Free EMR Newsletter Want to receive the latest news on EMR, Meaningful Use, ARRA and Healthcare IT sent straight to your email? Join thousands of healthcare pros who subscribe to EMR and HIPAA for FREE!!

Can Healthcare Ransomware Be Stopped? Yes, It Can!

Posted on May 25, 2016 I Written By

The following is a guest blog post by Steven Marco, CISA, ITIL, HP SA and President of HIPAA One®.
Steven Marco - HIPAA expert
As an Auditor at HIPAA One®, my goal is to dot every “i” and cross every “t” to ensure a comprehensive HIPAA Security Risk Analysis.  The HIPAA One® Security Risk analysis is a tool to guarantee compliance, automate risk calculations and identify high-risk technical, administrative, physical and organizational vulnerabilities.

Recently, I was on-site for a client named “Care Health” (name changed to protect their identity). Care Health had invested in the highest level of our SRA (Security Risk Analysis) to cover all aspects of security and protection from Ransomware, malware, and the proverbial “sophisticated malware.”

The HIPAA One® HIPAA Security Risk Analysis and Compliance Interview process guided Care Health through a series of HIPAA citation-based questions and required users to upload documents to demonstrate compliance.  These questions directly addressed the organization’s security controls in place to protect against ransomware and cyber-threats.  You can see a sample of the citation-driven controls HIPAA One required for malware and malicious software below:

Technical Audit Controls 164.312(b)
HIPAA One® Requirement:  Upload screenshots of the systems configuration page(s) detecting malware network communications or ePHI/PII going out/in.
Client Controls:  End-user education on malware and phishing. Cisco IPS/IPS module active to block critical threats and WebSense Filter for deep-packet web-traffic inspection.

Administrative Protection from Malicious Software 164308(a)(5)(ii)(B)
HIPAA One® Requirement:  Provide a document showing a list of all servers, workstations and other devices with updated AV Software versions.
Client Controls: BitDefender Enterprise deployed on all workstations and laptops.

Administrative Procedures to guard against malicious software 164.308(a)(5)(ii)(B)
HIPAA One® Requirement:  Please upload a list of each server and sample of PC devices containing server name, O/S version, Service pack and the most recent security updates as available by the software vendor.  Verify critical security patches are current.
Client Controls:  Microsoft Security Operations Center combined with an exhausting change-management process to test new patches prior to release.

HIPAA Citation:  Administrative Training program for workers and managers 164.308(a)(5)(i) for the HR Director role.
HIPAA One® Requirement: Please upload a screen capture of the HIPAA training system’s grades for individual employees and detail the training/grading system in notes section.  Go through training and verify it efficiently addresses organization’s Policies and Procedures with real-world threats.
Client Controls:  Training that is due and required before bonuses, pay-raises or schedule to work are awarded.  Workforce and IT Helpdesk are trained to forward any calls regarding suspicious activities to the HIPAA Security Officer (HSO).

HIPAA Security Risk Analysis Tool

Back to the Ransomware attack…One day during the project, two staff members’ in the Billing department were going about their daily tasks, which involved working with shared files in a network-mapped drive (e.g. N: drive).  One of them noticed new files were being spontaneously created and the file icons in the network folder were changing. Being attentive, she noticed one was named ransom.txt.

Acting quickly, she contacted the IT Helpdesk who were trained to triage all security-related service-desk requests immediately to the HIPAA Security Officer(HSO).   The HSO logged-into the N: shared drive and found Care Health files were slowly being encrypted!

How do you stop a Ransomware attack?
The Security officer ran Bitdefender full-scans on the Billing department computers and found nothing.  He then installed and ran Windows Defender, which has the most current malicious software removal utilities on Server 2012 and found Tescrypt.  Installing Windows Defender on the two desktops not only detected this, but also removed it.

This Ransomware variant had somehow infected the system and was encrypting these files.  The quick-acting team at Care Health recognized the attack and stopped the Tescrypt variant before patient data were compromised.  Backups were used to restore the few-dozen encrypted files on the network-drive. It was a close call, but Care Health was ready and the Crisis Averted.

