, date of admission, discharge date, death date, address, phone
number, email address, facial photographs, Social Security number, medical
record number, and medical device identifiers; and
· genetic
health information
Despite its broad reach, the
Privacy Rule excludes certain employment records from classification as
protected health information. Health information in employment records that a
covered entity maintains in its capacity as an employer is not considered
protected health information under HIPAA. For example, drug screening test
results are initially protected health information when the provider
administers the test to the employee, but test results lose their protected
health information status when the employee signs an agreement authorizing the
provider to give an employer the results so that they can be placed in the
employee’s employment record. Like drug screening test results, the results of
fitness for duty exams are protected health information when the provider
administers the test. The fitness for duty exam loses its protected status when
the results of the exam are turned over to an employer if the employee consents.[8] In other words, test results are protected
health information, but when they become part of the employment record with the
employee’s consent, they are not.
A “business associate” of a covered
entity must also comply with the Privacy Rule if any covered entity engages it
to carry out healthcare activities and functions. For example, a third-party
administrator that assists a health plan with processing claims or an
accounting firm whose accounting services to healthcare providers involve
access to protected health information are also subject to the regulations.
The Health Information Technology
for Economic and Clinical Health Act
In 2009, Congress passed the Health
Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, or HITECH, which significantly increased the
number of entities subject to HIPAA. HITECH expanded HIPAA’s definition of
“business associate” to include any subcontractor that creates, receives,
maintains, or transmits protected health information on behalf of the business
associate.[9]
Examples of business associates
that have gained importance in the last few years are cloud services providers
such as IBM Cloud, Rackspace, and GoDaddy, which facilitate sharing of a
patient’s health information. All cloud services providers have had to enter
into written contracts, called business associate agreements, to ensure Privacy
Rule compliance.[10] The agreements spell out that any agent or
subcontractor that receives protected health information from the business
associate must also protect the information.[11]
The Privacy Rule covers many
organizations and people, but it does not prevent people from cooperating with
law enforcement, such as police or prosecutors.[12] If a covered entity, such as an EMS
professional, has medical evidence that a person to whom he provided medical
care may have committed a crime, he can tell an investigating police officer
what he knows without violating the Privacy Rule.
There are several types of entities
that are not covered by the Privacy Rule. First, an employer-sponsored group
health plan with fewer than 50 participants is not a covered entity. Second, a
program, like a community health center, that directly provides healthcare, or
provides grants to fund the direct provision of healthcare, isn’t subject to
the regulations. Third, certain insurance entities, including those providing
only workers’ compensation, automobile insurance, and property and casualty
insurance, are not required to comply with the Privacy Rule.
Special rules exist for health
information when a public school is a student’s healthcare provider. Since
public schools receive funding from the Department of Education, they’re not required to comply with HIPAA’s Privacy
Rule, but instead must comply with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy
Act of 1974. FERPA is the primary federal law governing public school records
and it protects the privacy of student education records.
FERPA classifies a public school’s
students’ health information as “education records” and not health records.
Even though a public elementary or secondary school may employ a school nurse
or other health care provider that may bill a government program such as
Medicaid for services provided to a student, the school is not a HIPAA-covered
entity because it does not engage in any other covered transactions, such as
billing a health plan. Instead, the school must comply with FERPA’s privacy
requirements for education records, including the requirement to obtain
parental consent to bill a government program such as Medicaid.[13] Private and religious elementary and
secondary schools, however, are HIPAA-covered entities because they do not
receive funding from the Department of Education, and so are not subject to
FERPA.
With HIPAA, Congress also addressed
creation and use of de-identified health information so that it is removed from
the scope of federal regulation.[14] De-identified medical information, which
is health data stripped of all identifiers such as the patient’s name,
telephone number, email address, Social Security number and medical record
numbers, is integral to certain types of research or comparative medical
studies.[15] Once medical information is de-identified,
there are no restrictions on the use or disclosure of it, or on its usage for
research for similar purposes.[16]
Another important HIPAA component
is the Security
Rule, which is a subset of the
Privacy Rule. It establishes national standards to protect a person’s
electronic personal health information. The Security Rule requires a covered
entity to follow appropriate administrative, physical and technical safeguards
to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and security of electronic protected
health information.[17]
Much of HIPAA’s Security Rule
focuses on administrative safeguards a covered entity must implement. Examples
of these include conducting a risk analysis and implementing a risk management
plan, developing procedures for identifying incidents that compromise
electronic personal health information, as well as designating a security
official responsible for developing and implementing policies and procedures.
Physical safeguards are physical
measures, policies and procedures that relate to protecting equipment and
buildings from natural and environmental hazards and unwanted intrusion.[18] These may be facility access controls or a
facility access plan.
