Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

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
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 11/19/2020
New Proposed DNS Security Features Released
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  11/19/2020
How to Identify Cobalt Strike on Your Network
Zohar Buber, Security Analyst,  11/18/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win an Amazon Gift Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: A GONG is as good as a cyber attack.
Current Issue
2021 Top Enterprise IT Trends
We've identified the key trends that are poised to impact the IT landscape in 2021. Find out why they're important and how they will affect you today!
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-25660
PUBLISHED: 2020-11-23
A flaw was found in the Cephx authentication protocol in versions before 15.2.6 and before 14.2.14, where it does not verify Ceph clients correctly and is then vulnerable to replay attacks in Nautilus. This flaw allows an attacker with access to the Ceph cluster network to authenticate with the Ceph...
CVE-2020-25688
PUBLISHED: 2020-11-23
A flaw was found in rhacm versions before 2.0.5 and before 2.1.0. Two internal service APIs were incorrectly provisioned using a test certificate from the source repository. This would result in all installations using the same certificates. If an attacker could observe network traffic internal to a...
CVE-2020-25696
PUBLISHED: 2020-11-23
A flaw was found in the psql interactive terminal of PostgreSQL in versions before 13.1, before 12.5, before 11.10, before 10.15, before 9.6.20 and before 9.5.24. If an interactive psql session uses \gset when querying a compromised server, the attacker can execute arbitrary code as the operating sy...
CVE-2020-26229
PUBLISHED: 2020-11-23
TYPO3 is an open source PHP based web content management system. In TYPO3 from version 10.4.0, and before version 10.4.10, RSS widgets are susceptible to XML external entity processing. This vulnerability is reasonable, but is theoretical - it was not possible to actually reproduce the vulnerability...
CVE-2020-28984
PUBLISHED: 2020-11-23
prive/formulaires/configurer_preferences.php in SPIP before 3.2.8 does not properly validate the couleur, display, display_navigation, display_outils, imessage, and spip_ecran parameters.