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!!

NFL Players’ Medical Records Stolen

Posted on June 21, 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.

I’d been meaning to write about this story for a while now, but finally got around to it. In case you missed it, Thousands of NFL players’ medical records were stolen. Here’s a piece of the DeadSpin summary of the incident:

In late April, the NFL recently informed its players, a Skins athletic trainer’s car was broken into. The thief took a backpack, and inside that backpack was a cache of electronic and paper medical records for thousands of players, including NFL Combine attendees from the last 13 years. That would encompass the vast majority of NFL players

The Redskins later issues this statement:

The Washington Redskins can confirm that a theft occurred mid-morning on April 15 in downtown Indianapolis, where a thief broke through the window of an athletic trainer’s locked car. No social security numbers, Protected Health Information (PHI) under HIPAA, or financial information were stolen or are at risk of exposure.

The laptop was password-protected but unencrypted, but we have no reason to believe the laptop password was compromised. The NFL’s electronic medical records system was not impacted.

It’s interesting that the Redskins said that it didn’t include any PHI that would be covered by HIPAA rules and regulations. I was interested in how HIPAA would apply to an NFL team, so I reached out to David Harlow for the answer. David Harlow, Health Blawg writer, offered these insights into whether NFL records are required to comply with HIPAA or not:

These records fall in a gray zone between employment records and health records. Clearly the NFL understands what’s at stake if, as reported, they’ve proactively reached out to the HIPAA police. At least one federal court is on record in a similar case saying, essentially, C’mon, you know you’re a covered entity; get with the program.

Michael Magrath, current Chairman, HIMSS Identity Management Task Force, and Director of Healthcare Business, VASCO Data Security offered this insight into the breach:

This is a clear example that healthcare breaches are not isolated to healthcare organizations. They apply to employers, including the National Football League. Teams secure and protect their playbooks and need to apply that philosophy to securing their players’ medical information.

Laptop thefts are common place and one of the most common entries (310 incidents) on the HHS’ Office of Civil Rights portal listing Breaches Affecting 500 or More Individuals. Encryption is one of the basic requirements to secure a laptop, yet organizations continue to gamble without it and innocent victims can face a lifetime of identity theft and medical identity theft.

Assuming the laptop was Windows based, security can be enhanced by replacing the static Windows password with two-factor authentication in the form of a one-time password. Without the authenticator to generate the one-time password, gaining entry to the laptop will be extremely difficult. By combining encryption and strong authentication to gain entry into the laptop the players and prospects protected health information would not be at risk, all because organizations and members wish to avoid few moments of inconvenience.

This story brings up some important points. First, healthcare is far from the only industry that has issues with breaches and things like stolen or lost laptops. Second, healthcare isn’t the only one that sees the importance of encrypting mobile devices. However, despite the importance, many organizations still aren’t doing so. Third, HIPAA is an interesting law since it only covers PHI and covered entities. HIPAA omnibus expanded that to business associates. However, there are still a bunch of grey areas that aren’t sure if HIPAA applies. Plus, there are a lot of white areas where your health information is stored and HIPAA doesn’t apply.

Long story short, be smart and encrypt your health data no matter where it’s stored. Be careful where you share your health data. Anyone could be breached and HIPAA will only protect you so much (covered entity or not).

Don’t Blame HIPAA: It Didn’t Require Orlando Regional Medical Center To Call the President

Posted on June 13, 2016 I Written By

The following is a guest blog post by Mike Semel, President of Semel Consulting. As a Healthcare Scene community, our hearts go out to all the victims of this tragedy.

Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer said the influx of patients to the hospitals created problems due to confidentiality regulations, which he worked to have waived for victims’ families.

“The CEO of the hospital came to me and said they had an issue related to the families who came to the emergency room. Because of HIPAA regulations, they could not give them any information,” Dyer said. “So I reached out to the White House to see if we could get the HIPAA regulations waived. The White House went through the appropriate channels to waive those so the hospital could communicate with the families who were there.”    Source: WBTV.com

I applaud the Orlando Regional Medical Center for its efforts to help the shooting victims. As the region’s trauma center, I think it could have done a lot better by not letting HIPAA get in the way of communicating with the patients’ families and friends.

In the wake of the horrific nightclub shooting, the hospital made things worse for the victim’s families and friends. And it wasn’t necessary, because built into HIPAA is a hospital’s ability to share information without calling the President of the United States. There are other exemptions for communicating with law enforcement.

