Risk
10/18/2008
02:32 PM
George V. Hulme
George V. Hulme
Commentary
50%
50%

New Calif. State Legislation Threatens Stiff Medical Privacy Penalties

Two new state medical privacy laws, AB211 and SB541, make it possible for institutions and individuals to be fined up to $250,000 for being lax when it comes to the medical privacy of California residents. It's about time.

Two new state medical privacy laws, AB211 and SB541, make it possible for institutions and individuals to be fined up to $250,000 for being lax when it comes to the medical privacy of California residents. It's about time.The fines can't roll enough as far as I'm concerned.

From this story, which originally appeared in the AIS's Health Business Daily:

Hospitals and other covered entities in California may have to beef up their privacy and security compliance programs in light of recently enacted state legislation that slaps stiffer penalties on entities and employees who violate patient privacy. The legislation, approved in mid-September and signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) on Sept. 29, follows privacy breaches of several high-profile celebrities, including singer Britney Spears and California First Lady Maria Shriver.

We covered the Britney Spears UCLA fiasco when that story broke, and I delivered an overview of these two new California laws on my other blog at TransformationEnablers.com.

In a nutshell, AB211 requires health care providers to take appropriate safeguards to protect patient medical information, while SB541 sees that those in violation could be penalized $100 a day, up to $250,000.

Some say that these security requirements aren't necessary, because we already have HIPAA. This quote is from the same story as above:

"There is an argument to be made that a law like this isn't absolutely necessary, because certainly HIPAA required reasonable safeguards of patient information or protected health information," says Reece Hirsch, a partner in Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal's San Francisco office.

Still, the California legislation is significant in some respects, he tells RPP. It takes data-security concepts found in federal law and applies them at the state-law level, he says.

"Perhaps most significantly, it also attaches a whole new regime of fines and penalties related to violations of those standards," Hirsch adds. "Some people might say the HIPAA privacy and security rule has not been very vigorously enforced thus far by HHS. This sort of provides a basis for state authorities to impose some fairly significant penalties when there is a perceived privacy or security breach."

I say the stronger argument is that HIPAA has not been vigorously enforced, and it's about time a state has stood up to do so.

California set the precedent with SB 1386, and the state is about to do it again.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
To Be Ready for the Security Future, Pay Attention to the Security Past
Liz Maida, Co-founder, CEO & CTO, Uplevel Security,  9/18/2017
1.9 Billion Data Records Exposed in First Half of 2017
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  9/20/2017
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: Jan, check this out! I found an unhackable PC.
Current Issue
Security Vulnerabilities: The Next Wave
Just when you thought it was safe, researchers have unveiled a new round of IT security flaws. Is your enterprise ready?
Flash Poll
[Strategic Security Report] How Enterprises Are Attacking the IT Security Problem
[Strategic Security Report] How Enterprises Are Attacking the IT Security Problem
Enterprises are spending more of their IT budgets on cybersecurity technology. How do your organization's security plans and strategies compare to what others are doing? Here's an in-depth look.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2017-0290
Published: 2017-05-09
NScript in mpengine in Microsoft Malware Protection Engine with Engine Version before 1.1.13704.0, as used in Windows Defender and other products, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (type confusion and application crash) via crafted JavaScript code within ...

CVE-2016-10369
Published: 2017-05-08
unixsocket.c in lxterminal through 0.3.0 insecurely uses /tmp for a socket file, allowing a local user to cause a denial of service (preventing terminal launch), or possibly have other impact (bypassing terminal access control).

CVE-2016-8202
Published: 2017-05-08
A privilege escalation vulnerability in Brocade Fibre Channel SAN products running Brocade Fabric OS (FOS) releases earlier than v7.4.1d and v8.0.1b could allow an authenticated attacker to elevate the privileges of user accounts accessing the system via command line interface. With affected version...

CVE-2016-8209
Published: 2017-05-08
Improper checks for unusual or exceptional conditions in Brocade NetIron 05.8.00 and later releases up to and including 06.1.00, when the Management Module is continuously scanned on port 22, may allow attackers to cause a denial of service (crash and reload) of the management module.

CVE-2017-0890
Published: 2017-05-08
Nextcloud Server before 11.0.3 is vulnerable to an inadequate escaping leading to a XSS vulnerability in the search module. To be exploitable a user has to write or paste malicious content into the search dialogue.