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.

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

  • Cyberattack pushes German napkin company into insolvency
  • WMATA Train Operators Arrested in Health Care Fraud Scheme
  • Washington Post investigating cyberattack on journalists, WSJ reports
  • Resource: State Data Breach Notification Laws – June 2025
  • WestJet investigates cyberattack disrupting internal systems
  • Plastic surgeons often store nude photos of patients with their identity information. When would we call that “negligent?”
  • India: Servers of two city hospitals hacked; police register FIR
  • Ph: Coop Hospital confirms probe into reported cyberattack
  • Slapped wrists for Financial Conduct Authority staff who emailed work data home
  • School Districts Unaware BoardDocs Software Published Their Private Files

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

  • Vermont signs Kids Code into law, faces legal challenges
  • Data Categories and Surveillance Pricing: Ferguson’s Nuanced Approach to Privacy Innovation
  • Anne Wojcicki Wins Bidding for 23andMe
  • Would you — or wouldn’t you?
  • New York passes a bill to prevent AI-fueled disasters
  • Synthetic Data and the Illusion of Privacy: Legal Risks of Using De-Identified AI Training Sets
  • States sue to block the sale of genetic data collected by DNA testing company 23andMe

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.