On April 6, 2022, the Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) at the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) published a request for information (“RFI”) seeking public comment on implementing certain provisions of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (“HITECH”) Act, indicating that a rulemaking or further guidance related to the HITECH Act may be forthcoming.  Specifically, the RFI seeks input as to how covered entities and business associates are voluntarily implementing recognized security practices.  OCR will consider the implementation of such practices when making certain determinations relating to the resolution of potential violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) Security Rule.  The RFI also seeks input on the process for distributing to harmed individuals a percentage of civil monetary penalties (“CMPs”) or monetary settlements collected pursuant to the HITECH Act.  Although HIPAA does not provide a private right of action, the potential for sharing in monetary penalties or settlements could incentivize individuals to report potential HIPAA violations to OCR.

Recognized Security Practices

In 2021, the HITECH Act was amended to require HHS to consider “whether the covered entity or business associate has adequately demonstrated that it had, for not less than the previous 12 months, recognized security practices in place” when resolving potential violations of HIPAA, incentivizing entities subject to HIPAA to improve their cybersecurity programs.

The HITECH Act definition of “recognized security practices” refers to, among other things, the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (“NIST”) and the Cybersecurity Act of 2015.  The HITECH Act does not require entities subject to HIPAA to implement recognized security practices; nor does the HITECH Act provide criteria to select the recognized security practices, except that these practices must be consistent with the requirements in the HIPAA Security Rule.

The RFI provides some clarity as to how OCR is interpreting the requirements of the HITECH Act amendment.  For example, OCR has taken the position that to “adequately demonstrate[] that . . . recognized security practices [are] in place,” an entity “must also demonstrate that the practices are fully implemented, meaning that the practices are actively and consistently in use . . . over the relevant period of time” of not less than the previous 12 months.

The RFI seeks comment on several questions related to how entities subject to HIPAA understand and are implementing recognized security practices, including:

  • What recognized security practices have regulated entities implemented or do they plan to implement?
  • What steps do regulated entities take to ensure that recognized security practices are actively and consistently in use over a 12-month period?
  • What additional issues or information should OCR consider in developing guidance or proposed regulation regarding the consideration of recognized security practices?

Methodology for Distribution of CMPs or Monetary Settlements

The HITECH Act requires the Secretary of HHS to establish a methodology for the distribution of a percentage of a CMP or monetary settlement amount collected for noncompliance with the HIPAA Rules to an individual harmed by the noncompliance.  While OCR must base determinations of appropriate penalty amounts on the nature and extent of the harm, the statute does not define “harm,” specify an amount to be set aside or distributed to individuals, or establish a methodology for establishing an amount.  The HIPAA Rules identify certain “aggravating factors,” including physical harm, financial harm, reputational harm, and harm to the ability to obtain health care, that OCR may consider when determining the amount of a CMP or proposed settlement amount.  However, the HIPAA Rules do not define these harms; nor do the Rules specify whether these harms make an individual eligible for distributions.

OCR seeks comment on several questions related to defining, quantifying, and compensating harm, including:

  • What constitutes compensable harm with respect to violations of the HIPAA Rules?
  • Should only certain types of harm (e.g., economic) determine eligibility to receive a portion of a CMP or monetary settlement?
  • Should there be a total minimum CMP or settlement amount before HHS sets aside funds for distribution?

According to the RFI, OCR will consider three potential models to develop its methodology for individual distribution:

  • Individualized determination, which is based on the private civil action model and places the burden of proof on the plaintiff to establish the harm suffered by the plaintiff and liability incurred by the defendant;
  • Fixed recovery, in which awards are generally either fixed or calculated by a formula established by law; and
  • Hybrid, which combines elements of both individualized determination and the fixed recovery models.

These recommended models do not address how to identify or define harm; instead, they offer distinct formulations for HHS to consider in developing its own methodology.

OCR seeks comments on several questions related to the potential distribution models, including:

  • What goals should OCR prioritize when selecting a distribution model?
  • Should there be a cap on the total percentage amount that any individual can collect to ensure that all harmed individuals receive a distribution or for any other reason?
  • Are there other distribution models to consider?

OCR will accept comments on these proposals until June 6, 2022.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Anna D. Kraus Anna D. Kraus

Anna Durand Kraus advises on issues relating to the complex array of laws governing the health care industry. Her background as Deputy General Counsel to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) gives her broad experience with, and valuable insight into…

Anna Durand Kraus advises on issues relating to the complex array of laws governing the health care industry. Her background as Deputy General Counsel to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) gives her broad experience with, and valuable insight into, the programs and issues within the purview of HHS, including Medicare, Medicaid, fraud and abuse, and HIPAA privacy and security. Anna is co-chair of the firm’s Health Care Industry practice group.

