DataBreaches.Net

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

Cancer Care Group settles HHS charges over “widespread noncompliance” with HIPAA Security Rule; $750,000 fine and corrective action plan

Posted on September 2, 2015 by Dissent

In August 2012, I noted a breach involving the theft of backup media from an unattended vehicle of a Cancer Care Group employee. The backup contained information on 55,000 patients and employees.

Now, more than three years later, HHS has announced a settlement with CCG over the breach. As seems to be their style, they have chosen an incident to make a point. In this case, it’s the importance of risk analysis and device and media control policies.

Their statement:

Cancer Care Group, P.C. agreed to settle potential violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy and Security Rules with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office for Civil Rights (OCR). Cancer Care paid $750,000 and will adopt a robust corrective action plan to correct deficiencies in its HIPAA compliance program. Cancer Care Group is a radiation oncology private physician practice, with 13 radiation oncologists serving hospitals and clinics throughout Indiana.

On August 29, 2012, OCR received notification from Cancer Care regarding a breach of unsecured electronic protected health information (ePHI) after a laptop bag was stolen from an employee’s car. The bag contained the employee’s computer and unencrypted backup media, which contained the names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, insurance information and clinical information of approximately 55,000 current and former Cancer Care patients.

OCR’s subsequent investigation found that, prior to the breach, Cancer Care was in widespread non-compliance with the HIPAA Security Rule. It had not conducted an enterprise-wide risk analysis when the breach occurred in July 2012. Further, Cancer Care did not have in place a written policy specific to the removal of hardware and electronic media containing ePHI into and out of its facilities, even though this was common practice within the organization. OCR found that these two issues, in particular, contributed to the breach, as an enterprise-wide risk analysis could have identified the removal of unencrypted backup media as an area of significant risk to Cancer Care’s ePHI, and a comprehensive device and media control policy could have provided employees with direction in regard to their responsibilities when removing devices containing ePHI from the facility.

“Organizations must complete a comprehensive risk analysis and establish strong policies and procedures to protect patients’ health information,” said OCR Director Jocelyn Samuels. “Further, proper encryption of mobile devices and electronic media reduces the likelihood of a breach of protected health information.”

Cancer Care has taken corrective action with regard to the specific requirements of the Privacy and Security Rules that are at the core of this enforcement action, as well as actions to come into compliance with the other provisions of the HIPAA Rules. The Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan (CAP) can be found on the OCR website at: http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/enforcement/examples/cancercare.html

Category: Health DataOf NoteTheftU.S.

Post navigation

← UK: WHSmith “bug” spams confidential customer details from “contact us” form
Former Cambridgeshire detective sentenced for theft and Data Protection Act breach →

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

  • Ireland’s Data Protection Commission publishes 2024 Annual Report
  • The headlines suggested Freedman Healthcare suffered a ransomware attack that affected patient data. The reality was quite different.
  • Runsafe report: Medical device cyberattacks threaten patient care, strain budgets, top concern for healthcare sector
  • Ryuk ransomware’s initial access expert extradited to the U.S. from Ukraine
  • Alleged Geisinger hacker will defend himself pro se.
  • Tallahassee Memorial Healthcare reveals it was also impacted by Cerner/Legacy Oracle cyberattack
  • Hospital cyberattack investigation complete, no formal review needed (1)
  • Largest Ever Seizure of Funds Related to Crypto Confidence Scams
  • IMPACT: 170 patients harmed as a result of Qilin’s ransomware attack on NHS vendor Synnovis
  • DOJ’s Data Security Program: Key Compliance Considerations for Impacted Entities

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

  • US Judge Invalidates Biden Rule Protecting Privacy for Abortions
  • DOJ’s Data Security Program: Key Compliance Considerations for Impacted Entities
  • 23andMe fined £2.31 million for failing to protect UK users’ genetic data
  • DOJ Seeks More Time on Tower Dumps
  • Your household smart products must respect your privacy – including your air fryer
  • Vermont signs Kids Code into law, faces legal challenges
  • Data Categories and Surveillance Pricing: Ferguson’s Nuanced Approach to Privacy Innovation

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.