Risk
6/1/2011
04:05 PM
50%
50%

Schwartz On Security: Your Medical Records At Risk

The current, voluntary approach to HIPAA data security rules hasn't resulted in adequate security for electronic protected health information.

As people's private medical records increasingly get stored in electronic format, a question looms: Will our records be stored securely, so that they can't be easily stolen or publicly released en masse?

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), passed 15 years ago, was created to ensure that the healthcare industry kept patient data secure. Interestingly, however, since the passage of the HITECH Act in 2009, which was supposed to strengthen HIPAA enforcement, there's only been a single HIPAA fine over poor healthcare data security practices.

Perhaps the healthcare industry is doing a great job of keeping our patient data secure, and funding for HITECH enforcement should be cut, as some members of Congress have proposed.

Except that the healthcare industry doesn't appear to be properly protecting patient data. According to a survey conducted by certificate authority GlobalSign and released last week, in the past two years, one-third of surveyed healthcare organizations said they'd experienced a data breach involving patient records.

Furthermore, two new audits of the government agencies charged with setting and enforcing healthcare data security standards found that hospitals, healthcare organizations, and state agencies are failing to properly protect people's personal health information. In the audits, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) criticized both the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC) for failing to properly enforce HIPAA. It also found that data is being put at risk, and even stolen without hospitals' knowledge.

What's the problem? For starters, there's strong evidence of bystander effect--numerous agencies are involved, but none seem to be in charge. That's in spite of the government pouring billions of dollars into converting the healthcare industry to electronic patient records. Arguably, there's never been a better time for the government to demand stringent data security standards in return for a piece of the pie.

Current hospital data security practices appear to be woefully inadequate. Indeed, OIG auditors also investigated electronic protected health information (ePHI) practices at seven hospitals across the nation. They found "151 vulnerabilities in the systems and controls intended to protect ePHI, of which 124 were categorized as high impact," according to the OIG's report. Threats included ineffective wireless encryption, rogue access points, missing firewalls, laptops storing unencrypted ePHI, outdated antivirus signatures, failing to apply critical operating system patches, and unlocked data centers.

"These vulnerabilities placed the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of ePHI at risk," according to the report. "Outsiders or employees at some hospitals could have accessed, and at one hospital did access, systems and beneficiaries' personal data and performed unauthorized acts without the hospitals' knowledge."

Who's to blame? Auditors slammed the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services--and its Office for Civil Rights (OCR)--for failing to proactively assess any hospitals' compliance with HIPAA. "Although OCR stated that it maintains a process for initiating covered entity compliance reviews in the absence of complaints, it provided no evidence that it had actually done so," according to the report.

If that sounds familiar, it's because government auditors found that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services were similarly failing to enforce HIPAA security rules back in 2008. At the time, CMS leadership argued that "its complaint-driven enforcement process has furthered the goal of voluntary compliance," according to the 2008 audit. But given the number of data security vulnerabilities found in the seven recently audited hospitals, the voluntary compliance regime appears to be failing. Furthermore, if not even hospitals know when patient data is being stolen, who's going to complain?

Likewise, HHS last week proposed changes to the HIPAA privacy rule to let people review who's accessed their data, as well as who their data has been shared with. But if that data isn't secure, who thinks those access records will be 100% accurate?

Cue a now-common refrain: Something must be done to correct the current state of health information data security. Where can we start? "Fixing the serious data security problems afflicting the health care system will require coordinated and focused action among several government agencies, particularly ONC, OCR, and [CMS]," said Harley Geiger, policy counsel at the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT), in a blog post.

But don't expect HIPAA to get teeth anytime soon. "The [OIG] reports acknowledge that responsibility for health data security is vested in a number of agencies, and the reports recommend that ONC coordinate its work with CMS and OCR where applicable," said Geiger. "Unfortunately, these points are buried and not given weight proportionate to the scale of the problem. The failure to have a comprehensive, coordinated strategy is at the root of the issues raised in the report."


In the new, all-digital InformationWeek Healthcare: iPads are leading a new wave of devices into the exam room. Are security, tech support, and infection control up to the task? Download it now. (Free registration required.)

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2013-7421
Published: 2015-03-02
The Crypto API in the Linux kernel before 3.18.5 allows local users to load arbitrary kernel modules via a bind system call for an AF_ALG socket with a module name in the salg_name field, a different vulnerability than CVE-2014-9644.

CVE-2014-8160
Published: 2015-03-02
net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_proto_generic.c in the Linux kernel before 3.18 generates incorrect conntrack entries during handling of certain iptables rule sets for the SCTP, DCCP, GRE, and UDP-Lite protocols, which allows remote attackers to bypass intended access restrictions via packets with disall...

CVE-2014-9644
Published: 2015-03-02
The Crypto API in the Linux kernel before 3.18.5 allows local users to load arbitrary kernel modules via a bind system call for an AF_ALG socket with a parenthesized module template expression in the salg_name field, as demonstrated by the vfat(aes) expression, a different vulnerability than CVE-201...

CVE-2015-0239
Published: 2015-03-02
The em_sysenter function in arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c in the Linux kernel before 3.18.5, when the guest OS lacks SYSENTER MSR initialization, allows guest OS users to gain guest OS privileges or cause a denial of service (guest OS crash) by triggering use of a 16-bit code segment for emulation of a SYS...

CVE-2014-8921
Published: 2015-03-01
The IBM Notes Traveler Companion application 1.0 and 1.1 before 201411010515 for Window Phone, as distributed in IBM Notes Traveler 9.0.1, does not properly restrict the number of executions of the automatic configuration option, which makes it easier for remote attackers to capture credentials by c...

Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
How can security professionals better engage with their peers, both in person and online? In this Dark Reading Radio show, we will talk to leaders at some of the security industry’s professional organizations about how security pros can get more involved – with their colleagues in the same industry, with their peers in other industries, and with the IT security community as a whole.