Anna regularly advises clients on Medicare reimbursement matters, particularly those arising under Part B and the Part D prescription drug benefit. She also has extensive experience with the Medicaid Drug Rebate program. She assists numerous pharmaceutical and device manufacturers, health care providers, pharmacy benefit managers, and other health care industry stakeholders to navigate the challenges and opportunities presented by the Affordable Care Act.

Anna is a trusted adviser on health information privacy, security and breach notification issues, including those arising under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) and the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (“HITECH”) Act. Her background in this area dates back to the issuance of the original HIPAA privacy regulations.

Anna’s clients depend on her to guide them through compliance with the Anti-Kickback statute, the Stark regulations, and other laws preventing fraud and abuse in the health care industry. Her deep knowledge of these laws has made her an important component of the firm’s representation of pharmaceutical companies and health care organizations under federal investigation or facing allegations under the False Claims Act. In addition, clients contemplating acquisitions in the health care sector rely on her to guide due diligence efforts.

Photo of Libbie Canter Libbie Canter

Libbie Canter represents a wide variety of multinational companies on managing privacy, cyber security, and artificial intelligence risks, including helping clients with their most complex privacy challenges and the development of governance frameworks and processes to comply with U.S. and global privacy laws.

Libbie Canter represents a wide variety of multinational companies on managing privacy, cyber security, and artificial intelligence risks, including helping clients with their most complex privacy challenges and the development of governance frameworks and processes to comply with U.S. and global privacy laws. She routinely supports clients on their efforts to launch new products and services involving emerging technologies, and she has assisted dozens of clients with their efforts to prepare for and comply with federal and state laws, including the California Consumer Privacy Act, the Colorado AI Act, and other state laws. As part of her practice, she also regularly represents clients in strategic transactions involving personal data, cybersecurity, and artificial intelligence risk and represents clients in enforcement and litigation postures.

Libbie represents clients across industries, but she also has deep expertise in advising clients in highly-regulated sectors, including financial services and digital health companies. She counsels these companies — and their technology and advertising partners — on how to address legacy regulatory issues and the cutting edge issues that have emerged with industry innovations and data collaborations.

Chambers USA 2026 ranks Libbie in Band 2 Nationwide for both Privacy & Data Security: Privacy and Privacy & Data Security: Healthcare.Chambers USA notes, Libbie is “incredibly sharp and really thorough. She can do the nitty-gritty, in-the-weeds legal work incredibly well but she also can think of a bigger-picture business context and help to think through practical solutions.”

Photo of Elizabeth Brim Elizabeth Brim

Elizabeth Brim provides strategic advice to clients across the health care, life sciences, digital health, and technology sectors, helping them navigate complex privacy, regulatory, and compliance issues involving health and other personal information.

Elizabeth advises clients on compliance with evolving privacy, data governance…

Elizabeth Brim provides strategic advice to clients across the health care, life sciences, digital health, and technology sectors, helping them navigate complex privacy, regulatory, and compliance issues involving health and other personal information.

Elizabeth advises clients on compliance with evolving privacy, data governance, and regulatory frameworks governing the collection, use, disclosure, and protection of health, genetic, consumer health, and other sensitive data. Her work includes counseling on HIPAA, state privacy laws, information blocking requirements, TEFCA, and other federal and state laws affecting health information, digital health technologies, and privacy compliance more broadly.

Elizabeth’s experience spans a broad range of privacy, data governance, cybersecurity, and regulatory issues arising in connection with innovative products and services, artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies, clinical trials and research initiatives, strategic transactions, and commercial arrangements. She regularly advises clients on complex issues involving data governance, privacy compliance, and the protection and exchange of health and other sensitive information.

Elizabeth also advises clients on related health care regulatory and compliance matters, including fraud and abuse, corporate practice of medicine, and other requirements affecting innovative care delivery models.

Elizabeth maintains an active pro bono practice, which includes assisting nonprofit entities with data privacy compliance and vendor contracting.

Elizabeth is an author of the American Health Law Association treatise, Pricing, Market Access, and Reimbursement Principles: Drugs, Biologicals and Medical Devices and the U.S. chapter of the Global Legal Insights treatise, Pricing & Reimbursement Laws and Regulations.