Upon a configuration review of all of Care Health’s security appliances, WebSense had been configured to allow “zero-reputation” websites through.  Zero-reputation websites are new sites without a known reputation and are commonly used by hackers to send these types of attacks. At Care Health, the Ransomware apparently came from a valid website with an infected banner ad from a zero-reputation source. The banner ad was configured to trigger a client-browser download prior to the user being allowed to see the valid web page.  This forced visitors to this website to download the executable virus from the banner-ad and unknowingly installing the Ransomware on their local computer.  When downloaded, the Ransomware would start encrypting files in high-lettered network-drives first.

Lesson Learned
Ransomware is here to stay and attacks are rising.  Healthcare organizations need to have policies and procedures in place to prevent these attacks and a comprehensive user training and awareness program.  The HIPAA One® software is one of the most secure ways to implement a HIPAA Security Compliance Program.  But a risk analysis is only one step… Ultimately, organizations must build top line end-user awareness and training programs. So like at Care Health, the employees know to quickly report suspicious activities to the designated security officer to defend against Ransomware, Phishing and “sophisticated malware attacks”.

To learn more about stopping Malware and using HIPAA One® as your HIPAA Security Risk Analysis accelerator, click to learn more, or call us a 801-770-1199.

HIPAA One® is a proud sponsor of EMR and HIPAA.

Joint Commission Now Allows Texting Of Orders

Posted on May 17, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is a healthcare journalist who has written about the industry for 30 years. Her work has appeared in all of the leading healthcare industry publications, and she's served as editor in chief of several healthcare B2B sites.

For a long time, it was common for clinicians to share private patient information with each other via standard text messages, despite the fact that the information was in the clear, and could theoretically be intercepted and read (which this along with other factors makes SMS texts a HIPAA violation in most cases). To my knowledge, there have been no major cases based on theft of clinically-oriented texts, but it certainly could’ve happened.

Over the past few years, however, a number of vendors have sprung up to provide HIPAA-compliant text messaging.  And apparently, these vendors have evolved approaches which satisfy the stringent demands of The Joint Commission. The hospital accreditation group had previously prohibited hospitals from sanctioning the texting of orders for patient care, treatment or services, but has now given it the go-ahead under certain circumstances.

This represents an about-face from 2011, when the group had deemed the texting of orders “not acceptable.” At the time, the Joint Commission said, technology available didn’t provide the safety and security necessary to adequately support the use of texted orders. But now that several HIPAA-compliant text-messaging apps are available, the game has changed, according to the accrediting body.

Prescribers may now text such orders to hospitals and other healthcare settings if they meet the Commissioin’s Medication Management Standard MM.04.01.01. In addition, the app prescribers use to text the orders must provide for a secure sign-on process, encrypted messaging, delivery and read receipts, date and time stamp, customized message retention time frames and a specified contact list for individuals authorized to receive and record orders.

I see this is a welcome development. After all, it’s better to guide and control key aspects of a process rather than letting it continue on underneath the surface. Also, the reality is that healthcare entities need to keep adapting to and building upon the way providers actually communicate. Failing to do so can only add layers to a system already fraught with inefficiencies.

That being said, treating provider-to-provider texts as official communications generates some technical issues that haven’t been addressed yet so far as I know.

Most particularly, if clinicians are going to be texting orders — as well as sharing PHI via text — with the full knowledge and consent of hospitals and other healthcare organizations — it’s time to look at what it takes manage that information more efficiently. When used this way, texts go from informal communication to extensions of the medical record, and organizations should address that reality.

At the very least, healthcare players need to develop policies for saving and managing texts, and more importantly, for mining the data found within these texts. And that brings up many questions. For example, should texts be stored as a searchable file? Should they be appended to the medical records of the patients referenced, and if so, how should that be accomplished technically? How should texted information be integrated into a healthcare organization’s data mining efforts?

I don’t have the answers to all of these questions, but I’d argue that if texts are now vehicles for day-to-day clinical communication, we need to establish some best practices for text management. It just makes sense.

The Downside of Interoperability

Posted on May 2, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is a healthcare journalist who has written about the industry for 30 years. Her work has appeared in all of the leading healthcare industry publications, and she's served as editor in chief of several healthcare B2B sites.

