DataBreaches.Net

Menu
  • About
  • Breach Notification Laws
  • Privacy Policy
  • Transparency Report
Menu

OCR explains why it shielded names on published breach list

Posted on February 24, 2010 by Dissent

This week, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) began posting summaries of breach reports it has received as newly mandated by the HITECH Act.

In commenting on the breaches, this site observed that some breaches simply stated “Private Practice” instead of the name of the breached entity. Because the intent of the breach disclosure and notification requirements in HITECH was that breaches would be disclosed to the media AND to HHS who would post information on their site, such shielding seemed inappropriate and inconsistent with both the statute and intent of Congress.

In response to an inquiry from this site as to why OCR had shielded entities’ names that way, OCR sent the following statement:

The Privacy Act of 1974, at 5 U.S.C. 552a, protects records that can be retrieved by personal identifiers such as a name, social security number, or other identifying number or symbol. Therefore, OCR cannot disclose the names or other identifying information about private practitioners without their written consent.

Oh really? Even if Congress enacted legislation to mandate just that? Why did Rick Lawson have his name listed as an involved Business Associate for one breach, but a private practitioner does not have his or her name listed? And how can the public be aware of which covered entities might place their data at risk if names are shielded? OCR’s approach or application of the Privacy Act seems to give greater protection from reputational harm to covered entities who do business under their own names than to covered entities who have corporate names.

Although I genuinely appreciate OCR’s prompt reply, I am not satisfied with their response nor with the fact that their summaries do not include important information such as the type of records exposed in each breach. As a result, I have written to them again and have also reached out to some other organizations that are concerned about transparency and the intent of Congress in enacting HITECH. Expect to see more about this issue on this site at some point.

Related posts:

  • An OCR investigation illustrates the value of investigating small and medium-sized entities
  • HHS Office for Civil Rights Imposes a $240,000 Civil Monetary Penalty Against Providence Medical Institute in HIPAA Ransomware Cybersecurity Investigation
  • Small-Scale Violations of Medical Privacy Often Cause the Most Harm
  • HHS Office for Civil Rights Settles HIPAA Ransomware Cybersecurity Investigation for $90,000
Category: Health Data

Post navigation

← Tennessee: No evidence stolen personal information being used, BlueCross says
The Cost Of A Breach, Heartland Style: At Least $129 Million; Might Be $229 Million →

2 thoughts on “OCR explains why it shielded names on published breach list”

  1. Anonymous says:
    February 25, 2010 at 12:34 pm

    Interesting that the dentists, Ashley and Grey, were mentioned by name. I guess they don’t have the same clout as the physicians.

    1. Anonymous says:
      February 25, 2010 at 12:47 pm

      I wonder if they incorporated or are LLC or something. If it’s their business name, OCR may have felt that they had to use it.

      Advantage to those who don’t incorporate?

Comments are closed.

Now more than ever

"Stand with Ukraine:" above raised hands. The illustration is in blue and yellow, the colors of Ukraine's flag.

Search

Browse by Categories

Recent Posts

  • CMS warns Medicare providers of fraud scheme
  • Ex-student charged with wave of cyber attacks on Sydney uni
  • Detaining Hackers Before the Crime? Tamil Nadu’s Supreme Court Approves Preventive Custody for Cyber Offenders
  • Potential Cyberattack Scrambles Columbia University Computer Systems
  • 222,000 customer records allegedly from Manhattan Parking Group leaked
  • Breaches have consequences (sometimes) (1)
  • Kansas City Man Pleads Guilty for Hacking a Non-Profit
  • British national “IntelBroker” charged with causing $25 million in damages; U.S. seeks his extradition from France
  • France issues press statement about arrest of ShinyHunters members
  • Patients Allege Home Delivery Pharmacy Failed to Timely Notify Them of Data Breach

No, You Can’t Buy a Post or an Interview

This site does not accept sponsored posts or link-back arrangements. Inquiries about either are ignored.

And despite what some trolls may try to claim: DataBreaches has never accepted even one dime to interview or report on anyone. Nor will DataBreaches ever pay anyone for data or to interview them.

Want to Get Our RSS Feed?

Grab it here:

https://databreaches.net/feed/

RSS Recent Posts on PogoWasRight.org

  • Justices nix Medicaid ‘right’ to choose doctor, defunding Planned Parenthood in South Carolina
  • European Commission publishes its plan to enable more effective law enforcement access to data
  • Sacred Secrets: The Biblical Case for Privacy and Data Protection
  • Microsoft’s Departing Privacy Chief Calls for Regulator Outreach
  • Nestle USA Settles Suit Over Job-Application Medical Questions
  • NY Attorney General James Affirms Hospitals Must Provide Access to Emergency Abortion Care
  • How Internet of Things devices affect your privacy – even when they’re not yours

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net

Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

DMCA Concern: dmca[at]databreaches.net
© 2009 – 2025 DataBreaches.net and DataBreaches LLC. All rights reserved.