The Orlando hospital made this situation worse for the families when its Mass Casualty Incident (MCI) plan should have anticipated the situation. A trauma center should have been better prepared than to ask the mayor for help.

As usual, HIPAA got the blame for someone’s lack of understanding about HIPAA. Based on my experience, many executives think they are too busy, or think themselves too important, to learn about HIPAA’s fundamental civil rights for patients. Civil Rights? HIPAA is enforced by the US Department of Health & Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights.

HIPAA compliance and data security are both executive level responsibilities, although many executives think it is something that should get tasked out to a subordinate. Having to call the White House because the hospital didn’t understand that HIPAA already gave it the right to talk to the families is shameful. It added unnecessary delays and more stress to the distraught families.

Doctors are often just as guilty as hospital executives of not taking HIPAA training and then giving HIPAA a bad rap. (I can imagine the medical practice managers and compliance officers silently nodding their heads.)

“HIPAA interferes with patient care” is something I hear often from doctors. When I ask how, I am told by the doctors that they can’t communicate with specialists, call for a consult, or talk to their patients’ families. These are ALL WRONG.

I ask those doctors two questions that are usually met with a silent stare:

  1. When was the last time you received HIPAA training?
  2. If you did get trained, did it take more than 5 minutes or was it just to get the requirement out of the way?

HIPAA allows doctors to share patient information with other doctors, hospitals, pharmacies, and Business Associates as long as it is for a patient’s Treatment, Payment, and for healthcare Operations (TPO.) This is communicated to patients through a Notice of Privacy Practices.

HIPAA allows doctors to use their judgment to determine what to say to friends and families of patients who are incapacitated or incompetent. The Orlando hospital could have communicated with family members and friends.

From Frequently Asked Questions at the HHS website:

Does the HIPAA Privacy Rule permit a hospital to inform callers or visitors of a patient’s location and general condition in the emergency room, even if the patient’s information would not normally be included in the main hospital directory of admitted patients?

Answer: Yes.

If a patient’s family member, friend, or other person involved in the patient’s care or payment for care calls a health care provider to ask about the patient’s condition, does HIPAA require the health care provider to obtain proof of who the person is before speaking with them?

Answer: No.  If the caller states that he or she is a family member or friend of the patient, or is involved in the patient’s care or payment for care, then HIPAA doesn’t require proof of identity in this case.  However, a health care provider may establish his or her own rules for verifying who is on the phone.  In addition, when someone other than a friend or family member is involved, the health care provider must be reasonably sure that the patient asked the person to be involved in his or her care or payment for care.

Can the fact that a patient has been “treated and released,” or that a patient has died, be released as part of the facility directory?

Answer: Yes.

Does the HIPAA Privacy Rule permit a doctor to discuss a patient’s health status, treatment, or payment arrangements with the patient’s family and friends?

Answer: Yes. The HIPAA Privacy Rule at 45 CFR 164.510(b) specifically permits covered entities to share information that is directly relevant to the involvement of a spouse, family members, friends, or other persons identified by a patient, in the patient’s care or payment for health care. If the patient is present, or is otherwise available prior to the disclosure, and has the capacity to make health care decisions, the covered entity may discuss this information with the family and these other persons if the patient agrees or, when given the opportunity, does not object. The covered entity may also share relevant information with the family and these other persons if it can reasonably infer, based on professional judgment, that the patient does not object. Under these circumstances, for example:

  • A doctor may give information about a patient’s mobility limitations to a friend driving the patient home from the hospital.
  • A hospital may discuss a patient’s payment options with her adult daughter.
  • A doctor may instruct a patient’s roommate about proper medicine dosage when she comes to pick up her friend from the hospital.
  • A physician may discuss a patient’s treatment with the patient in the presence of a friend when the patient brings the friend to a medical appointment and asks if the friend can come into the treatment room.

Even when the patient is not present or it is impracticable because of emergency circumstances or the patient’s incapacity for the covered entity to ask the patient about discussing her care or payment with a family member or other person, a covered entity may share this information with the person when, in exercising professional judgment, it determines that doing so would be in the best interest of the patient. See 45 CFR 164.510(b).

