Lawsuit is a strong reminder that clinical laboratories and pathology groups must take whatever steps necessary to secure their patients’ protected health information
Lehigh Valley Health Network (LVHN), one of the largest primary care groups in Pennsylvania, will pay out $65 million to settle a class-action lawsuit brought by the healthcare network’s own patients (identified only as “Jane Doe” in court documents) following a ransomware attack early last year in which LVHN refused to pay the ransom.
The payout may be the largest settlement for a single cyberattack to date and highlights the need for clinical laboratories and pathology groups to review their cyberattack defenses and incorporate steps to better secure patient protected health information (PHI), with one goal being to minimize the possibility of patients filing a class action lawsuit following a cyberattack.
LVHN blamed ransomware group ALPHV (a.k.a., BlackCat) for the attack, Fierce Healthcare reported. The hackers gained access to gigabytes of personal data belonging to 134,000 patients and staff members.
According to a news release LVHN issued in June, the private information the thieves obtained included, “names, addresses, phone numbers, medical record numbers, treatment and diagnosis information, including Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes, and health insurance information. For some individuals, the information included email addresses, banking information, Social Security numbers, and driver’s license numbers. The information for a limited number of individuals included clinical images of patients during treatment.”
The case is worth attention because it casts light on what the health system administration did/did not do to prevent the data breach that enabled the hackers to post nude photos of cancer patients undergoing treatment and other patient PHI on the Internet.
“When you go to the doctor’s office, that’s one place where you’re anticipating that everyone is working to maintain your privacy, even though you have to open yourself up to be treated,” said Patrick Howard, JD (above), partner at Philadelphia-based Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky P.C., who is representing the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit. “It wasn’t lost on anyone that that was a very significant breach.” Clinical laboratories are particularly vulnerable since as much as 80% of a patient’s health record is lab test results and other data. (Photo copyright: Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky P.C.)
Lawsuit Details
The class action lawsuit was filed in March 2023 by a “Jane Doe” cancer patient whose data was hacked on behalf of herself and other victims of the cyberattack. The court documents recount how the unidentified plaintiff—a woman in her 50s—was “called by the hospital’s vice president of compliance on March 6, with news that that naked images of her were now online, before offering—‘with a chuckle’—two years of credit monitoring services. The Jane Doe plaintiff responded that she had no idea that the hospital had taken photographs of her while unclothed during her treatment for breast cancer, nor that it was storing them on corporate servers.”
“The pictures are really difficult to look at,” said Patrick Howard, JD, partner at Philadelphia-based Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky P.C. (SMB), who is representing the plaintiffs, in a news release. His legal team hired a cybersecurity expert who located the images the hackers had posted on the Dark Web, enabling them to “establish each person’s information that was actually online.”
The plaintiff’s attorney’s argued LVHN failed in its responsibility to protect patient information and were in violation of HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996).
The class action lawsuit also alleges LVHN routinely took photos of naked cancer patients, sometimes without their knowledge. Some of those photos were published by BlackCat on the Dark Web.
“While LVHN is publicly patting itself on the back for standing up to these hackers and refusing to meet their ransom demands, they are consciously and intentionally ignoring the real victims,” the lawsuit states. “Rather than act in their patients’ best interest, LVHN put its own financial considerations first.”
The law firm also stated this settlement is “the largest of its kind, on a per-patient basis, in a healthcare data breach ransomware case,” The Register reported.
Patients affected by the security breach were placed in relief tiers based on the private information that was stolen and leaked. The compensatory breakdown for those patients is:
$50 to patients whose records were hacked.
$1,000 to patients who had their information posted online.
$7,500 to patients whose non-nude photos were posted online.
$70,000 to $80,000 for patients who had their nude photos posted online.
“We struck the right deal,” Howard told WHYY News. “The vast majority of that money is going to mostly women whose images were published online, in topless fashion, with both their face exposed and their name in the files.”
Game Changing Data Breach
LVHN originally announced an attack had been detected in February 2023. On March 4, 2023, the ALPHV hackers demanded a ransom in excess of $5 million from LVHN, threatening to distribute the stolen data unless the ransom was paid. LVHN refused to pay the ransom which led to the cybercriminals uploading the stolen data to the Dark Web.
