skip to main content

Are Your Business Associate Agreements Up-To-Date?

Business Associate Agreements

Health care providers and their Business Associates have faced constantly shifting regulatory requirements and operational changes over the last few months. These developments include COVID-19 related enforcement by the federal government, increased use of telehealth, and the publication of new federal regulations related to interoperability. Given these developments, it is an opportune time for providers to revisit and amend their Business Associate Agreements (BAA).

Relaxed Enforcement for Public Health and Public Oversight Activities

Generally, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule 1 only permits a Business Associate to use and disclose Protected Health information (PHI) for public health and health oversight purposes if expressly permitted by its BAA with the provider. But, as we have seen recently, agencies such as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and state and local health authorities often need information immediately to address the emergency. The federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced on April 2, 2020 that, during the national COVID-19 emergency, HHS is permitting Business Associates to use and disclose PHI for public health and health oversight purposes in accordance with HIPAA, even where this disclosure is not specifically spelled out in the applicable BAA. See Notification of Enforcement Discretion under HIPAA to Allow Uses and Disclosures of Protected Health Information by Business Associates for Public Health and Health Oversight Activities in Response to COVID-19 (Notification).

According to the HHS’ Office for Civil Rights (OCR) Director Roger Severino, “The CDC, CMS, and state and local health departments need quick access to COVID-19 related health data to fight this pandemic. Granting HIPAA business associates greater freedom to cooperate and exchange information with public health and oversight agencies can help flatten the curve and potentially save lives.” The HHS’ Notification states OCR will not take enforcement action against providers and their Business Associates for uses and disclosures for public health and health oversight activities during the public health emergency so long as:

  1. The use or disclosure is made in a good faith and consistent with HIPAA’s requirements for such uses and disclosures,
  2. For the purpose of overseeing and providing assistance as it relates to a COVID-19 response, and;
  3. The Business Associate informs the Provider within 10 calendar days after the use or disclosure occurs or commences (for a repeating use or disclosure).

This means that Providers may wish to amend their BAAs to continue to be able to share PHI with a public health authority 2 or health oversight agency 3 or to assist in efforts to perform data analytics for public health purposes after the current public health emergency ends. The process of amending a BAA takes time, and it is recommended that providers review and revise BAAs now to ensure Business Associates’ continued ability to provide PHI to public health and health oversight agencies in future emergencies.

Increased Telehealth Services

OCR has also suspended penalties for telehealth use during the pandemic in an effort to ensure timely and safe access to care during the pandemic, however, providers and their Business Associates still remain liable for complying with the HIPAA Security Rule’s 4 requirements to implement safeguards to maintain the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of electronic PHI (ePHI), including by ensuring secure transmission and storage of ePHI.

Providers often mistakenly believe that communicating ePHI is acceptable when the communication is directly between physician and patient. Little regard may be given to the channel of communication that is used for communicating ePHI. Providers who wish to comply with the HIPAA guidelines on telemedicine must adhere to rigorous standards for such communications to be deemed compliant and when working with a telemedicine vendor for software, equipment, cloud, and other services.

The HIPAA guidelines on telemedicine are contained within the HIPAA Security Rule and require that:

  1. Only authorized users should have access to ePHI.
  2. A system of secure communication should be implemented to protect the integrity of ePHI.
  3. A system of monitoring communications containing ePHI should be implemented to prevent accidental or malicious breaches.

Consider specifically including these requirements in the BAA with a telemedicine vendor.

Providers must carefully consider safeguards when creating ePHI that is stored by a third party. In this situation, the BAA must identify the third party’s methods to ensure the protection of the data and regularly audit the data’s security.

New Federal Rules and HIPAA

On May 1, 2020, the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC) published a Final Rule in the Federal Register defining the “information blocking” prohibition:  21st Century Cures Act: Interoperability, Information Blocking, and the ONC Health IT Certification Program (ONC Final Rule). On the same date, CMS published the companion Interoperability and Patient Access Rule (CMS Final Rule).

The ONC Final Rule implemented provisions in Title IV of the 21st Century Cures Act, including the agency’s policies for the new legal prohibition against information blocking 5, as well as updates to the Health IT Certification Program to enhance interoperability of ePHI in several important ways.