Thus, for example:

  • A surgeon may, if consistent with such professional judgment, inform a patient’s spouse, who accompanied her husband to the emergency room, that the patient has suffered a heart attack and provide periodic updates on the patient’s progress and prognosis.
  • A doctor may, if consistent with such professional judgment, discuss an incapacitated patient’s condition with a family member over the phone.
  • In addition, the Privacy Rule expressly permits a covered entity to use professional judgment and experience with common practice to make reasonable inferences about the patient’s best interests in allowing another person to act on behalf of the patient to pick up a filled prescription, medical supplies, X-rays, or other similar forms of protected health information. For example, when a person comes to a pharmacy requesting to pick up a prescription on behalf of an individual he identifies by name, a pharmacist, based on professional judgment and experience with common practice, may allow the person to do so.

Other examples of hospital executives’ lack of HIPAA knowledge include:

  • Shasta Regional Medical Center, where the CEO and Chief Medical Officer took a patient’s chart to the local newspaper and shared details of her treatment without her permission.
  • NY Presbyterian Hospital, which allowed the film crew from ABC’s ‘NY Med’ TV show to film dying and incapacitated patients.

To healthcare executives and doctors, many of your imagined challenges caused by HIPAA can be eliminated by learning more about the rules. You need to be prepared for the 3 a.m. phone call. And you don’t have to call the White House for help.

About Mike Semel
Mike Semel, President of Semel Consulting,  is a certified HIPAA expert with over 12 years’ HIPAA experience and 30 years in IT. He has been the CIO for a hospital and a K-12 school district; owned and managed IT companies; ran operations at an online backup provider; and is a recognized HIPAA expert and speaker. He can be reached at mike@semelconsulting.com or 888-997-3635 x 101.

Securing IoT Devices Calls For New Ways Of Doing Business

Posted on June 8, 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.

While new Internet-connected devices can expose healthcare organizations to security threats in much the same way as a desktop PC or laptop, they aren’t always procured, monitored or maintained the same way. This can lead to potentially major ePHI breaches, as one renowned health system recently found out.

According a piece in SearchHealtlhIT, executives at Intermountain Healthcare recently went through something of a panic when connected audiology device went missing. According to Intermountain CISO Karl West, the device had come into the hospital via a different channel than most of the system’s other devices. For that reason, West told the site, his team couldn’t verify what operating system the audiology device had, how it had come into the hospital and what its lifecycle management status was.

Not only did Intermountain lack some key configuration and operating system data on the device, they didn’t know how to prevent the exposure of stored patient information the device had on board. And because the data was persistent over time, the audiology device had information on multiple patients — in fact, every patient that had used the device. When the device was eventually located, was discovered that it held two-and-a-half years worth of stored patient data.

After this incident, West realized that Intermountain needed to improve on how it managed Internet of Things devices. Specifically, the team decided that simply taking inventory of all devices and applications was far from sufficient to protect the security of IoT medical devices.

To prevent such problems from occurring again, West and his team created a data dictionary, designed to let them know where data originates, how it moves and where it resides. The group is also documenting what each IoT device’s transmission capabilities are, West told SearchHealthIT.

A huge vulnerability

Unfortunately, Intermountain isn’t the first and won’t be the last health system to face problems in managing IoT device security. Such devices can be a huge vulnerability, as they are seldom documented and maintained in the same way that traditional network devices are. In fact, this lack of oversight is almost a given when you consider where they come from.

Sure, some connected devices arrive via traditional medical device channels — such as, for example, connected infusion pumps — but a growing number of network-connected devices are coming through consumer channels. For example, though the problem is well understood these days, healthcare organizations continue to grapple with security issues created by staff-owned smart phones and tablets.

The next wave of smart, connected devices may pose even bigger problems. While operating systems running mobile devices are well understood, and can be maintained and secured using enterprise-level processes,  new connected devices are throwing the entire healthcare industry a curveball.  After all, the smart watch a patient brings into your facility doesn’t turn up on your procurement schedule, may use nonstandard software and its operating system and applications may not be patched. And that’s just one example.

Redesigning processes

While there’s no single solution to this rapidly-growing problem, one thing seems to be clear. As the Intermountain example demonstrates, healthcare organizations must redefine their processes for tracking and securing devices in the face of the IoT security threat.

First and foremost, medical device teams and the IT department must come together to create a comprehensive connected device strategy. Both teams need to know what devices are using the network, how and why. And whatever policy is set for managing IoT devices has to embrace everyone. This is no time for a turf war — it’s time to hunker down and manage this serious threat.

Efforts like Intermountain’s may not work for every organization, but the key is to take a step forward. As the number of IoT network nodes grow to a nearly infinite level, healthcare organizations will have to re-think their entire philosophy on how and why networked devices should interact. Otherwise, a catastrophic breach is nearly guaranteed.

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.