Direct Liability of Business Associates
Direct Liability of Business Associates In 2009, Congress enacted the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, making business associates of covered entities directly liable for compliance with certain requirements of the HIPAA Rules. Consistent with the HITECH Act, the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued a final rule in 2013 to modify the HIPAA Privacy, Security, Breach Notification, and Enforcement Rules. Among other things, the final rule identifies provisions of the HIPAA Rules that apply directly to business associates and for which business associates are directly liable. As set forth in the HITECH Act and OCR’s 2013 final rule, OCR has authority to take enforcement action against business associates only for those requirements and prohibitions of the HIPAA Rules as set forth below. Business associates are directly liable for HIPAA violations as follows: - Failure to provide the Secretary with records and compliance reports; cooperate with complaint investigations and compliance reviews; and permit access by the Secretary to information, including protected health information (PHI), pertinent to determining compliance.
- Taking any retaliatory action against any individual or other person for filing a HIPAA complaint, participating in an investigation or other enforcement process, or opposing an act or practice that is unlawful under the HIPAA Rules.
- Failure to comply with the requirements of the Security Rule.
- Failure to provide breach notification to a covered entity or another business associate.
- Impermissible uses and disclosures of PHI.
- Failure to disclose a copy of electronic PHI (ePHI) to either (a) the covered entity or (b) the individual or the individual’s designee (whichever is specified in the business associate agreement) to satisfy a covered entity's obligations under 45 CFR 164.524(c)(2)(ii) and 3(ii), respectively, with respect to an individual’s request for an electronic copy of PHI.
- Failure to make reasonable efforts to limit PHI to the minimum necessary to accomplish the intended purpose of the use, disclosure, or request.
- Failure, in certain circumstances, to provide an accounting of disclosures.
- Failure to enter into business associate agreements with subcontractors that create or receive PHI on their behalf, and failure to comply with the implementation specifications for such agreements.
- Failure to take reasonable steps to address a material breach or violation of the subcontractor’s business associate agreement.
For example, where the business associate’s agreement with a covered entity requires it to provide an individual with an electronic copy of his or her ePHI upon the individual’s request and the business associate fails to do so, OCR has enforcement authority directly over the business associate for that failure. (See No. 6 above.) By contrast, OCR lacks the authority to enforce the “reasonable, cost-based fee” limitation in 45 CFR 164.524(c)(4) against business associates because the HITECH Act does not apply the fee limitation provision to business associates. A covered entity that engages the services of a business associate to fulfill an individual’s request for access to their PHI is responsible for ensuring that, where applicable, no more than the reasonable, cost-based fee permitted under HIPAA is charged. If the fee charged is in excess of the fee limitation, OCR can take enforcement action against only the covered entity.
| Enforcement Actions Ensure Patients Receive Timely Access to their Records, at a Reasonable Cost Today, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announced the resolution of three investigations concerning potential violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule's patient right of access provision. These cases are part of a collective effort, bringing the total 41 cases, to drive compliance on right of access under the law. “These three right of access actions send an important message to dental practices of all sizes that are covered by the HIPAA ...read more |
| Pharmacy Chain Institutes New Safeguards for PHI in Pseudoephedrine Log Books Covered Entity: Pharmacies Issue: Safeguards A grocery store based pharmacy chain maintained pseudoephedrine log books containing protected health information in a manner so that individual protected health information was visible to the public at the pharmacy counter. Initially, the pharmacy chain refused to acknowledge that the log books contained protected health information. OCR issued a written analysis and a demand for compliance. Among other corrective actions to resolve the specific issues in the case, OCR required that the pharmacy chain implement national policies and procedures to safeguard the ...read more |
| 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 |
| State Hospital Sanctions Employees for Disclosing Patient's PHI Covered Entity: Health Care Provider / General Hospital Issue: Impermissible Disclosure A nurse and an orderly at a state hospital discussed the HIV/AIDS status of a patient and the patient's spouse within earshot of other patients without making reasonable efforts to prevent the disclosure. Upon learning of the incident, the hospital placed both employees on leave; the orderly resigned his employment shortly thereafter. Among other actions taken to satisfactorily resolve this matter, the hospital took further disciplinary action with the nurse, which included: documenting the employee record with a memo of ...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. § 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
HIPAA (2)
PPP Fraud (1)
Data Breach (1)
HIPAA Enforcement (3)
BAA (4)
ePHI (2)
Telehealth (1)
EHR Fraud (1)
Covered Entity (40)
|