It’s hard to argue that achieving health data interoperability is not important — but it comes with risks. And I’ve seen little discussion of the fact that interoperability may actually increase the chance that a major attack could hit a wide swath of healthcare providers. It might be extreme to suggest that we put off such efforts until we step up the industry’s security status, but the problem shouldn’t be ignored either.

Sure, data interoperability is a critical goal for healthcare providers of all stripes. While there’s room to argue about how it should be accomplished, particularly over whether providers or patients should drive health data management, there’s no question it needs to get done. There’s little doubt that most efforts to coordinate care will fall flat if providers are operating with incomplete information.

And what’s more, with the demand for interoperability baked into MACRA, we pretty much have no choice but to make it happen anyway. To my knowledge, HHS has proposed neither carrot nor stick to convince providers to come on board – nor has it defined “widespread” interoperability to my knowledge — but the agency has to achieve something by 2018, and that means change will come.

That being said, I’m struck by how little industry concern there seems to be about the extent to which interoperability can multiply the possibility of a breach occurring. Unfortunately, security is only as good is the weakest link in the chain, and data sharing increases the length of the chain exponentially. Of course, the risk varies a great deal depending on who or what the data-sharing intermediary is, but the fact remains that a connected network is a connected network.

The problem only gets worse if interoperability is achieved by integrating applications. I’m no software engineer, but I’m pretty sure that the more integrated providers’ infrastructure is, the more vulnerabilities they share. To be fair, hospitals theoretically vet their partners, but that defeats the purpose of universal data sharing, doesn’t it?

And even if every provider in the universal data sharing network practices good security hygiene, they can still get attacked. So it’s not a matter of requiring participants to comply with some network security standard, or meet some certification criteria. Given the massive incentives these have to steal health data (and lock it up with ransomware), nobody can hold out forever.

The bottom line is that I believe we should discuss the matter of security in a fully-connected health data sharing network more often.

Yes, we almost certainly need to press ahead and simply find a way to contain the risks. We simply can’t afford our fragmented healthcare system, and data interoperability offers perhaps the best possible chance of pulling it back together.

But before we plunge into the fray, it only makes sense to stop and consider all of the risks involved and how they should be addressed. After all, universal interconnection exposes a virtually infinite number of potential points of failure to cybercrooks. Let’s put some solutions on the table before it’s too late.

Medical Device Security At A Crossroads

Posted on April 28, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is a healthcare journalist who has written about the industry for 30 years. Her work has appeared in all of the leading healthcare industry publications, and she's served as editor in chief of several healthcare B2B sites.

As anyone reading this knows, connected medical devices are vulnerable to attacks from outside malware. Security researchers have been warning healthcare IT leaders for years that network-connected medical devices had poor security in place, ranging from image repository backups with no passwords to CT scanners with easily-changed configuration files, but far too many problems haven’t been addressed.

So why haven’t providers addressed the security problems? It may be because neither medical device manufacturers nor hospitals are set up to address these issues. “The reality is both sides — providers and manufacturers — do not understand how much the other side does not know,” said John Gomez, CEO of cybersecurity firm Sensato. “When I talk with manufacturers, they understand the need to do something, but they have never had to deal with cyber security before. It’s not a part of their DNA. And on the hospital side, they’re realizing that they’ve never had to lock these things down. In fact, medical devices have not even been part of the IT group and hospitals.

Gomez, who spoke with Healthcare IT News, runs one of two companies backing a new initiative dedicated to securing medical devices and health organizations. (The other coordinating company is healthcare security firm Divurgent.)

Together, the two have launched the Medical Device Cybersecurity Task Force, which brings together a grab bag of industry players including hospitals, hospital technologists, medical device manufacturers, cyber security researchers and IT leaders. “We continually get asked by clients with the best practices for securing medical devices,” Gomez told Healthcare IT News. “There is little guidance and a lot of misinformation.“

The task force includes 15 health systems and hospitals, including Children’s Hospital of Atlanta, Lehigh Valley Health Network, Beebe Healthcare and Intermountain, along with tech vendors Renovo Solutions, VMware Inc. and AirWatch.

