Regulatory: Securing information stored on mobile devices
With penalties beginning to be imposed in connection with reported HIPAA breaches, companies should take all possible steps to minimize a breach's occurrence.
September 25, 2013 at 05:00 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Last month in this column, I addressed the new HIPAA rule, which significantly expands certain obligations for health care providers and their business associates under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). In that article, I discussed the importance of updating your (or adopting a) HIPAA Compliance Plan. In light of the new HIPAA rule, the move into the technology age and the prevalent use of mobile devices, developing policies and procedures as part of your HIPAA Compliance Plan to address the security of patient information on your iPhone, iPad, Blackberry, etc., has become increasingly important if you are (or you represent) a health care provider or business associate.
The first step is deciding whether or not you will allow the use of mobile devices within your business for accessing, receiving, transmitting or storing patient health information. In making such determination, you should thoroughly review the risks (e.g., increased risk of theft of patient information) and benefits (e.g., convenience) associated with using mobile devices for such purposes.
If your business allows patient information to be stored, accessed, transmitted, etc. on a mobile device, policies and procedures addressing such use and the limits of such use should be established and made a part of your HIPAA Compliance Plan.
(Note that adopting such polices or procedures is also a good practice if you store, access, receive, or transmit other types of highly-sensitive information — e.g., bank records.)
In drafting and implementing mobile device policies and procedures, consider the following:
- Passwords. Requiring a password or other user authentication method to unlock mobile devices can prevent unauthorized users from accessing information stored on mobile devices. Passwords should be “strong” (at least six characters and a combination of letters and numbers), changed periodically (at least once every six months) and kept confidential.
- Encryption. Encrypting data is not only important to prevent hacking and unauthorized access, but it can also prevent you from having to report a breach of unsecured protected health information. Encrypted data is considered “secure” and therefore does not fall under the definition of unsecured protected health information for which a HIPAA breach notification is required. Since we are starting to see penalties imposed in connection with reported HIPAA breaches, it is prudent to take all possible steps to minimize the occurrence of a reportable breach. In addition, encryption becomes even more important when mobile devices are used to transmit data over a public Wi-Fi network, which is easier for savvy individuals to intercept and hack.
- Remote wiping and/or disabling. Remote wiping and disabling allows you to remotely erase any data stored on mobile devices or to remotely lock mobile devices. This is an extremely valuable tool in preventing an inappropriate use and/or disclosure of information (or mitigating the harm from such use and/or disclosure) if a mobile device is lost or stolen, which occurs all too frequently.
- Physically secure mobile devices. Although common sense, locking the screen and physically securing mobile devices can go a long way in protecting information. Set mobile devices to log out and lock after a certain number of minutes of inactivity (e.g., three minutes). Require employees to lock the device in a drawer or other secure place (rather than leaving it sitting out on a desk) when not physically with them and instruct employees not to let others use their mobile devices.
- Delete, delete, delete. As required by the HIPAA Security Rule, you must delete all patient information from a mobile device before discarding it or giving it to someone else for re-use. Methods of deletion include completely clearing the device, purging the data or physically destroying the device.
- Device ownership. Consider who actually owns the mobile device, the employee or the business. If the former, policies and procedures should be in place for terminating access to patient information from the device in the event the employee is no longer working with the business and no longer needs to access the information. If the latter, policies and procedures should be in place to ensure that the device is returned on the last day of employment and that the information stored on the device is not inappropriately copied or accessed by the terminated employee.
As technology evolves and HIPAA rules are more vigorously enforced, if you are a health care provider or business associate (or represent a health care provider or business associate) you must implement policies and procedures to address the use of mobile devices to access or transmit patient information.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllGOP Now Holds FTC Gavel, but Dems Signal They'll Be a Rowdy Minority
6 minute readTrump's Inspectors General Purge Could Make Policy Changes Easier, Observers Say
Keys to Maximizing Efficiency (and Vibes) When Navigating International Trade Compliance Crosschecks
6 minute readCrypto Industry Eyes Legislation to Clarify Regulatory Framework
Trending Stories
- 1New FCC Chair Hires Section 230 Critic as General Counsel
- 2Sylvia Favretto Elevated to Mysten Labs’ General Counsel
- 3Vanessa Roberts Avery Rejoins McCarter & English
- 4Charlie Javice Jury Will Not See Her Texts About Elizabeth Holmes
- 5Unit Owners Sued Board For Failure To Maintain Adequate Fire Insurance: This Week In Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250