“Attacks like this are reprehensible and we are dedicating appropriate resources to respond to this incident,” stated Brian Nester, DO, President and CEO, LVHN, in a news release.
“The type of data that was exposed, it’s a game changer,” said Carter Groome, founder and CEO of digital-risk firm First Health Advisory in the SMB news release. “This was so much more of a tangible, direct distress to those people who trusted the organization.”
“Pictures are part of medical care. That’s something that they do to track scarring and all sorts of things. But they are the most delicate and sensitive medical information,” Howard told WHYY News. “I think this case will be talked about in healthcare circles for some time in best practices in storing those types of images.”
Patients had until October 21, 2024, to exclude themselves from or object to the settlement. The deadline to submit a claim form was November 3, 2024, and the final approval hearing was held on November 15, 2024.
LVHN agreed to the terms of the settlement, whilst denying any wrongdoing on its part. Individuals in the settlement class who chose to participate in the lawsuit will be sent payment automatically.
LVHN has established a website for people seeking information about the cyberattack.
As ransomware attacks continue to increase, clinical laboratories and pathology groups should review their cyberattack defenses and determine how to better secure their patients’ protected health information. Taking necessary precautions could minimize the possibility of patient data being compromised and prevent another huge class-action lawsuit.
Thousands of pathologists and medical technologists may have had their private data stolen, though ASCP investigators did not confirm this as having happened
being entered” on the ASCP website, according to a letter sent by McDonald Hopkins PLC to then Attorney General of the New Hampshire Department of Justice (DOJ) Gordon MacDonald.
In “World’s Largest Pathologists Association Discloses Credit Card Incident,” Bleeping Computer, an information security and technology news publication, reported that on March 11 of this year, ASCP employees discovered their system had been hacked. They discerned that between March 3, 2020, and November 6, 2020, the attackers had access to personal information being entered on the ASCP website.
Bleeping Computer noted that “[the ASCP’s] member list includes over 100,000 medical laboratory professionals, clinical and anatomic pathologists, residents, and students.”
In a statement, the ASCP said, “We have recently been informed that our e-commerce website was the target of a cybersecurity attack that, for a limited time period, potentially exposed payment card data as it was entered on our website.”
The information that may have been stolen includes data pertaining to individual credit cards, names, credit or debit card numbers, expiration dates, and security codes (CVV) associated with the cards.
“We engaged external forensic investigators and data privacy professionals and conducted a thorough investigation into the incident,” the ASCP said in the statement.
What Type of Cyberattack?
Evidence collected regarding the ASCP data breach indicates the attack was part of a web-skimming assault. This involves installing malicious software, such as Magecart, onto an e-commerce website. The software acts like a credit card skimmer enabling hackers to steal the payment and personal information of customers who are actively inputting data on the attacked website. The data is then sent to remote servers where it is used for identity theft or sold to others.
ASCP says it does not permanently store any of its customers’ payment card data on its servers, Bleeping Computer reported, which greatly reduces the potential risk of data exposure. In addition, the ASCP has implemented extra security measures to prevent similar incidents from happening in the future.
“We resolved the issue that led to the potential exposure on the website. We implemented additional security safeguards to protect against future intrusions. We continue ongoing intensive monitoring of our website, to ensure that it exceeds industry standards to be secure of any malicious activity,” the ASCP said in a statement, Bleeping Computer reported.
In an interview with TechRepublic, Peter Blum (above), Group Product Manager at Google, discussed steps companies can take to proactively manage the threat of Magecart cyberattacks. “The best defense against Magecart attacks is preventing access,” Blum said. “Online companies need a solution that intercepts all of the API [application programming interface] calls your website makes to the browser and blocks access to sensitive data you have not previously authorized. This prevents any malicious script, or any non-critical third-party script, from gaining access to information your customers enter on your website. This same system should also have a monitoring component to alert companies when a third-party attempts to access sensitive information.” (Photo copyright: LinkedIn.)
