HIPAA updates bring compliance issues to the forefront for cloud services
Cloud service providers, in particular, will need to be compliant with HIPAA if they plan to do business with healthcare organizations.
August 23, 2013 at 06:06 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Back in the days when healthcare records were stored in giant filing cabinets in manila folders, security was a matter of having strong locks and restricted access. But today, with all of the benefits of electronic health records and cloud storage, matters are a bit more complicated. Healthcare providers have become accustomed to the stringent regulations – and associated penalties – of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) but now, with new regulations looming, other providers will be forced to align themselves with the latest provisions.
Cloud service providers, in particular, will need to be compliant with HIPAA if they plan to do business with healthcare organizations. Updates to HIPAA expand the definition of “business associates,” who must follow the same guidelines as physicians and insurance providers. In fact, the new rules specifically address cloud providers, stating, “Document storage companies maintaining protected health information on behalf of covered entities are considered business associates, regardless of whether they actually view the information they hold.”
Compliance Issues
The new HIPAA guidelines introduce a host of compliance issues that must be addressed, and business associates will now be held to the same strict regulatory guidelines as healthcare providers.
- Breach Notifications: One major change involves the adjusted threshold for breach notifications. In the past, notifications were required when a data breach posed “significant risk of reputational, financial or other harm.” Now, however, providers and associates must notify the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services when unsecured data is breached unless a multi-factor risk assessment determines that there is a low risk of exposure.
- Gap Analysis: In order to bring existing policies and procedures in line with the updated regulations, providers and associates should conduct a risk analysis to assess and address any gaps in policies and procedures, in accordance with 45 C.F.R. 164.308(a)(1) of the security rule.
- Adjust Business Agreement: In order to ensure that all parties are aligned with the new provisions, both providers and associates must update and revise existing agreements, utilizing sample business agreements as provided by the Department of Health and Human Services.
- Encryption Technology: As an additional safeguard, all parties should use encryption technology on protected health information, especially on portable devices, bringing a secondary level of security and minimizing the risk of exposure.
With proper training and awareness, both healthcare providers and business associates can ensure compliance with the new regulations, which, according to DHHS, will help avoid potential monetary penalties of more than $1.5 million in some cases.
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 AllBest Practices for Adopting and Adapting to AI: Mitigating Risk in Light of Increasing Regulatory and Shareholder Scrutiny
7 minute readCrypto Groups Sue IRS Over Decentralized Finance Reporting Rule
SEC Penalizes Wells Fargo, LPL Financial $900,000 Each for Inaccurate Trading Data
US Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
Trending Stories
- 1The Importance of Contractual Language in Analyzing Post-Closing Earnout Disputes
- 2People in the News—Jan. 8, 2025—Stevens & Lee, Ogletree Deakins
- 3How I Made Partner: 'Avoid Getting Stuck in a Moment,' Says Federico Cuadra Del Carmen of Baker McKenzie
- 4Legal Departments Dinged for Acquiescing to Rate Hikes That 'Defy Gravity'
- 5Spalding Jurors Return $12M Verdict Against State Farm Insurance Client
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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