• Home
  • Practice Focus
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
    • How I Do It
    • TRIO Best Practices
  • Business of Medicine
    • Health Policy
    • Legal Matters
    • Practice Management
    • Tech Talk
    • AI
  • Literature Reviews
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
  • Career
    • Medical Education
    • Professional Development
    • Resident Focus
  • ENT Perspectives
    • ENT Expressions
    • Everyday Ethics
    • From TRIO
    • The Great Debate
    • Letter From the Editor
    • Rx: Wellness
    • The Voice
    • Viewpoint
  • TRIO Resources
    • Triological Society
    • The Laryngoscope
    • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
    • TRIO Combined Sections Meetings
    • COSM
    • Related Otolaryngology Events
  • Search

Department of Health and Human Services’ Final Rule Expands HIPAA Obligations, Violation Penalties

by Steven M. Harris, Esq. • May 1, 2013

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Print-Friendly Version

On January 17, 2013, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued an omnibus final rule implementing various provisions of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH Act). The Final Rule revises the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and the interim final Breach Notification Rule. This will affect not only physician practices, but also their business associates who have access to protected health information (PHI) and even business associates’ subcontractors. Now is the time to make sure your agreements with business associates comply with these new rules.

You Might Also Like

  • Omnibus Rule Compliance Deadline Imminent
  • HIPAA Expansion: Ensure your practice meets the law’s new provisions
  • Healthcare Providers Must Comply with HIPAA Privacy Practices
  • Preparing for Increased HIPAA Audits Among Smaller Providers
Explore This Issue
May 2013

Background

On February 17, 2009, President Barack Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 into law, which included the HITECH Act. The HITECH Act expanded the obligations of covered entities and business associates to protect the confidentiality and security of PHI.

Under HIPAA, covered entities may disclose PHI to business associates and permit business associates to create and receive PHI on behalf of the covered entity, subject to the terms of a business associate agreement between the parties. A “covered entity” is defined as a health plan, health care clearinghouse or health care provider (e.g., physician practice or hospital) that transmits health information electronically. In general, the HIPAA regulations have traditionally defined a “business associate” as a person (other than a member of the covered entity’s workforce) or entity who, on behalf of a covered entity, performs a function or activity involving the use or disclosure of PHI, such as the performance of financial, legal, actuarial, accounting, consulting, data aggregation, management, administrative or accreditation services to or for a covered entity.

Prior to the HITECH Act, business associates were contractually obligated under their business associate agreements to maintain the privacy and security of PHI but could not be sanctioned for failing to comply with HIPAA. However, the HITECH Act expanded the obligations and exposure of business associates by:

The HITECH Act strengthens the penalties and enforcement mechanisms under HIPAA.
  1. Applying many of the privacy and security standards to business associates;
  2. Subjecting business associates to the breach notification requirements; and
  3. Imposing civil and criminal penalties on business associates for HIPAA violations.

In addition, the HITECH Act strengthened the penalties and enforcement mechanisms under HIPAA and required periodic audits to ensure that covered entities and business associates are compliant.

Expansion of Breach Notification Requirements

The Final Rule expands the breach notification obligations of covered entities and business associates by revising the definition of “breach” and the risk assessment process for determining whether notification will be required. Under the Final Rule, a use or disclosure of unsecured PHI that is not permitted under the Privacy Rule is presumed to be a breach (and therefore requires notification to the individual, OCR and possibly the media) unless the incident satisfies an exception* or the covered entity or business associate demonstrates a low probability that PHI has been compromised. This risk analysis is based on at least the following four factors:

Pages: 1 2 3 | Single Page

Filed Under: Departments, Legal Matters Tagged With: HIPAA, legalIssue: May 2013

You Might Also Like:

  • Omnibus Rule Compliance Deadline Imminent
  • HIPAA Expansion: Ensure your practice meets the law’s new provisions
  • Healthcare Providers Must Comply with HIPAA Privacy Practices
  • Preparing for Increased HIPAA Audits Among Smaller Providers

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Triological SocietyENTtoday is a publication of The Triological Society.

Polls

Would you choose a concierge physician as your PCP?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
  • Polls Archive

Top Articles for Residents

  • Applications Open for Resident Members of ENTtoday Edit Board
  • How To Provide Helpful Feedback To Residents
  • Call for Resident Bowl Questions
  • New Standardized Otolaryngology Curriculum Launching July 1 Should Be Valuable Resource For Physicians Around The World
  • Do Training Programs Give Otolaryngology Residents the Necessary Tools to Do Productive Research?
  • Popular this Week
  • Most Popular
  • Most Recent
    • A Journey Through Pay Inequity: A Physician’s Firsthand Account

    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment

    • Otolaryngologists Are Still Debating the Effectiveness of Tongue Tie Treatment

    • Is Middle Ear Pressure Affected by Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Use?

    • Rating Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Severity: How Do Two Common Instruments Compare?

    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment

    • Rating Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Severity: How Do Two Common Instruments Compare?

    • Is Middle Ear Pressure Affected by Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Use?

    • Otolaryngologists Are Still Debating the Effectiveness of Tongue Tie Treatment

    • Complications for When Physicians Change a Maiden Name

    • Excitement Around Gene Therapy for Hearing Restoration
    • “Small” Acts of Kindness
    • How To: Endoscopic Total Maxillectomy Without Facial Skin Incision
    • Science Communities Must Speak Out When Policies Threaten Health and Safety
    • Observation Most Cost-Effective in Addressing AECRS in Absence of Bacterial Infection

Follow Us

  • Contact Us
  • About Us
  • Advertise
  • The Triological Society
  • The Laryngoscope
  • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Cookies

Wiley

Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 1559-4939