Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Recent HIPAA Breach Settlements - Lessons Learned

Client Alert

As a healthcare provider, you are likely familiar with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). But, do you know how serious the consequences could be for a breach of HIPAA? According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR), the consequences for providers may include settlements of $30,000 to $240,000. OCR recently released two settlements for improper breaches of protected health information (PHI) that are good examples of the major monetary penalties that can result from common HIPAA mistakes.

Disclosing PHI in Responses to Negative Reviews

In April 2020, a health care provider in New Jersey impermissibly disclosed the PHI (including information on diagnoses and treatment) of its patients in response to negative online reviews. OCR investigated following a complaint from the patient and found that the provider impermissibly disclosed patient PHI and failed to implement policies and procedures with respect to protected information. On June 5, 2023, the provider agreed to pay $30,000 to OCR to settle the complaint. Additionally, the provider agreed to implement a corrective action plan to resolve potential violations. The plan included a few of the following steps:

  • Train all members on the organization’s policies and procedures to comply with HIPAA Privacy;
  • Issue breach notices to all whose PHI was disclosed on any internet platform without valid authorization; and
  • Submit a breach report to HHS on individuals whose PHI was disclosed on any internet platform without valid authorization.

In response to the complaints, OCR Director Melanie Fontes Rainer stated, “OCR continues to receive complaints about health care providers disclosing their patients’ protected health information on social media or on the internet in response to negative reviews.” They added, “[s]imply put, this is not allowed.”

Snooping by Security Guards

On June 15, 2023, a Washington hospital paid $240,000 to settle its HIPAA breach affecting 419 individuals. Following a breach notification report filed by the hospital, OCR investigated and found that 23 of the hospital’s security guards impermissibly accessed the medical records of hundreds of patients without a job-related purpose. The guards accessed information including names, dates of birth, medical record numbers, addresses, certain notes related to the treatment, and insurance information.

In addition to a $240,000 settlement, the hospital was required to implement a plan to update its policies and procedures to safeguard PHI and prevent its workforce members from snooping in the future. Further, the hospital was to be monitored for two years by the OCR to ensure its compliance with the HIPAA Security Rule. The hospital agreed to take the following steps, among others, to bring it into HIPAA compliance:

  • Conduct a risk analysis to determine risks and vulnerabilities to electronic PHI;
  • Develop and implement a risk management plan to address and mitigate identified security risks and vulnerabilities identified in the risk analysis; and
  • Enhance its existing HIPAA and Security Training Program to provide workforce training on updated HIPAA policies and procedures.

“Data breaches caused by current and former workforce members impermissibly accessing patient records are a recurring issue across the healthcare industry. Healthcare organizations must ensure that workforce members can only access the patient information needed to do their jobs,” Fontes Rainer stated. “HIPAA covered entities must have robust policies and procedures in place to ensure patient health information is protected from identity theft and fraud.”

HIPAA breaches are to be taken very seriously. It is imperative for health care providers to have current HIPAA compliance plans, trainings, and breach protocols. For questions, or to update your HIPAA compliance plan, please reach out to attorney Ashley Watson at abwatson@bmdllc.com or any members of the BMD Healthcare Team.


The Masks Are Back: New OSHA Regulations for Healthcare Employers

Employment Law After Hours is back with a News Break Episode. Yesterday, OSHA published new rules for healthcare facilities, including hospitals, home health employers, nursing homes, ambulance companies, and assisted living facilities. These new rules are very cumbersome, requiring mask wearing for all employees, even those that are vaccinated. The only exception is for fully vaccinated employees (2 weeks post final dose) who are in a "well-defined" area where there is no reasonable expectation that any person with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 will be present.

New OSHA Guidance for Workplaces Not Covered by the Healthcare Emergency Temporary Standard

On June 10, 2021, OSHA issued an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) for occupational exposure to COVID-19, but it applies only to healthcare and healthcare support service workers. For a detailed summary of the ETS applicable to the healthcare industry, please visit https://youtu.be/vPyXmKwOzsk. All employers not subject to the ETS should review OSHA’s contemporaneously released, updated Guidance on Mitigating and Preventing the Spread of COVID-19 in the Workplace. The new Guidance essentially leaves intact OSHA’s earlier guidance, but only for unvaccinated and otherwise at-risk workers (“at-risk” meaning vaccinated or unvaccinated workers with immunocompromising conditions). For fully vaccinated workers, OSHA defers to CDC Guidance for Fully Vaccinated People, which advises that most fully vaccinated people can resume activities without wearing masks or physically distancing, except where required by federal, state, or local laws or individual business policies.

Employer Liability for COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effects

As employers encourage or require employees to obtain a COVID-19 vaccine, they should be aware of OSHA recording obligations and potential workers’ compensation liability. Though OSHA has yet to revise its COVID-19 guidance in response to the latest CDC recommendations, OSHA has revised its position regarding the recording of injury or illness resulting from the vaccine. Until now, OSHA required an employer to record an adverse reaction when the vaccine was required for employees and the injury or illness otherwise met the recording criteria (work-related, a new case, and meets one or more of the general recording criteria). OSHA has reversed course and announced that it will not require recording adverse reactions until at least May 2022, irrespective of whether the employer requires the vaccine as a condition of employment. In its revised COVID-19 FAQs, OSHA states:

The New Rule 1.510 - Radical Change for Summary Judgement Procedure in Florida

In civil litigation, where both sides participate actively, trial is usually required at the end of a long, expensive case to determine a winner and a loser. In federal and most state courts, however, there are a few procedural shortcuts by which parties can seek to prevail in advance of trial, saving time, money and annoyance. The most common of these is the “motion for summary judgment”: a request to the court by one side for judgment before trial, generally on the basis that the evidence available reflects that a win for that party is legally inevitable and thus required. Effective May 1, 2021, summary judgment procedure in Florida has radically changed.

Vacating, Modifying or Correcting an Arbitration Award Under R.C. 2711.13: Three-Month Limitation Maximum; Not Guaranteed Amount of Time

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that neither R.C. 2711.09 nor R.C. 2711.13 requires a court to wait three months after an arbitration award is issued before confirming the award. R.C. 2711.13 provides that “after an award in an arbitration proceeding is made, any party to the arbitration may file a motion in the court of common pleas for an order vacating, modifying, or correcting the award.” Any such motion to vacate, modify, or correct an award “must be served upon the adverse party or his attorney within three months after the award is delivered to the parties in interest.” In BST Ohio Corporation et al. v. Wolgang, the Court held the three-month period set forth in R.C. 2711.13 is not a guaranteed time period in which to file a motion to vacate, modify, or correct an arbitration award. 2021-Ohio-1785.