Home > Identity Theft > Should All Personal Information Be Encrypted?

Comments 0 Comments

Last month, the Health Insurance and Medical Privacy Act, or HIPAA, made your electronic medical records a lot safer. As welcome as these changes are, we need to go further. It is time for a federal law requiring encryption of any database that contains personally identifying information (PII).

Despite the lunacy now emanating from our nation’s capital, despite the insane games of brinksmanship in Washington, I truly do believe the failure to encrypt personally identifiable information is of critical importance to the well being of Americans, and it’s an issue we need to deal with right now.

A movement has been growing for some time now in the health care industry — a traditionally paper-based world is being converted into a digital one where electronic health records, or EHRs, rule the day. The push to digitize health records is picking up speed for a reason: it’s good medicine. It saves money, and it saves lives. In some professions, missing a key detail might cost you a contract or a client; in medicine, it can mean losing a limb or a life. EHRs give an entire medical team — doctors, nurses, anesthesiologists, radiologists, pharmacologists —access to accurate, timely data about a patient, making it easier to communicate instructions, test theories, question assumptions, spot anomalies, correct errors. It helps to ensure that the right medications are administered in the right dosages. It puts the patient’s whole medical history within easy reach. It simply makes sense.

But digitization has its downsides. The networked access that makes EHRs so convenient for medical teams also leaves them vulnerable to abuse by hackers and insider thieves. To a criminal, a patient’s most sensitive PII, financial account data and insurance information can be used to open fraudulent accounts, obtain medical treatment, turn a quick profit on the black market, or commit crimes in their name. Whether by hacking a network, planting an employee or stealing a laptop, this new kind of criminal knows how to get their hands on this data, and the incentive is huge. And as we roll out the technology to implement the Affordable Care Act — with millions of Americans signing up for the first time — attempts to find and exploit weaknesses in the system are bound to increase.

While the federal government offers incentives to health care providers for deploying electronic health records systems (and penalties if they haven’t by mid-2015), patients aren’t so sure they want their health data digitized in the first place — and while patients may not be up to speed on all the details, they do know enough to be nervous. A new survey by Xerox, a leader in the digitization of medical data, provides clear evidence of consumer edginess over EHRs. While 62% of those surveyed think EHRs will reduce health care costs and 73% see them improving quality of care, fully 83% are worried about security and privacy related issues — and 68% don’t want their health records digitized at all.

Not Encrypted? Not Secure.

That’s where encryption must come in.  It is an indispensible tool for securing patients’ electronically stored and transmitted data. It is so fundamental, in fact, that even though it has not been strictly “required” by HIPAA and HITECH — laws that establish regulatory frameworks to govern the handling of sensitive health-related data — it is, as a practical matter, impossible to comply with HIPAA regulations without using encryption.

In fact, without encryption, there really is no effective way to keep electronic patient data secure. And it’s easy. That’s right. There is nothing all that difficult about encrypting EHRs and other sensitive patient data — and when you consider the alternatives to encryption, and how damaging those alternatives are to patient and health care provider alike, you’d have to be insane not to encrypt.

Which brings us to the question of lunacy — because, insanely enough, unencrypted medical records are still leaked all the time. A case in point: the HHS Wall of Shame is a list, posted by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), of breaches of unsecured protected health information, also known as PHI, that affect 500 individuals or more. That list contains an embarrassing number of laptops that were lost or stolen with unencrypted PHI on their hard drives. And every one of those laptops came from someone who should have known better — but who, nevertheless, chose to put their patients at risk. Then, of course there are all those breaches involving insiders pilfering files, hackers piercing less than adequately secured databases and the newest threat to medical data security – mobile devices.

That risk can be considerable, ranging from identity theft to death. You read me right – death. When a criminal uses your identity and/or your insurance to obtain medical care, that criminal’s medical facts (a blood type, allergies – or lack thereof) become part of your medical record — which could cause you to receive a transfusion, a medication or a course of treatment that could, in fact, kill you.

What the Final Rule Means

As of Sept. 23, though, they’re putting themselves at risk as well. Last January, HHS strengthened privacy and security protections for health data put into place when HIPAA became law in the mid-1990s. The final rule, reflecting statutory changes rolled into the 2009 HITECH Act, beefs up patient privacy, boosts patients’ rights to health information, enhances enforcement — and provides that electronic protected health information (ePHI) is “rendered unusable,  unreadable, or indecipherable to unauthorized individuals,” (in human speak – encrypted), whether at rest (think server) or in transit (think email). As long as it is encrypted — even if there’s a security breach — a “covered entity” need not notify patients of the breach, nor pay fines as high as $1.5 million.

Sure sounds to me like encryption is a no-brainer. In the words of HHS Office of Civil Rights Director Leon Rodriguez: “Encryption is an easy method for making lost information unusable, unreadable and undecipherable.” That assurance, in turn, “would qualify that entity for the safe harbors under our breach notification rule,” says Rodriguez. Why would anyone not take that offer?

The outcry over NSA surveillance put encryption back in the spotlight. Revelations of NSA spying on phone calls, email, and other Internet traffic had an upside: it jolted Americans into realizing our private correspondence might not be so private after all — and, perhaps, caused us to reflect on the value of privacy. As we implement the changes to HIPAA and roll out the online health exchanges at the heart of the ACA, our obligation to the American people is to do this right and protect them well. As Galen said: “First, do no harm.” In a word: Encrypt.

Image: iStock

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team