HIPAA and the HITECH Act: Know the level of penalties
HIPAA Weekly Advisor, March 16, 2009
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to HIPAA Weekly Advisor!
The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act provides a tiered system for assessing the level of each HIPAA privacy violation and, therefore, its penalty:
- Tier A is for violations in which the offender didn’t realize he or she violated the Act and would have handled the matter differently if he or she had. This results in a $100 fine for each violation, and the total imposed for such violations cannot exceed $25,000 for the calendar year.
- Tier B is for violations due to reasonable cause, but not “willful neglect.” The result is a $1,000 fine for each violation, and the fines cannot exceed $100,000 for the calendar year.
- Tier C is for violations due to willful neglect that the organization ultimately corrected. The result is a $10,000 fine for each violation, and the fines cannot exceed $250,000 for the calendar year.
- Tier D is for violations of willful neglect that the organization did not correct. The result is a $50,000 fine for each violation, and the fines cannot exceed $1,500,000 for the calendar year.
The HITECH Act also allows states’ attorneys general to levy fines and seek attorneys fees from covered entities on behalf of victims. Courts now have the ability to award costs, which they were previously unable to do.
Editor’s note: This is an excerpt from the April 2009 edition of the HCPro, Inc. newsletter, Briefings on HIPAA. If you have a tip, comment, or question about the HIPAA provisions in the HITECH Act, please e-mail it to Dom Nicastro.
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to HIPAA Weekly Advisor!
Related Products
Most Popular
- Articles
-
- 2010 ICD-9 code updates now available online
- The Joint Commission extends its accreditation to advanced diagnostic imaging
- FDA extends time to replace Steris sterilizing system
- CMS clarifies physician signatures needed on all lab orders
- Greeley Reflections
- Use PEPPER reports to stay on top of common coding errors
- Q/A: Select correct revenue code for packaged drugs
- Q&A: EHR audit log retention
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- See one, do one, teach one: Do you have a peer review training program?
- E-mailed
-
- FDA extends time to replace Steris sterilizing system
- Q&A: Impact of SOI/ROM on DRG assignment
- The Joint Commission extends its accreditation to advanced diagnostic imaging
- CMS clarifies physician signatures needed on all lab orders
- Q/A: Select correct revenue code for packaged drugs
- Credentialing and privileging monthly: ABP may point maintenance of certification in a new direction
- Meaningful use calls for meaningful risk analysis
- Use PEPPER reports to stay on top of common coding errors
- Watch for corridor clutter under top-cited LS.02.01.20
- Cohesive History and Physical Requirements
- Searched