I mention this initiative not because I think it’s huge news, but rather, as a reminder that the time to act on medical device vulnerabilities is more than nigh. There’s a reason why the Federal Trade Commission, and the HHS Office of Inspector General, along with the IEEE, have launched their own initiatives to help medical device manufacturers boost cybersecurity. I believe we’re at a crossroads; on one side lies renewed faith in medical devices, and on the other nothing less than patient privacy violations, harm and even death.

It’s good to hear that the Task Force plans to create a set of best practices for both healthcare providers and medical device makers which will help get their cybersecurity practices up to snuff. Another interesting effort they have underway in the creation of an app which will help healthcare providers evaluate medical devices, while feeding a database that members can access to studying the market.

But reading about their efforts also hammered home to me how much ground we have to cover in securing medical devices. Well-intentioned, even relatively effective, grassroots efforts are good, but they’re only a drop in the bucket. What we need is nothing less than a continuous knowledge feed between medical device makers, hospitals, clinics and clinicians.

And why not start by taking the obvious step of integrating the medical device and IT departments to some degree? That seems like a no-brainer. But unfortunately, the rest of the work to be done will take a lot of thought.

The Need for Speed (In Breach Protection)

Posted on April 26, 2016 I Written By

The following is a guest blog post by Robert Lord, Co-founder and CEO of Protenus.
Robert Protenus
The speed at which a hospital can detect a privacy breach could mean the difference between a brief, no-penalty notification and a multi-million dollar lawsuit.  This month it was reported that health information from 2,000 patients was exposed when a Texas hospital took four months to identify a data breach caused by an independent healthcare provider.  A health system in New York similarly took two months to determine that 2,500 patient records may have been exposed as a result of a phishing scam and potential breach reported two months prior.

The rise in reported breaches this year, from phishing scams to stolen patient information, only underscores the risk of lag times between breach detection and resolution. Why are lags of months and even years so common? And what can hospitals do to better prepare against threats that may reach the EHR layer?

Traditional compliance and breach detection tools are not nearly as effective as they need to be. The most widely used methods of detection involve either infrequent random audits or extensive manual searches through records following a patient complaint. For example, if a patient suspects that his medical record has been inappropriately accessed, a compliance officer must first review EMR data from the various systems involved.  Armed with a highlighter (or a large excel spreadsheet), the officer must then analyze thousands of rows of access data, and cross-reference this information with the officer’s implicit knowledge about the types of people who have permission to view that patient’s records. Finding an inconsistency – a person who accessed the records without permission – can take dozens of hours of menial work per case.  Another issue with investigating breaches based on complaints is that there is often no evidence that the breach actually occurred. Nonetheless, the hospital is legally required to investigate all claims in a timely manner, and such investigations are costly and time-consuming.

According to a study by the Ponemon Institute, it takes an average of 87 days from the time a breach occurs to the time the officer becomes aware of the problem, and, given the arduous task at hand, it then takes another 105 days for the officer to resolve the issue. In total, it takes approximately 6 months from the time a breach occurs to the time the issue is resolved. Additionally, if a data breach occurs but a patient does not notice, it could take months – or even years – for someone to discover the problem. And of course, the longer it takes the hospital to identify a problem, the higher the cost of identifying how the breach occurred and remediating the situation.

In 2013, Rouge Valley Centenary Hospital in Scarborough, Canada, revealed that the contact information of approximately 8,300 new mothers had been inappropriately accessed by two employees. Since 2009, the two employees had been selling the contact information of new mothers to a private company specializing in Registered Education Savings Plans (RESPs). Some of the patients later reported that days after coming home from the hospital with their newborn child, they started receiving calls from sales representatives at the private RESP company. Marketing representatives were extremely aggressive, and seemed to know the exact date of when their child had been born.

The most terrifying aspect of this story is how the hospital was able to find out about the data breach: remorse and human error! One employee voluntarily turned himself in, while the other accidentally left patient records on a printer. Had these two events not happened, the scam could have continued for much longer than the four years it did before it was finally discovered.