Federal Rules and Regulations Concerning HIPAA and PHI
The ASCP stated they have no evidence that any customer data was misused after the incident occurred. As of May 14, the organization has not made an official, public statement regarding the situation on their website, but affected individuals and jurisdictions were sent letters to inform them of the data breach.
With over 130,000 current members, Chicago-based ASCP is the largest professional organization for pathologists and clinical laboratory professionals in the world. The organization did not respond to Dark Daily’s inquiries regarding the data breach.
Notify affected individuals within 60 days of the discovery of the breach. Notification should include a brief description of the breach, the types of information that may have been compromised, steps affected individuals should take to protect themselves from potential harm, and a description of what the organization is doing to investigate the breach, mitigate the harm, and prevent further breaches.
Hacked entity must inform the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) within 60 days of the breach discovery if 500 or more individuals were affected. For breaches affecting less than 500 people, the breached entity may notify the Secretary of such breaches on an annual basis.
For breaches affecting more than 500 individuals, the hacked entity must also provide a notification to prominent media outlets, typically via a press release, that serve the state or jurisdiction.
This breach of credit card information belonging to a sizeable number of pathologists and clinical laboratory professionals using the ASCP website should be a warning to all clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups—along with colleges, societies, and associations—that their websites and digital systems can be attacked at any time. As well, clinical laboratory and pathology professionals should be on the alert and take all necessary precautions to minimize the possibility of data breaches.
Since Alexa is now programed to be compliant with HIPAA privacy rules, it’s likely similar voice assistance technologies will soon become available in US healthcare as well
Shortages of physicians and other types of caregivers—including
histopathologists
and pathology
laboratory workers—in the United Kingdom (UK) has the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) seeking alternate
ways to get patients needed health and medical information. This has prompted a
partnership with Amazon to use the Alexa virtual assistant to
answer patients healthcare inquiries.
Here in the United States, pathologists and clinical
laboratory executives should take the time to understand this development.
The fact that the NHS is willing to use a device like Alexa to help it maintain
access to services expected by patients in the United Kingdom shows how rapidly
the concept of “virtual clinical care” is moving to become mainstream.
If the NHS can make it work in a health system serving 66-million
people, it can be expected that health insurers, hospitals, and physicians in
the United States will follow that example and deploy similar virtual health
services to their patients.
For these reasons, all clinical laboratories and anatomic
pathology groups will want to develop a strategy as to how their
organizations will interact with virtual health services and how their labs
will want to deploy similar virtual patient information services.
Critical Shortages in Healthcare Services
While virtual assistants have
been answering commonly-asked health questions by mining popular responses on
the Internet for some time, this new agreement allows Alexa to provide
government-endorsed medical advice drawn from the NHS website.
By doing this, the NHS hopes to reduce the burden on
healthcare workers by making it easier for UK patients to access health
information and receive answers to commonly-asked health questions directly from
their homes, GeekWire
reported.
“The public needs to be able to get reliable information
about their health easily and in ways they actually use. By working closely
with Amazon and other tech companies, big and small, we can ensure that the
millions of users looking for health information every day can get simple,
validated advice at the touch of a button or voice command,” Matthew Gould, CEO of NHSX, a division of the NHS that focuses
on digital initiatives, told GeekWire.
The
Verge reported that when the British government officially announced
the partnership in a July press
release, the sample questions that Alexa could answer included:
Alexa, how do I treat a migraine?
Alexa, what are the symptoms of the flu?
Alexa, what are the symptoms of chickenpox?
“We want to empower every patient to take better control of
their healthcare and technology like this is a great example of how people can
access reliable, world-leading NHS advice from the comfort of their home,
reducing the pressure on our hardworking GPs (General Practitioners) and
pharmacists,” said Matt
Hancock, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, in the press release.
MD
Connect notes that the NHS provides healthcare services free of charge to
more than 66-million individuals residing in the UK. With 1.2 million
employees, the NHS is the largest employer in Europe, according to The
Economist. That article also stated that the biggest problem facing the
NHS is a staff shortage, citing research conducted by three independent
organizations:
Their findings indicate “that NHS hospitals, mental-health
providers, and community services have 100,000 vacancies, and that there are
another 110,000 gaps in adult social care. If things stay on their current
trajectory, the think-tanks predict that there will be 250,000 NHS vacancies in
a decade,” The Economist reported.
