Technology: Cloud computing in health care comes with strings attached
Cloud computing enables organizations of all types and sizes to operate more efficiently by allowing them to quickly and cost effectively outsource the operation and maintenance of their IT systems.
August 10, 2012 at 08:25 AM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Cloud computing enables organizations of all types and sizes to operate more efficiently by allowing them to quickly and cost effectively outsource the operation and maintenance of their IT systems. However, the adoption of cloud computing appears to have been slower in the health care industry than in other sectors. While there is no single reason for this lag, concerns around whether cloud providers can comply with the stringent privacy and security regulations in the Health Insurance Portability and Accessibility Act (HIPAA) have affected the adoption of cloud services in this particular industry. Under HIPAA, health care providers, health plans and other “covered entities” are required to maintain the privacy and security of protected health information (PHI).
Subject to the privacy and security rules in HIPAA, covered entities are allowed to disclose certain information to “business associates,” generally defined as persons who assist in the performance of functions or activities involving the use and/or disclosure of PHI, or any other activity covered by HIPAA (see 45 C.F.R. 160.103 for the full definition). HIPAA requires each covered entity to have a business associate agreement (BAA) in place to ensure that HIPAA requirements are met by each business associate and that PHI is used only for appropriate purposes. The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act passed in 2009 extended the privacy and security requirements of HIPAA and accompanying penalties to apply to business associates, and required the expanded HITECH rules to be included in BAAs. Therefore, covered entities and their counsel must carefully consider the legal implications involved when entering into a cloud services relationship with a business associate.
Cloud providers handling PHI
There are a number of issues to be considered by covered entity counsel when entering into a contractual relationship with a cloud provider. Chief among these is determining whether the provider is a business associate. While it is difficult to establish a clear-cut standard for evaluating this, the determination comes down to how PHI is used by the provider. If the provider is only responsible for storing PHI, and only the covered entity's staff has the ability to access the PHI, then the cloud provider is probably not a business associate. However, if the provider's personnel has access to PHI to perform functions for the covered entity, then that provider would most likely be considered a business associate. Once it is determined that a cloud provider is a business associate, HIPPA requires that the provider enter into a BAA with the covered entity.
A BAA between a covered entity and a cloud provider should address the issues relating to PHI that might arise in the relationship, including:
- Security and privacy controls
- Data ownership
- Breach notification
- Data location
- Protocol after termination
There are a number of model BAAs available. For example, if a cloud provider already has several health care clients, they may be familiar with the requirements for business associates. If the provider is new to this area, however, they may be wary about entering into a BAA, or even balk at doing so entirely. Though the cost of negotiating a BAA with such cloud providers may be expensive, in-house counsel and their covered entities should require the provider to sign a BAA and ensure that it is thoroughly written, lest both parties incur substantial fines and potential damage to their public images.
Clickwrap BAAs
Unfortunately, unlike brick and mortar service providers, cloud providers have become accustomed to using “clickwrap” agreements. In these cases, a customer enters into a contract simply by clicking an “I Agree” or “OK” button, for the provision of services or the granting of a license to technology. Though few, if any, courts have addressed clickwrap BAAs specifically, clickwrap agreements are generally upheld as enforceable outside of the BAA context as long as they meet certain substantive and procedural requirements.
In their vanilla form, clickwrap agreements typically include vendor-favorable licensing/services terms. These terms, however, may not address the specific obligations imposed on covered entities, which, in turn, must flow down to their business associates. And therein lies a potential trap. While a covered entity and its counsel might be tempted to accept the provider's clickwrap BAA to avoid the time and expense of negotiating a new BAA, it is critical that the BAA contain the appropriate terms in order to comply with HIPAA and HITECH.
In addition, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services' Office for Civil Rights (OCR), which administers HIPAA, has stated that electronic agreements qualify as written documents. In the absence of specific standards from HIPAA, however, covered entities must ensure that any electronic signature complies with applicable laws. As such, covered entities and their counsel must be aware of the law in their jurisdiction regarding electronic agreements.
Although an electronic BAA may satisfy the applicable writing requirements, counsel should take note that the OCR is responsible not only for investigating complaints from patients, but also for performing compliance audits. The HITECH Act mandates periodic audits to ensure that covered entities and business associates are complying with the HIPAA privacy and security rules, as well as breach notification standards; 150 of such audits are scheduled to be conducted before the end of this year. Covered entities and business associates must have written or electronic copies of all BAAs in the event they are audited.
Preparation mitigates pitfalls
With the emergence of cloud computing, companies across many industries have the opportunity to do more with less. However, for covered entities and their counsel, this opportunity comes with strings attached, courtesy of HIPAA and the HITECH Act. Therefore, when handing some control of the processing and/or storage of PHI over to a cloud service provider, counsel for a covered entity should guarantee that the chosen provider will treat PHI with appropriate care. To do this, they should enter into a BAA so that any PHI provided to the provider is in safe hands. By taking the proper precautions, both parties can avoid the potential pitfalls.
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 AllExits Leave American Airlines, SiriusXM, Spotify Searching for New Legal Chiefs
2 minute read'A Warning Shot to Board Rooms': DOJ Decision to Fight $14B Tech Merger May Be Bad Omen for Industry
'Incredibly Complicated'? Antitrust Litigators Identify Pros and Cons of Proposed One Agency Act
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
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