Finally, technical safeguards are
meant to allow only authorized persons to access electronic protected health
information. A covered entity must use any security measures that allow it to
reasonably and appropriately implement the necessary standards for protection.
Moreover, a covered entity must determine which security measures and specific
technologies are reasonable and appropriate.[19] A covered entity implements technical
safeguards when it creates mechanisms that record and examine activities
pertaining to electronic personal health information.
The Enforcement Rule
The Enforcement Rule component of
HIPAA sets out how the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for
Civil Rights will administer and enforce HIPAA standards.[20] The OCR may conduct complaint
investigations and compliance reviews. The HIPAA Enforcement Rule contains
provisions relating to compliance and investigations, the imposition of civil
monetary penalties for violations of the HIPAA, and procedures for hearings.
OCR enforces the Privacy and Security Rules by investigating complaints,
conducting compliance reviews, and performing education and outreach to foster
compliance.
Under the Enforcement Rule, business associates and their subcontractors are liable for HIPAA violations caused by their own noncompliance as well as violations caused by their subcontractors. The Enforcement Rule provides for a civil penalty of up to $1.5 million per year for each HIPAA violation due to willful neglect that is not promptly corrected within a required time. Civil penalties can also be as high as $50,000 per individual violation. This number can also substantially increase based on the number of people affected and the number of violations.[21]
Along with civil penalties, the Office for Civil
Rights also works with the U.S. Department of Justice to prosecute potential
criminal violations of HIPAA. Violations under HIPAA can result in severe
criminal penalties. A covered entity that “knowingly" obtains or discloses
individually identifiable health information, in violation of the law, will
face a fine of up to $50,000, as well as imprisonment of one year.
Offenses committed under false pretenses allow penalties to be increased to a
$100,000 fine, with up to five years imprisonment.[22]
Finally, offenses committed with
the intent to sell, transfer or use individually identifiable health
information for commercial advantage, personal gain or malicious harm can be
punished by fines of $250,000 and imprisonment up to 10 years. The Office for
Civil Rights may also choose to provide technical assistance for violations or
require a specific corrective action plan such as more training for employees
and monitoring.
When determining penalties, the Office for Civil Rights evaluates the length of time a violation persisted, the number of people affected, the nature of the personal health information exposed, and the covered entity’s willingness (or unwillingness) to assist with the investigation. In one matter, for example, the OCR fined a 12-physician pediatric and adult dermatology practice group $150,000 for HIPAA violations arising out of a lost, unencrypted flash drive containing protected health information and required the group to implement a corrective action plan. Since the violation affected many patients and the lost flash drive contained Social Security numbers as well as payment information, the fine was on the higher end of the scale.
The 2013 Omnibus Rule and HITECH Act
In 2013, four years after Congress passed the
HITECH Act to strengthen privacy security protections, the Department of Health
and Human Services adopted the Omnibus Rule to
modify HITECH.
The Omnibus Rule set out to
accomplish several objectives. First, it reaffirms that in the case of an
impermissible use or disclosure of personal health information, the covered
entity or the business associate carries the burden of demonstrating that all notifications
were provided or that the use or disclosure wasn’t a breach. The covered entity
and the business associate must maintain documentation as necessary to meet
this burden.[23] Second, a covered entity still has a safe
harbor, which provides that an unauthorized disclosure only rises to the level
of a breach if the patient’s personal health information disclosed is
unsecured, meaning that unauthorized individuals that access it can use or read
it. Finally, the Omnibus Rule expands a patient’s rights by allowing him to ask
for a copy of his medical record in electronic form and giving him the ability
to instruct his provider to refrain from sharing information about his
treatment with his health plan if he pays for medical services out of pocket.[24]
In the next module, we will look
more closely at what disclosures are authorized and unauthorized before we move
on to discussing enforcement actions for unauthorized disclosures, the rules of
state laws and medical record retention practices required by federal law.
[5] Kathleen Prasse,“Hippocrates Would Roll Over in His Grave: An Examination of Why Internet Health Care Programs Should Obtain Informed Consent from Their Users,” 42 Creighton L. Rev. 733, (2009).
[12]State v. Carter, 23 So. 3d 798, 800 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009); State v. Straehler, 307 Wis.2d 360, 745 N.W.2d 431 (2007).
[13] Nicole Oelrich Tupman, Lessons Learned: The Pea Ridge School District’s Discrimination AgainstStudents with HIV/AIDS Has Rekindled Difficult Issues, 62 S.D. L. Rev. 306, 331 (2017).
[14] Benjamin Charkow, “The Control Over the De-Identification of Data,” 21 Cardozo Arts & Ent LJ 195, (2003).
[17]https://www.skyhighnetworks.com/cloud-security-blog/what-is-hipaa-security-rule-and-privacy-rule/