Quest, Labcorp Breach Highlights Limits of HIPAA's Vendor Oversight
HIPAA lays out the responsibilities that both covered entities and vendors have in the event of a data breach, but service agreements can still play a vital role in determining where critical—and costly—responsibilities fall.
June 11, 2019 at 12:15 PM
3 minute read
Earlier this week, both Quest Diagnostics and LabCorp revealed that they were among the entities whose customers had their data compromised as part of a larger cyber breach that befell the billing and collections service American Medical Collection Agency (AMCA). Such data included customer's birth dates, addresses, phone numbers, date of service, and health provider and balance information.
In a news release, Quest indicated that the AMCA systems impacted by the breach contained information on approximately 11.9 million of their patients. Meanwhile, LabCorp filed a report with the Securities and Exchange Commission indicating that data from approximately 7.7 million of its customers was breached.
So what happens next? To be sure, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) regulates the healthcare industry's use of identifying information like patient names, date of birth, phone numbers and provider names. Still, when and where HIPAA comes into play when breaches happen at third parties isn't always so cut and dry.
“The ambiguity or the key kind of analysis is understanding the relationship and exactly what the vendor is doing for the covered entity,” said Ryan Blaney, chair of the privacy and data security practice at Cozen O'Connor.
Covered entities such as a hospital or lab could potentially maintain contracts with dozens of vendors or business associates, but HIPAA was not created with trash collectors in mind. The parameters of the act only encompass service providers who are performing a function that the covered entity is required to do under HIPAA, such as debt collection.
Iliana Peters, a shareholder at Polsinelli, said that at the end of the day, business associates that fall under the umbrella of HIPAA are liable if they disclose information in a way that is not allowed by the act's privacy rule, which requires appropriate safeguards to protect personal health information in addition to setting limits on uses and disclosures. They also have the responsibility of alerting the covered entities to the breach.
“Also if there's some kind of security safeguard that was implicated like they didn't patch their software [or] they didn't have malware protection, then the business associate would be liable,” said Peters.
Covered entities aren't entirely off the hook either, though. Stephanie Trunk, a partner at Arent Fox, pointed out that covered entities are still responsible for reporting and mitigating breaches even if they do occur at or because of a business associate.
“As these latest breaches illustrate, it's critical that covered entities review business associate HIPAA policies and practices, including technology solutions, to prevent breaches and unauthorized access by third parties,” Trunk said.
Still, the individual business associate agreements that exist between a covered entity and its vendor can throw some curveballs into the process. While HIPAA may designate covered entities responsible for notifying consumers impacted by a breach, it's not uncommon for such entities to negotiate provisions into their service agreements that would pass the baton back to the vendors.
“Just like contracts, there's leverage, and depending on the party you can require some additional things and you can specify—and hopefully you do specify—who's going to provide the notification because that can be costly,” Blaney said.
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 AllTrending Stories
- 15th Circuit Considers Challenge to Louisiana's Ten Commandments Law
- 2Crocs Accused of Padding Revenue With Channel-Stuffing HEYDUDE Shoes
- 3E-discovery Practitioners Are Racing to Adapt to Social Media’s Evolving Landscape
- 4The Law Firm Disrupted: For Office Policies, Big Law Has Its Ear to the Market, Not to Trump
- 5FTC Finalizes Child Online Privacy Rule Updates, But Ferguson Eyes Further Changes
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