Rouge Valley Hospital is currently facing a $412 million dollar lawsuit over this breach of privacy. Arguably even more damaging, is that they have lost the trust of their patients who relied on the hospital for care and confidentiality of their medical treatments.

As exemplified by the ramifications of the Rouge Valley Hospital breach and the new breaches discovered almost weekly in hospitals around the world, the current tools used to detect privacy breaches in electronic health records are not sufficient. A system needs to have the ability to detect when employees are accessing information outside their clinical and administrative responsibilities. Had the Scarborough hospital known about the inappropriately viewed records the first time they had been accessed, they could have investigated earlier and protected the privacy of thousands of new mothers.

Every person seeks a hospital’s care has the right to privacy and the protection of their medical information. However, due to the sheer volume of patient records accessed each day, it is impossible for compliance officers to efficiently detect breaches without new and practical tools. Current rule-based analytical systems often overburden the officers with alerts, and are only a minor improvement from manual detection methods.

We are in the midst of a paradigm shift with hospitals taking a more proactive and layered approach to health data security. New technology that uses machine learning and big data science to review each access to medical records will replace traditional compliance technology and streamline threat detection and resolution cycles from months to a matter of minutes. Making identifying a privacy breach or violation as simple and fast as the action that may have caused it in the first place.  Understanding how to select and implement these next-generation tools will be a new and important challenge for the compliance officers of the future, but one that they can no longer afford to delay.

Protenus is a health data security platform that protects patient data in electronic medical records for some of the nation’s top-ranked hospitals. Using data science and machine learning, Protenus technology uniquely understands the clinical behavior and context of each user that is accessing patient data to determine the appropriateness of each action, elevating only true threats to patient privacy and health data security.

Patient Portal Security Is A Tricky Issue

Posted on April 25, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is a healthcare journalist who has written about the industry for 30 years. Her work has appeared in all of the leading healthcare industry publications, and she's served as editor in chief of several healthcare B2B sites.

Much of the discussion around securing health data on computers revolves around enterprise networks, particularly internal devices. But it doesn’t hurt to look elsewhere in assessing your overall vulnerabilities. And unfortunately, that includes gaps that can be exposed by patients, whose security practices you can’t control.

One vulnerability that gets too little attention is the potential for a cyber attack accessing the provider’s patient portal, according to security consultant Keith Fricke of tw-Security in Overland Park, Kan. Fricke, who spoke with Information Management, noted that cyber criminals can access portal data relatively easily.

For example, they can insert malicious code into frequently visited websites, which the patient may inadvertently download. Then, if your patient’s device or computer isn’t secure, you may have big problems. When the patient accesses a hospital or clinic’s patient portal, the attacker can conceivably get access to the health data available there.

Not only does such an attack give the criminal access to the portal, it may also offer the them access to many other patients’ computers, and the opportunity to send malware to those computers. So one patient’s security breach can become a victim of infection for countless patients.

When patients access the portal via mobile device, it raises another set of security issues, as the threat to such devices is growing over time. In a recent survey by Ponemon Institute and CounterTack, 80% of respondents reported that their mobile endpoints have been the target of malware the past year. And there’s little doubt that the attacks via mobile device will more sophisticated over time.

Given how predictable such vulnerabilities are, you’d think that it would be fairly easy to lock the portals down. But the truth is, patient portals have to strike a particularly delicate balance between usability and security. While you can demand almost anything from employees, you don’t want to frustrate patients, who may become discouraged if too much is expected from them when they log in. And if they aren’t going to use it, why build a patient portal at all?

For example, requiring a patient to change your password or login data frequently may simply be too taxing for users to handle. Other barriers include demanding that a patient use only one specific browser to access the portal, or requiring them to use digits rather than an alphanumeric name that they can remember. And insisting that a patient use a long, computer-generated password can be a hassle that patients won’t tolerate.

At this point, it would be great if I could say “here’s the perfect solution to this problem.” But the truth is, as you already know, that there’s no one solution that will work for every provider and every IT department. That being said, in looking at this issue, I do get the sense that providers and IT execs spend too little time on user-testing their portals. There’s lots of room for improvement there.

