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.

 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Threaded View
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 8/10/2020
Researcher Finds New Office Macro Attacks for MacOS
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  8/7/2020
Lock-Pickers Face an Uncertain Future Online
Seth Rosenblatt, Contributing Writer,  8/10/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal, a Dark Reading Perspective
This special report examines how IT security organizations have adapted to the "new normal" of computing and what the long-term effects will be. Read it and get a unique set of perspectives on issues ranging from new threats & vulnerabilities as a result of remote working to how enterprise security strategy will be affected long term.
Flash Poll
The Changing Face of Threat Intelligence
The Changing Face of Threat Intelligence
This special report takes a look at how enterprises are using threat intelligence, as well as emerging best practices for integrating threat intel into security operations and incident response. Download it today!
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-17505
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-12
Artica Web Proxy 4.30.000000 allows an authenticated remote attacker to inject commands via the service-cmds parameter in cyrus.php. These commands are executed with root privileges via service_cmds_peform.
CVE-2020-17506
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-12
Artica Web Proxy 4.30.00000000 allows remote attacker to bypass privilege detection and gain web backend administrator privileges through SQL injection of the apikey parameter in fw.login.php.
CVE-2020-2035
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-12
When SSL/TLS Forward Proxy Decryption mode has been configured to decrypt the web transactions, the PAN-OS URL filtering feature inspects the HTTP Host and URL path headers for policy enforcement on the decrypted HTTPS web transactions but does not consider Server Name Indication (SNI) field within ...
CVE-2020-5415
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-12
Concourse, versions prior to 6.3.1 and 6.4.1, in installations which use the GitLab auth connector, is vulnerable to identity spoofing by way of configuring a GitLab account with the same full name as another user who is granted access to a Concourse team. GitLab groups do not have this vulnerabilit...
CVE-2020-6653
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-12
Eaton's Secure connect mobile app v1.7.3 & prior stores the user login credentials in logcat file when user create or register the account on the Mobile app. A malicious app or unauthorized user can harvest the information and later on can use the information to monitor and control the user's ac...