  • First, it specifies a standardized core clinical data class set (by adopting the United States Core Data for Interoperability (USCDI) standard), which must be used by certified health IT developers.
  • Second, it requires the health care industry to adopt standardized application programming interfaces (APIs), 6 a type of technology that is the foundation of smartphone applications (“apps”), and which has enabled seamless, user-friendly data exchange via apps in the online banking and travel-booking industries.

The mandated combination of standardized APIs and USCDI is intended to create compatibility regarding what data electronic health records systems must be able to exchange, and how they must do so. While these particular provisions impact health IT developers more than providers, they will ultimately affect providers by creating an environment in which secure and easily accessible structured electronic health information can be more easily exchanged across care settings and accessed by individual patients for free using smartphone apps.

These are complex regulations but, at a minimum, BAAs should include a provision to make it clear that the Business Associate and provider are subject to the ONC and CMS Final Rules and that the Business Associate and provider will work together to implement those provisions to advance interoperability; support the access, exchange, and use of electronic health information; and prohibit information blocking both during and after a service contract term.

Compliance deadlines for the ONC and CMS Final Rules, originally set for June 30, 2020, have been extended for three months because of the COVID-19 public health emergency.7  However, enforcement of the information blocking provisions against Providers is likely to be further delayed, 8 given that the Cures Act directs OIG to refer provider violations to “the appropriate agency to be subject to appropriate disincentives using authorities under applicable Federal law, as the Secretary sets forth through notice and comment rulemaking.” 9 HHS has yet to identify the agency that will handle information blocking referrals or the “disincentive” that will apply to providers engaging in information blocking.

In our next post, we will discuss the ONC Interoperability Final Rule and its impact on health care providers.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Post & Schell has created a multi-disciplinary team that has prepared a wealth of resources and is prepared to help our clients meet the legal and business challenges that the COVID-19 outbreak is creating for stakeholders across a range of industries. Click here for Post & Schell’s COVID-19 Resource Page to stay apprised of relevant developments, insights, and resources to support your business during this unprecedented time.

Footnotes:

1  45 C.F.R. Parts 160 and 164.

2  45 C.F.R. § 164.512(b).

3. 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(d).

4  45 C.F.R. Part 164.

5 The Cures Act defines “information blocking,” in pertinent part, as a practice that is “likely to interfere with, prevent, or materially discourage access, exchange, or use of electronic health information . . .” and, which “if conducted by a health care provider, such provider knows that such practice is unreasonable and likely to interfere with, prevent, or materially discourage access, exchange, or use of electronic health information. 42 U.S.C. 300jj-52(a)(1)(B)(ii). Under the Cures Act, health information technology developers, exchanges, or networks are also subject to information blocking prohibitions. 42 U.S.C. 300jj-52(a)(1)(B)(i).

6 An API can be thought of as a set of commands, functions, protocols, or tools published by one software developer (‘‘A’’) that enable other software developers to create programs (applications or ‘‘apps’’) that can interact with A’s software without needing to know the internal workings of A’s software, all while maintaining consumer privacy data standards. See CMS Final Rule, 85 Fed. Reg. 25515.

7 See ONC, Cures Act Final Rule, “Enforcement Discretion,” https://www.healthit.gov/curesrule/resources/enforcement-discretion (last visited May 20, 2020).

8 The Cures Act gives the Office of Inspector General (OIG) authority to impose Civil Monetary Penalties not exceeding $1 million per violation for information blocking violations committed by health IT developers, health information exchanges, and health information networks. 42 U.S.C. 300jj-52(b)(2)(A). The OIG published a Proposed Rule regarding enforcement against such actors on April 24, 2020. HHS OIG, Grants, Contracts, and Other Agreements; Fraud and Abuse; Information Blocking; Office of Inspector General’s Civil Money Penalty Rules, 85 Fed. Reg. 22979 (April 24, 2020).

9 42 U.S.C. 300jj-52(b)(2)(B).

 

About the Authors

Cynthia A. Haines is a Principal in the Firm's Health Care Practice Group and Co-Chair of its Information Privacy & Security Practice Group. She counsels and represents clients on state and federal health law and related regulatory and compliance issues, including: surveys; licensure; Medicare/Medicaid; compliance; audits; accreditation; payment matters; HIPAA security and privacy compliance; insurer compliance with federal, state and local laws, regulations and policies; and voluntary disclosures.

Read more >

Elizabeth M. Hein is a Principal in the Firm’s Health Care Practice Group, providing legal services to the Firm’s health care clients in litigation, regulatory, and compliance matters.

Read more >