OCR Enforcement Results
Enforcement Results as of September 30, 2022 Since the compliance date of the Privacy Rule in April 2003, OCR has received over 309,475 HIPAA complaints and has initiated over 1,053 compliance reviews. We have resolved ninety-seven percent of these cases (300,427). OCR has investigated and resolved over 29,779 cases by requiring changes in privacy practices and corrective actions by, or providing technical assistance to, HIPAA covered entities and their business associates. Corrective actions obtained by OCR from these entities have resulted in change that is systemic and that affects all the individuals they serve. OCR has successfully enforced the HIPAA Rules by applying corrective measures in all cases where an investigation indicates noncompliance by the covered entity or their business associate. To date, OCR settled or imposed a civil money penalty in 126 cases resulting in a total dollar amount of $133,519,272.00. OCR has investigated complaints against many different types of entities including: national pharmacy chains, major medical centers, group health plans, hospital chains, and small provider offices. In another 14,117 cases, our investigations found no violation had occurred. Additionally, in 52,133 cases, OCR intervened early and provided technical assistance to HIPAA covered entities, their business associates, and individuals exercising their rights under the Privacy Rule, without the need for an investigation. In the rest of our completed cases (204,398), OCR determined that the complaint did not present an eligible case for enforcement. These include cases in which: - OCR lacks jurisdiction under HIPAA. For example, in cases alleging a violation by an entity not covered by HIPAA;
- The complaint is untimely, or withdrawn by the filer; and
- The activity described does not violate the HIPAA Rules. For example, in cases where the covered entity has disclosed protected health information in circumstances in which the Privacy Rule permits such a disclosure.
From the compliance date to the present, the compliance issues most often alleged in complaints are, compiled cumulatively, in order of frequency: - Impermissible uses and disclosures of protected health information;
- Lack of safeguards of protected health information;
- Lack of patient access to their protected health information;
- Lack of administrative safeguards of electronic protected health information; and
- Use or disclosure of more than the minimum necessary protected health information.
The most common types of covered entities that have been alleged to have committed violations are, in order of frequency: - General Hospitals;
- Private Practices and Physicians;
- Pharmacies;
- Outpatient Facilities; and
- Community Health Centers.
Referrals OCR refers to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for criminal investigation appropriate cases involving the knowing disclosure or obtaining of protected health information in violation of the Rules. As of the date of this summary, OCR made 1,552 such referrals to DOJ.
| A Covered Entity is: A health plan. An individual or group plan that provides, or pays the cost of, medical care. Health plans include private entities (e.g., health insurers and managed care organizations) and government organizations (e.g., Medicaid, Medicare, and the Veterans Health Administration) A health care provider. A provider of health care services and any other person or organization that furnishes, bills, or is paid for health care in the normal course of business. Health care providers (e.g., physicians, hospitals, and clinics) are covered entities if they transmit health information in electronic form in connection with a transaction ...read more |
| National Pharmacy Chain Extends Protections for PHI on Insurance Cards Covered Entity: Pharmacies Issue: Impermissible Uses and Disclosures; Safeguards A pharmacy employee placed a customer's insurance card in another customer's prescription bag. The pharmacy did not consider the customer's insurance card to be protected health information (PHI). OCR clarified that an individual's health insurance card meets the statutory definition of PHI and, as such, needs to be safeguarded. Among other corrective actions to resolve the specific issues in the case, the pharmacy revised its policies regarding PHI and retrained its staff. The revised policies are applicable to all individual ...read more |
| Outpatient Surgical Facility Corrects Privacy Procedure in Research Recruitment Covered Entity: Outpatient Facility Issue: Impermissible Uses and Disclosures An outpatient surgical facility disclosed a patient's protected health information (PHI) to a research entity for recruitment purposes without the patient's authorization or an Institutional Review Board (IRB) or privacy-board-approved waiver of authorization. The outpatient facility reportedly believed that such disclosures were permitted by the Privacy Rule. OCR provided technical assistance to the covered entity regarding the requirement that covered entities seeking to disclose PHI for research recruitment purposes must obtain either a valid patient authorization or an Institutional Review Board ...read more |
| Clinic Sanctions Supervisor for Accessing Employee Medical Record Covered Entity: Outpatient Facility Issue: Impermissible Use and Disclosure A hospital employee's supervisor accessed, examined, and disclosed an employee's medical record. OCR's investigation confirmed that the use and disclosure of protected health information by the supervisor was not authorized by the employee and was not otherwise permitted by the Privacy Rule. An employee's medical record is protected by the Privacy Rule, even though employment records held by a covered entity in its role as employer are not. Among other corrective actions to resolve the specific issues in the case, a letter ...read more |
|
April 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 |
|
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. § 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
PPP Fraud (1)
ePHI (2)
Covered Entity (40)
Data Breach (1)
HIPAA (2)
HIPAA Enforcement (3)
BAA (4)
Telehealth (1)
EHR Fraud (1)
|