UK’s Matt Hancock, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (above), defends the NHS’ partnership with Amazon Alexa, saying millions already use the smart speaker for medical advice and it’s important the health service uses the “best of modern technology.” Click here to watch the video. (Video and caption copyright: Sky News.)
“This idea is certainly interesting and it has the potential
to help some patients work out what kind of care they need before considering
whether to seek face-to-face medical help, especially for minor ailments that
rarely need a GP appointment, such as coughs and colds that can be safely
treated at home,” Professor
Helen Stokes-Lampard, Chairman at the Royal
College of General Practitioners, and Chair of the Board Of
Directors/Trustees at National
Academy of Social Prescribing, told Sky News.
“However,” she continued, “it is vital that independent
research is done to ensure that the advice given is safe, otherwise it could
prevent people seeking proper medical help and create even more pressure on our
overstretched GP service.”
Amazon has assured consumers that all data obtained by Alexa
through the NHS partnership will be encrypted to ensure privacy and security,
MD Connect notes. Amazon also promised that the personal information will not
be shared or sold to third parties.
Alexa Now HIPAA Compliant in the US
This new agreement with the UK follows the announcement in April
of a new Alexa
Skills Kit that “enables select Covered Entities and their Business
Associates, subject to the US Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), to build
Alexa skills that transmit and receive protected
health information (PHI) as part of an invite-only program. Six new Alexa
healthcare skills from industry-leading healthcare providers, payors, pharmacy
benefit managers, and digital health coaching companies are now operating in
our HIPAA-eligible environment.”
Developers of voice assistance technologies can freely use
these Alexa skills, which are “designed to help customers manage a variety of
healthcare needs at home simply using voice—whether it’s booking a medical
appointment, accessing hospital post-discharge instructions, checking on the
status of a prescription delivery, and more,” an Amazon
Developer Alexa blog states.
The blog lists the HIPAA-compliant Alexa skills as:
Express
Scripts: Members can check the status of a home delivery prescription and can
request Alexa notifications when their prescription orders are shipped.
Cigna
Health Today by Cigna (NYSE:CI): Eligible employees with one of Cigna’s
large national accounts can now manage their health improvement goals and
increase opportunities for earning personalized wellness incentives.
Swedish
Health Connect by Providence St.
Joseph Health, a healthcare system with 51 hospitals across seven states
and 829 clinics: Customers can find an urgent care center near them and
schedule a same-day appointment.
Atrium
Health, a healthcare system with more than 40 hospitals and 900 care
locations throughout North and South Carolina and Georgia: Customers in North
and South Carolina can find an urgent care location near them and schedule a
same-day appointment.
Livongo,
a digital health company that creates new and different experiences for people
with chronic conditions: Members can query their last blood sugar reading,
blood sugar measurement trends, and receive insights and Health Nudges that are
personalized to them.
HIPAA Journal notes: “This is not the first time that Alexa skills have been developed, but a stumbling block has been the requirements of HIPAA Privacy Rules, which limit the use of voice technology with protected health information. Now, thanks to HIPAA compliant data transfers, the voice assistant can be used by a select group of healthcare organizations to communicate PHI without violating the HIPAA Privacy Rule.”
Steady increases associated with the costs of medical care
combined with a shortage of healthcare professionals on both continents are
driving trends that motivate government health programs and providers to
experiment with non-traditional ways to interact with patients.
New digital and Artificial
Intelligence (AI) tools like Alexa may continue to emerge as methods for
providing care—including clinical laboratory and pathology advice—to healthcare
consumers.
Clinical laboratories need to understand how their patients’ protected health information is being used and secured by vendors to avert data breaches and HHS penalties
Most readers of The Dark Report, the sister publication to the Dark Daily, are aware that more than 24-million clinical laboratory patients had their protected health information (PHI) stolen during several recent data breaches involving multiple medical laboratory companies.
The first public statements made by clinical lab companies
about breaches of protected health information were issued in June.