It seems to me that to strike the right balance between portal security and usability, it makes more sense to bring user feedback into the equation as early in the game as possible. That way, at least, you’ll be making informed choices when you establish your security protocols. Otherwise, you may end up with a white elephant, and nobody wants to see that happen.

10 Health IT Security Questions Every Healthcare CIO Must Answer

Posted on April 19, 2016 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

Logicalis recently sent out 10 Security Questions Every CIO Must Be Able to Answer. Here’s their list:

  1. If you knew that your company was going to be breached tomorrow, what would you do differently today?
  2. Has your company ever been breached? How do you know?
  3. What assets am I protecting, what am I protecting them from (i.e., theft, destruction, compromise), and who am I protecting them from (i.e. cybercriminals or even insiders)?
  4. What damage will we sustain if we are breached (i.e., financial loss, reputation, regulatory fines, loss of competitive advantage)?
  5. Have you moved beyond an “inside vs. outside” perimeter-based approach to information security?
  6. Does your IT security implementation match your business-centric security policies? Does it rely on written policies, technical controls or both?
  7. What is your security strategy for IoT (also known as “the Internet of threat”)?
  8. What is your security strategy for “anywhere, anytime, any device” mobility?
  9. Do you have an incident response plan in place?
  10. What is your remediation process? Can you recover lost data and prevent a similar attack from happening again?

Given the incredible rise in hospitals being breached or held ransom, it’s no surprise that this is one of the hottest topics in healthcare. No doubt many a hospital CIO has had sleepless nights thanks to these challenges. If you’re a CIO that has been sleeping well at night, I’m afraid for your organization.

The good news is that I think most healthcare organizations are taking these threats seriously. Many would now be able to answer the questions listed above. Although, I imagine some of them need some work. Maybe that’s the key lesson to all of this. There’s no silver bullet solution. Security is an ongoing process and has to be built into the culture of an organization. There’s always new threats and new software being implemented that needs to be protected.

With that said, health IT leaders need to sometimes shake things up in their organization too. A culture of security is an incredible starting point. However, there’s nothing that focuses an organization more than for a breach to occur. The hyper focus that occurs is incredible to watch. If I was a health IT leader, I’d consider staging a mock breach and see what happens. It will likely open your eyes to some poor processes and some vulnerabilities you’d missed.

Are Ransomware Attacks A HIPAA Issue, Or Just Our Fault?

Posted on April 18, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is a healthcare journalist who has written about the industry for 30 years. Her work has appeared in all of the leading healthcare industry publications, and she's served as editor in chief of several healthcare B2B sites.

With ransomware attacks hitting hospitals in growing numbers, it’s growing more urgent for healthcare organizations to have a routine and effective response to such attacks. While over the short term, providers are focused mostly on survival, eventually they’ll have to consider big-picture implications — and one of the biggest is whether a ransomware intrusion can be called a “breach” under federal law.

As readers know, providers must report any sizable breach to the HHS Office for Civil Rights. So far, though, it seems that the feds haven’t issued any guidance as to how they see this issue. However, people in the know have been talking about this, and here’s what they have to say.

David Holtzman, a former OCR official who now serves as vice president of compliance strategies at security firm CynergisTek, told Health Data Management that as long as the data was never compromised, a provider may be in the clear. If an organization can show OCR proof that no data was accessed, it may be able to avoid having the incident classed as a breach.

And some legal experts agree. Attorney David Harlow, who focuses on healthcare issues, told Forbes: “We need to remember that HIPAA is narrowly drawn and data breaches defined as the unauthorized ‘access, acquisition, use or disclosure’ of PHI. [And] in many cases, ransomware “wraps” PHI rather than breaches it.”

But as I see it, ransomware attacks should give health IT security pros pause even if they don’t have to report a breach to the federal government. After all, as Holtzman notes, the HIPAA security rule requires that providers put appropriate safeguards in place to ensure the confidentiality, the integrity and availability of ePHI. And fairly or not, any form of malware intrusion that succeeds raises questions about providers’ security policies and approaches.

