Regulatory: Examining the Final Rule modifying HIPAA
The Final Rule allows, for the first time, HHS Office for Civil Rights to regulate business associates.
August 21, 2013 at 05:30 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
On Jan. 25, 2013, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published the “Final Rule” modifying the regulations under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). The Final Rule, which took effect on March 26, 2013, modified the standards previously set forth in the Privacy Rule, the Security Rule and the Enforcement Standards, and implemented statutory amendments under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act by modifying the interim Breach Notification Rule. This article examines the Final Rule's impact on business associates, such as certain third party administrators, consultants and accountants, and offers practical steps for compliance with the Final Rule by the Sept. 23, 2013, deadline.
The financial and operational impact on business associates will be significant because the Final Rule allows, for the first time, HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to regulate business associates. OCR may now directly impose civil monetary penalties (CMPs) on business associates for non-compliance with HIPAA and its underlying regulations. CMPs can range from $100 to $50,000 per violation, with a cap of $1.5 million per year for multiple violations of identical HIPAA provisions in a calendar year. In addition, the business associate and certain employees, such as directors, employees or officers, may be subject to criminal penalties, including financial penalties and imprisonment. The Final Rule also expands the definition of “business associate” to capture additional individuals and entities that have access to protected health information (PHI). Unlike traditional covered entities, these new business associates are often smaller operations without an existing HIPAA-compliant infrastructure.
With such a short timeframe for compliance before the Final Rule goes into effect, each individual or entity whose functions or activities involve creating, receiving, maintaining or transmitting PHI must determine whether it is now a business associate under HIPAA. It is each organization's responsibility to evaluate its access to PHI and the services it performs in order to determine whether it is a business associate in any of its relationships with covered entities or other business associates.
The following are practical steps for compliance, both for new business associates captured by the expanded definition in the Final Rule, and for business associates seeking to ensure that their infrastructure— including their operational practices, policies and procedures, and business associate agreements— is HIPAA-compliant.
- Business associates should ensure that their operational practices are HIPAA-compliant. Business associates should ensure they have complied with all applicable operational HIPAA requirements, such as appointing a security officer responsible for developing and implementing policies and procedures required under the Security Rule. In addition, business associates should review their technical systems to ensure that they can support the changes required for HIPAA compliance.
- Business associates should revise their practices, policies and procedures regarding the investigation and notification of breaches of PHI. At a minimum, business associates must revise their investigation and notification practices, as well as their breach notification policies and procedures, to reflect the revised data breach standard implemented under the Final Rule. In addition, business associates should consider how they will train their workforce on the new breach notification requirements.
- Business associates should revise their policies and procedures. Importantly, business associates should conduct a (or update its) HIPAA security risk analysis, in accordance with 45 C.F.R. 164.308(a)(1) of the Security Rule, to assess and address any identified gaps in their policies and procedures, as well as in their operational practices and controls.
- Business associates should revise their current business associate agreements to reflect the changes imposed by the Final Rule. The HHS OCR website has a helpful tool containing sample business associate agreement provisions. Business associates should also revise their business agreements with subcontractors to require subcontractors to agree to the same restrictions and conditions that apply to the business associate with respect to PHI created, maintained or transmitted. Business associates should also consider whether to include provisions in subcontractor agreements that would provide additional protection. For example, business associates may require subcontractors to maintain insurance or indemnify the business associate for damages.
Implementing the required provisions under the Final Rule may present both operational and fiscal challenges for business associates, particularly for those currently without existing HIPAA policies and procedures, refined business associate agreements, and an internal computerized system that meets the requirements of the Security Rule.
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
- 1Eight Years On, A&O Shearman’s Fuse Legal Tech Incubator is Still Evolving
- 2Google Makes Appeal to Overturn Jury Verdict Branding the Play Store as an Illegal Monopoly
- 3First Amendment Litigator Returns to Gibson Dunn
- 4In Record Year for Baker Botts, Revenue Up 11.8%, PEP Up 17.6%
- 5Loopholes, DNA Collection and Tech: Does Your Consent as a User of a Genealogy Website Override Another Person’s Fourth Amendment Right?
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