Collectively, the following three lab companies announced that the data of more
than 20 million patients was compromised:
What all these clinical lab companies had in common was that they had contracted with American Medical Collection Agency (AMCA) to process lab test claims. AMCA is where the data breaches originated.
Under the rules established by the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996, responsibility for the security of patient PHI falls to covered entities and business associates. This includes healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses, such as AMCA. For clinical laboratories, this also includes vendors who receive patients’ PHI to complete their service contracts.
Until recently, any violation of HIPAA could draw down enormous fines—called Civil Money Penalties (CMPs)—by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Fines could reach $1.5 million annually across four categories, or tiers, of violations, depending on HHS’ determination as to the “level of culpability” of the violator. Those categories and min/max fines include:
No Knowledge, $100-$50,000 fine, $1.5 mil annual
limit.
Reasonable Cause, $1,000-$50,000 fine, $1.5 mil
annual limit.
In the notice, HHS stated, “the Department recognized that
section 13410(d) contained apparently inconsistent language (i.e., its
reference to two penalty tiers ‘for each violation,’ each of which provided a
penalty amount ‘for all such violations’ of an identical requirement or
prohibition in a calendar year). To resolve this inconsistency, with the
exception of violations due to willful neglect that are not timely corrected,
the [interim final rule] adopted a range of penalty amounts between the minimum
given in one tier and the maximum given in the second tier for each violation
and adopted the amount of $1.5 million as the limit for all violations of an
identical provision of the HIPAA rules in a calendar year.”
Modern Healthcare reports that “organizations that have taken measures to meet HIPAA’s requirements will face a much smaller maximum penalty than those who are found neglectful.”
Thus, the new HHS guidelines will be of interest to clinical
laboratories, which must ensure the privacy of patients’ PHI, including being
keenly aware of how vendor business associates are handling their patients’
data.
In an exclusive interview with The Dark Report, James Giszczak (above), Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Attorney and Chair of the Litigation Department at McDonald Hopkins, said two important steps clinical laboratories must take include, “ensuring that your vendor has appropriate insurance policies in place that cover PHI breaches, and confirming that vendors comply with laws governing the protection of patients’ information.” To do that, he says, every lab needs to ensure that all critical provisions are covered in each contract it has with each vendor. (Photo copyright: Institute of Continuing Legal Education.)
Did HHS Go Too Far?
Some experts, however, wonder if HHS went too far in
reducing annual penalties providers may owe. Could lower annual CMP caps cause
organizations to relax strict PHI policies? Some privacy authorities urge
caution and raise concern about how incentives may be perceived by providers
and others.
“HHS is adopting a much lower annual cap for all violations except those due to willful neglect, which means significantly lower penalties for large breaches and for ongoing persistent violations of the rules,” Deven McGraw, Chief Regulatory Officer at Citizen Corporation and former Deputy Director Health Information Privacy for HHS’ Office for Civil Rights, told FierceHealthcare.
“Arguably,” she continued, “the incentive to fix these
persistent failures is much less because the potential fines for failing to do
so will not be very large. Same is true for large breaches—if you breach 10
records, at a minimum penalty of $1,000 for a breach due to reasonable cause,
your fine would be $100,000, which is the annual cap.”
New Annual Limits Recognize ‘Unintentional’ Violations
But not all experts agree. Prior to HHS’ announcement,
minimum to maximum penalty violations were the same as noted in the tiers
above. The annual limits ($1.5 million), however, were the same for each of the
four tiers.
Matthew Fisher, Partner at Mirick O’Connell and Chair of the Worcester, Mass. firm’s health law group, says the new penalty structure “is arguably good in terms of aligning potential penalties with the level of culpability.”
“If a violation was clearly unintentional and without
knowledge, why should a potentially massive fine follow? While the discretion
existed, the interpretation will now be binding and remove the potential
uncertainty,” he told FierceHealthcare.
Advice for Clinical Laboratories
Labs are advised to develop appropriate procedures to
safeguard their patients’ PHI under federal and state laws. And this includes
knowing how vendors handle PHI.