What’s more, ransomware attacks may point to underlying weaknesses in the organization’s overall systems architecture. “Why is the operating system allowing this application to access this data?” asked one reader in comments on a related EMR and HIPAA post. “There should be no possible way for a database that is only read/write for specified applications to be modified by a foreign encryption application,” the reader noted. “The database should refuse the instruction, the OS should deny access, and the security system should lock the encryption application out.”

To be fair, not all intrusions are someone’s “fault.” Ransomware creators are innovating rapidly, and are arguably equipped to find new vectors of infection more quickly than security experts can track them. In fact, easy-to-deploy ransomware as a service is emerging, making it comparatively simple for less-skilled criminals to use. And they have a substantial incentive to do so. According to one report, one particularly sophisticated ransomware strain has brought $325 million in profits to groups deploying it.

Besides, downloading actual data is so five years ago. If you’re attacking a provider, extorting payment through ransomware is much easier than attempting to resell stolen healthcare data. Why go to all that trouble when you can get your cash up front?

Still, the reality is that healthcare organizations must be particularly careful when it comes to protecting patient privacy, both for ethical and regulatory reasons. Perhaps ransomware will be the jolt that pushes lagging players to step up and invest in security, as it creates a unique form of havoc that could easily put patient care at risk. I certainly hope so.

Health Data Sharing and Patient Centered Care with DataMotion Health

Posted on April 13, 2016 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

Now that the HIMSS Haze has worn off, we thought we’d start sharing some of the great video interviews we did at HIMSS 2016. In this case, we did a 3 pack of interviews at the DataMotion Health booth where we got some amazing insights into health data sharing, engaging patients, and providing patient centered care.

First up is our chat with Dr. Peter Tippett, CEO of Healthcelerate and Co-Chairman of DataMotion Health, about the evolution of healthcare data sharing. Dr. Tippett offers some great insights into the challenge of structured vs unstructured data. He also talks about some of the subtleties of medicine that are often lost when trying to share data. Plus, you can’t talk with Dr. Tippett without some discussion of ensuring the privacy and security of health data.

Next up, we talked with Dennis Robbins, PHD, MPH, National Thought Leader and member of DataMotion Health’s Advisory Board, about the patient perspective on all this technology. He provides some great insights into patients’ interest in healthcare and how we need to treat them more like people than like patients. Dr. Robbins was a strong voice for the patient at HIMSS.

Finally we talked with Bob Janacek, Co-Founder and CTO of DataMotion Health, about the challenges associated with coordinating the entire care team in healthcare. The concept of the care team is becoming much more important in healthcare and making sure the care team is sharing the most accurate data is crucial to their success. Learn from Bob about the role Direct plays in this data sharing.

Thanks DataMotion Health for having us to your booth and having your experts share their insights with the healthcare IT community. I look forward to seeing you progress in your continued work to make health data sharing accessible, secure, and easy for healthcare organizations.

The Real HIPAA Blog Series on Health IT Buzz

Posted on April 8, 2016 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

If you’re not familiar with the Health IT Buzz blog, it’s the Health IT blog that’s done by ONC (Office of the National Coordinator). I always love to see the government organizations blogging. No doubt they’re careful about what they post on their blog, but it still provides some great insights into ONC’s perspective on health IT and where they might take future regulations and government rules.

A great example of this is the Real HIPAA series of blog posts that they posted back in February. Yes, I realize I’m behind, but I’ll blame it on HIMSS.

Here’s an overview of the series:

It’s a common misconception that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) makes it difficult, if not impossible, to move electronic health data when and where it is needed for patient care and health. This blog series and accompanying fact sheets aim to correct this misunderstanding so that health information is available when and where it is needed.

The blog series dives into the weeds a bit and so it won’t likely be read by the average doctor or nurse. However, it’s a great resource for HIPAA privacy officers, CIOs, CSOs, and others interested in healthcare interoperability. I can already see these blog posts being past around management teams as they discuss what data they’re allowed to share, with whom, and when.

What’s clear in the series is that ONC wants to communicate that HIPAA is meant to enable health data sharing and not discourage it. We all know people who have used HIPAA to stop sharing. We’ll see if we start seeing more people use it as a reason to share it with the right people at the right time and the right place.