DataBreaches.Net

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

Why Did Change Health Lowball Its 1st Breach Report to Feds?

Posted on August 2, 2024 by Dissent

Marianne Kolbasuk McGee of HealthInfoSec  poses a question about why Change Healthcare’s report to HHS indicated that 500 patients were affected when they already admitted that there were millions. Why use such a low placeholder instead of a higher number when it has been months since they discovered the breach and they must have some partial numbers that are already significantly higher than 500?  McGee writes:

Some legal experts were surprised by Change Healthcare’s super low estimate in the breach report submitted to HHS OCR, especially considering the circumstances of the high-profile ransomware attack.

“This is unusual,” said regulatory attorney Sara Goldstein of the law firm BakerHostetler. “Typically the ‘500 or 501 individual placeholder’ is used when covered entities or business associates are providing notification within 60 days of discovery but have not identified the total number of individuals requiring notification,” she said. […] “UHG publicly stated that the incident involved information for ‘a substantial proportion of people in America. Based on these statements, one would have expected that the initial notice to HHS OCR would have included a much larger number,” Goldstein said.

Read more at BankInfoSecurity.

Unlike Goldstein, DataBreaches was not surprised at all to see the 500 placeholder, and has an answer to the question, “Why did Change Health lowball its 1st breach report to feds?”

The answer is that HHS OCR has never taken enforcement action against any entity for using a placeholder, even months after the entity first discovered a breach. As long as HHS doesn’t enforce and penalize, why should any entity not take advantage and use just a placeholder to delay announcing what might be staggering numbers?

As reported on Breaches.net, DataBreaches did not get any replies when this site emailed and called HHS OCR in January and February to ask how they follow up when an entity uses a 500 or 501 placeholder. Getting no answer at all, DataBreaches filed under FOIA in March. No substantive reply has been received as yet.


Related:

  • Cyber-Attack On Bectu’s Parent Union Sparks UK National Security Concerns
  • JFL Lost Up to $800,000 Weekly After Cyberattack, CEO Says No Patient or Staff Data Was Compromised
  • John Bolton Indictment Provides Interesting Details About Hack of His AOL Account and Extortion Attempt
  • A business's cyber insurance policy included ransom coverage, but when they needed it, the insurer refused to pay. Why?
  • Scenes from a "No Kings" Protest, 10-18-25
  • No Kings. Not Today. Not Ever.
Category: Breach LawsCommentaries and AnalysesHealth DataHIPAA

Post navigation

← Cencora confirms patient health info stolen in February attack
Ever More Toxic Ransomware Brands Breed Lone Wolf Operators →

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

  • Doctor Alliance Data Breach: 353GB of Patient Files Allegedly Compromised, Ransom Demanded
  • St. Thomas Brushed Off Red Flags Before Dark-Web Data Dump Rocks Houston
  • A Wiltshire police breach posed possible safety concerns for violent crime victims as well as prison officers
  • Amendment 13 is gamechanger on data security enforcement in Israel
  • Almost two years later, Alpha Omega Winery notifies those affected by a data breach.
  • Court of Appeal reaffirms MFSA liability in data leak case, orders regulator to shoulder costs
  • A jailed hacking kingpin reveals all about the gang that left a trail of destruction
  • Army gynecologist took secret videos of patients during intimate exams, lawsuit says
  • The Case for Making EdTech Companies Liable Under FERPA
  • NHS providers reviewing stolen Synnovis data published by cyber criminals

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

  • Data broker Kochava agrees to change business practices to settle lawsuit
  • Amendment 13 is gamechanger on data security enforcement in Israel
  • Changes in the Rules for Disclosure for Substance Use Disorder Treatment Records: 42 CFR Part 2: What Changed, Why It Matters, and How It Aligns with HIPAAs
  • Always watching: How ICE’s plan to monitor social media 24/7 threatens privacy and civic participation
  • Who’s watching the watchers? This Mozilla fellow, and her Surveillance Watch map

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net
Security Issue: security[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.