What if a HIPAA covered entity (or business associate) uses a CSP to maintain ePHI without first executing a business associate agreement with that CSP?

What if a HIPAA covered entity (or business associate) uses a CSP to maintain ePHI without first executing a business associate agreement with that CSP?

Issued by: Office for Civil Rights (OCR)

What if a HIPAA covered entity (or business associate) uses a CSP to maintain ePHI without first executing a business associate agreement with that CSP?

Answer:

If a covered entity (or business associate) uses a CSP to maintain (e.g., to process or store) electronic protected health information (ePHI) without entering into a BAA with the CSP, the covered entity (or business associate) is in violation of the HIPAA Rules. 45 C.F.R งง164.308(b)(1) and ง164.502(e). OCR has entered into a resolution agreement and corrective action plan with a covered entity that OCR determined stored ePHI of over 3,000 individuals on a cloud-based server without entering into a BAA with the CSP.[1]

Further, a CSP that meets the definition of a business associate – that is a CSP that creates, receives, maintains, or transmits PHI on behalf of a covered entity or another business associate – must comply with all applicable provisions of the HIPAA Rules, regardless of whether it has executed a BAA with the entity using its services. See 78 Fed. Reg. 5565, 5598 (January 25, 2013). OCR recognizes that there may, however, be circumstances where a CSP may not have actual or constructive knowledge that a covered entity or another business associate is using its services to create, receive, maintain, or transmit ePHI. The HIPAA Rules provide an affirmative defense in cases where a CSP takes action to correct any non-compliance within 30 days (or such additional period as OCR may determine appropriate based on the nature and extent of the non-compliance) of the time that it knew or should have known of the violation (e.g., at the point the CSP knows or should have known that a covered entity or business associate customer is maintaining ePHI in its cloud). 45 CFR 160.410. This affirmative defense does not, however, apply in cases where the CSP was not aware of the violation due to its own willful neglect.

If a CSP becomes aware that it is maintaining ePHI, it must come into compliance with the HIPAA Rules, or securely return the ePHI to the customer or, if agreed to by the customer, securely destroy the ePHI. Once the CSP securely returns or destroys the ePHI (subject to arrangement with the customer), it is no longer a business associate. We recommend CSPs document these actions.

While a CSP maintains ePHI, the HIPAA Rules prohibit the CSP from using or disclosing the data in a manner that is inconsistent with the Rules.

Large Medicaid Plan Corrects Vulnerability that Resulted in Disclosure to Non-BA Vendors Covered Entity: Health Plans Issue: Impermissible Uses and Disclosures; Safeguards A municipal social service agency disclosed protected health information while processing Medicaid applications by sending consolidated data to computer vendors that were not business associates. Among other corrective actions to resolve the specific issues in the case, OCR required that the social service agency develop procedures for properly disclosing protected health information only to its valid business associates and to train its staff on the new processes. The new procedures were instituted in Medicaid offices and independent ...read more

SCOPE OF CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT UNDER 42 U.S.C. ง 1320d-6 Covered entities and those persons rendered accountable by general principles of corporate criminal liability may be prosecuted directly under 42 U.S.C. ง 1320d-6, and the knowingly element of the offense set forth in that provision requires only proof of knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense. MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AND THE SENIOR COUNSEL TO THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL You have asked jointly for our opinion concerning the scope of 42 U.S.C. ง 1320d-6 (2000), the criminal enforcement provision of the ...read more

Private Practice Ceases Conditioning of Compliance with the Privacy Rule Covered Entity: Private Practice Issue: Conditioning Compliance with the Privacy Rule A physician practice requested that patients sign an agreement entitled “Consent and Mutual Agreement to Maintain Privacy.” The agreement prohibited the patient from directly or indirectly publishing or airing commentary about the physician, his expertise, and/or treatment in exchange for the physician’s compliance with the Privacy Rule. A patient’s rights under the Privacy Rule are not contingent on the patient’s agreement with a covered entity. A covered entity’s obligation to comply with all requirements of the Privacy Rule ...read more

Private Practice Revises Process to Provide Access to Records Covered Entity: Private Practices Issue: Access A private practice failed to honor an individual's request for a complete copy of her minor son's medical record. OCR's investigation determined that the private practice had relied on state regulations that permit a covered entity to provide a summary of the record. OCR provided technical assistance to the covered entity, explaining that the Privacy Rule permits a covered entity to provide a summary of patient records rather than the full record only if the requesting individual agrees in advance to such a summary ...read more

October 2026
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Blog Home

Newest Blog Entries
1/21/25 Understanding Business Associate Agreements

11/12/22 Modernizing Medicine Agrees to Pay $45 Million to Resolve Allegations of Accepting and Paying Illegal Kickbacks and Causing False Claims

11/12/22 Indian National Charged in $8 Million COVID-19 Relief Fraud Scheme

11/12/22 Former Hospital Employee Pleads Guilty To Criminal HIPPA Charges

11/12/22 Covered entities and those persons rendered accountable by general principles of corporate criminal liability may be prosecuted directly under 42 U.S.C. ง 1320d-6

11/12/22 The Delaware Division of Developmental Disabilities Services Data Breach

11/12/22 OCR Settles Three Cases with Dental Practices for Patient Right of Access under HIPAA

11/12/22 HHS Issues Guidance on HIPAA and Audio-Only Telehealth

11/12/22 Five Former Methodist Hospital Employees Charged with HIPAA Violations

11/12/22 May a covered entity use or disclose protected health information for litigation?

11/12/22 When does the Privacy Rule allow covered entities to disclose protected health information to law enforcement officials?

Blog Archives
November 2022 (54)
January 2025 (1)

Blog Labels
ePHI (2)
EHR Fraud (1)
HIPAA (2)
Telehealth (1)
Data Breach (1)
Covered Entity (40)
BAA (4)
HIPAA Enforcement (3)
PPP Fraud (1)