In this week’s installment of our blog series on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) HIPAA Security Rule updates in its January 6 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), we are exploring the proposed updates to the HIPAA Security Rule’s administrative safeguards requirement (45 C.F.R. § 164.308). Last week’s post on the updated technical safeguards is available here.

Background

Currently, HIPAA regulated entities must generally implement nine standards for administrative safeguards protecting electronic protected health information (ePHI):

  1. Security Management Process
  2. Assigned Security Responsibility
  3. Workforce Security
  4. Information Access Management
  5. Security Awareness and Training
  6. Security Incident Procedures
  7. Contingency Plan
  8. Evaluation
  9. Business Associate Contracts and Other Arrangements

Entities are already familiar with these requirements and their implementation specifications. The existing requirements either do not identify the specific control methods or technologies to implement or are otherwise “addressable” as opposed to “required” in some circumstances for regulated entities. As noted throughout this series, HHS has proposed removing the distinction between “required” and “addressable” implementation specifications, providing for specific guidelines for implementation with limited exceptions for certain safeguards, as well as introducing new safeguards.

New Administrative Safeguard Requirements

The NPRM proposes updates to the following administrative safeguards: risk analyses, workforce security, and information access management. HHS also introduced a new administrative safeguard, technology inventory management and mapping. These updated or new administrative requirements are summarized here:

  • Asset Inventory Management –  The HIPAA Security Rule does not explicitly mandate a formal asset inventory, but HHS informal guidance and audits suggest that inventorying assets that create, receive, maintain, or transmit ePHI is a critical step in evaluating security risks. The NPRM proposes a new administrative safeguard provision requiring regulated entities to conduct and maintain written inventories of any technological assets (e.g., hardware, software, electronic media, data, etc.) capable of creating, receiving, maintaining, or transmitting ePHI, and to illustrate a network map showing the movement of ePHI throughout the organization. HHS would require these inventories and maps to be periodically reviewed and updated at least once every 12 months andwhen certain events prompt changes in how regulated entities protect ePHI, such as new, or updates to, technological assets; new threats to ePHI; transactions that impact all or part of regulated entities; security incidents; or changes in laws.
  • Risk Analysis – While conducting a risk analysis has always been a required administrative safeguard, the NPRM proposes more-detailed content specifications around items that need to be addressed in the written risk assessment, including reviewing the technology asset inventory; identifying reasonably anticipated threats and vulnerabilities; documenting security measures, policies and procedures for documenting risks and vulnerabilities to ePHI systems; and making documented “reasonable determinations” of the likelihood and potential impact of each threat and vulnerability identified.
  • Workforce Security and Information Access Management – The NPRM proposes that, with respect to its ePHI or relevant electronic information systems, regulated entities would need to establish and implement written procedures that (1) determine whether access is appropriate based on a workforce member’s role; (2) authorize access consistent with the Minimum Necessary Rule; and (3) grant and revise access consistent with role-based access policies. Under the NPRM, these administrative safeguard specifications would no longer be “addressable,” as previously classified, meaning these policies and procedures would now be mandatory for regulated entities. In addition, the NPRM develops specific standards for the content and timing for training workforce members of Security Rule compliance beyond the previous general requirements.

Next Time

Up next in our weekly NPRM series, we will dive into the HIPAA Security Rule’s updates to the Vulnerability Management, Incident Response, and Contingency Plans

Please visit the HIPAA Security Rule NPRM and the HHS Fact Sheet for additional resources.

Photo of Eric Setterlund Eric Setterlund

Eric Setterlund serves as partner in Bradley’s Healthcare practice group and co-chair of the Cybersecurity and Privacy practice group. He has extensive experience with matters related to healthcare privacy, security protections and regulatory compliance. Prior to joining the firm, Eric served as chief…

Eric Setterlund serves as partner in Bradley’s Healthcare practice group and co-chair of the Cybersecurity and Privacy practice group. He has extensive experience with matters related to healthcare privacy, security protections and regulatory compliance. Prior to joining the firm, Eric served as chief privacy officer and privacy and data counsel for BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee. He draws upon his real-world business and program management experience to provide his clients practical advice for complex regulatory and transactional matters.

Photo of Adriante Carter Adriante Carter

Adriante Carter is an associate in the firm’s Healthcare Practice Group.

Samuel Adams

Samuel Adams is an attorney in the firm’s Banking & Financial Services Practice Group.

Prior to joining Bradley, Samuel served as policy counsel for the Future of Privacy Forum in Washington, D.C., where he was focused on advertising technologies and platforms, as well…

Samuel Adams is an attorney in the firm’s Banking & Financial Services Practice Group.

Prior to joining Bradley, Samuel served as policy counsel for the Future of Privacy Forum in Washington, D.C., where he was focused on advertising technologies and platforms, as well as U.S. policy and law. He advised a group of senior leaders from Fortune 500 companies, law firms, and other organizations to address the most pressing issues in technology and the shifting legal landscapes affecting privacy in digital advertising.