“Every lab should be proactive and do a review to understand
each vendor’s policies, procedures, training, and response in the event of a
breach,” James
Giszczak, Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Attorney and Chair of the
Litigation Department at McDonald
Hopkins in Bloomfield Hills, Mich., told The
Dark Report (TDR).
“By being prepared, clinical laboratories can save
themselves many headaches,” he said. “Ultimately, these proactive steps may
help laboratories save time, money, and costly bad publicity.”
Following that advice, along with understanding the new HHS notice,
will help medical laboratory managers ensure the privacy and security of their
client’s PHI.
This is important for clinical laboratory leaders to watch, because medical labs often interface with hospital EHRs to exchange vital patient data, a key component of complying with Medicare’s EHR incentive programs. If claims of interoperability are shown to be false, could labs engaged with those hospital systems under scrutiny be drawn into the DOJ’s investigations?
Violating the False Claims Act
In May, Coffey Health System (CHS), which includes Coffey County Hospital, a 25-bed critical access hospital located in Burlington, Kan., agreed to pay the US government a total of $250,000 to settle a claim that it violated the False Claims Act.
CHS’ former CIO filed the qui tam (aka, whistleblower) lawsuit, which allows individuals to sue on behalf of the government and share in monetary recovery. He alleged that CHS provided false information to the government about being in compliance with security standards to receive incentive payments under the EHR Incentive Program.
According to a DOJ press release, “the United States alleged that Coffey Health System falsely attested that it conducted and/or reviewed security risk analyses in accordance with requirements under a federal incentive program for the reporting periods of 2012 and 2013. The government contended that the hospital submitted false claims to the Medicare and Medicaid Programs pursuant the Electronic Health Records (EHR) Incentive Program.”
“Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries expect that providers ensure the accuracy and security of their electronic health records,” said Stephen McAllister (above), United States Attorney for the District of Kansas, in the DOJ press release. “This office remains committed to protecting the federal health programs and to hold accountable those whose conduct results in improper payments.” (Photo copyright: US Department of Justice.)
The Recovery Act allocated $25 billion to incentivize healthcare professionals and facilities to adopt and demonstrate meaningful use (MU) of electronic health records by January 1, 2014. The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released the incentive funds when providers attested to accomplishing specific goals set by the program.
The website of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC), HealthIt.gov, defines “meaningful use” as the use of digital medical and health records to:
Improve quality, safety, efficiency, and reduce
health disparities;
Engage patients and their families;
Improve care coordination and population and
public health; and
Maintain privacy and security of patient health
information.
The purpose of the HITECH Act was to address privacy and security concerns linked to electronic storage and transference of protected health information (PHI). HITECH encourages healthcare organizations to update their health records and record systems, and it offers financial incentives to institutions that are in compliance with the requirements of the program.
When eligible professionals or eligible hospitals attest to being in compliance with Medicare’s EHR incentive program requirements, they can file claims for federal funds, which are paid and audited by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) through Medicare and Medicaid.
Institutions receiving funds must demonstrate meaningful use
of EHR records or risk potential penalties, including the delay or cancellation
of future payments and full reimbursement of payments already received. In
addition, false statements submitted in filed documents are subject to criminal
laws and civil penalties at both the state and federal levels.
EHR Developers Under Scrutiny by DOJ
EHR vendors also have been investigated and ordered to make
restitutions by the DOJ.
In February, Greenway Health, a Tampa-based EHR developer, agree to pay $57.25 million to resolve allegations related to the False Claims Act. In this case, the government contended that Greenway obtained certification for its “Prime Suite” EHR even though the technology did not meet the requirements for meaningful use.
And EHR vendor eClinicalWorks paid the government $155 million to settle allegations under the False Claims Act. The government maintained that eClinicalWorks misrepresented the capabilities of their software and provided $392,000 in kickbacks to customers who promoted its product.
Legal cases such as these demonstrate that the DOJ will
pursue both vendors and healthcare organizations that misrepresent their
products or falsely attest to interoperability under the terms laid out by
Medicare’s EHR Incentive Program.
Clinical laboratory leaders and pathology groups should carefully
study these cases. This knowledge may be helpful when they are asked to create
and maintain interfaces to exchange patient data with client EHRs.
