A recent opinion from the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) on data protection and scientific research builds on an opinion from January 2019 from the European Data Protection Board on the GDPR and clinical trials. The Opinion from the EDPS should be taken into account by life sciences companies in their ongoing assessment of how to apply the GDPR to scientific research both in clinical trials and more broadly.
The EDPS – an independent supervisory authority whose primary objective is to ensure that European institutions and bodies respect the right to privacy and data protection – recently published a preliminary opinion on data protection and scientific research (the Opinion). The EDPS acknowledges the critical importance of scientific research but states that “data protection obligations should not be misappropriated as a means […] to escape transparency and accountability.” In particular, according to the EDPS, compliance with data protection laws is “wholly compatible” with responsible scientific research. However, the EDPS recommends intensifying dialogue between data protection authorities (DPAs) and ethical review boards for a common understanding of which activities amount to genuine research and expects further guidance to be published by the European Data Protection Board – an independent European body, composed of representatives of the national DPAs and the EDPS.
New European medical device guidance will require manufacturers to carefully review cybersecurity and IT security requirements in relation to their devices and in their product literature. This new guidance comes at the same time as a draft guidance on privacy by design has been published by the European Data Protection Board requiring product developers to implement privacy into the design of their products.
In December 2019, the Medical Device Coordination Group (MDCG) published its guidance on cybersecurity for medical devices (the Guidance). The MDCG is composed of representatives of all Member States and it is chaired by a representative of the European Commission. The Guidance is intended to assist medical device manufacturers meet the new cybersecurity requirements in the Medical Devices Regulation (MDR) and the In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVDR) (collectively, the Regulations). In particular, the Guidance aims to assist with regard to both the pre-market and post-market requirements of the Regulations to ensure companies achieve “an adequate balance between benefit and risk during all possible operation modes of a medical device.”
In an effort to reduce barriers to coordination of care, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) is considering changes to Federal restrictions on the sharing of substance use disorder (“SUD”) records. The proposed changes would modify 42 C.F.R. Part 2 (“Part 2”) regulations that place restrictive conditions on the disclosure of SUD patient records—limitations that go above and beyond Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) restrictions.
The barriers imposed by these rules—which have been in place since the 1970s—have become the focus of particular attention in light of the opioid crisis, as members of Congress and other stakeholders have raised concerns about how the Part 2 statute and implementing regulations may inhibit efforts to respond and coordinate care. Members of Congress have called for reform, but have been unsuccessful at seeking legislative fixes thus far.
New Annual HIPAA Penalty Tiers
Six months after imposing the largest ever HIPAA fine ($16 million) following a HIPAA data breach, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) has announced that it is exercising its enforcement discretion to lower maximum annual HIPAA penalties.
On January 28, 2019, the Healthcare and Public Health Sector Coordinating Council released the “Medical Device and Health IT Joint Security Plan” (“JSP” or “Plan”)—cybersecurity recommendations for medical device manufacturers, healthcare information technology vendors, and healthcare providers. U.S. Government entities, including the FDA, participated in the development of the Plan. The JSP comes close on the heels of the “Health Industry Cybersecurity Practices: Managing Threats and Protecting Patients,” a similar effort by a public-private partnership to provide cybersecurity guidance to healthcare industry stakeholders. (more…)
On 23 January 2019, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) adopted an opinion on the interplay between the EU Clinical Trials Regulation (CTR) and the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The Opinion addresses the appropriate legal basis for the processing of personal data in the context of clinical trials (primary use), and the secondary use of clinical trial data. (more…)
On December 3, 2018, twelve attorneys general (“AGs”) jointly filed a data breach lawsuit against Medical Informatics Engineering and its subsidiary, NoMoreClipboard LLC (collectively “the Company”), an electronic health records company, in federal district court in Indiana. See Indiana v. Med. Informatics Eng’g, Inc., No. 3:18-cv-00969 (N.D. Ind. filed Dec. 3, 2018). The suit—led by Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill—is joined by AGs from Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Carolina and Wisconsin. While state AGs have previously exercised their civil enforcement authorities under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), this is the first multi-state data breach lawsuit alleging HIPAA violations in federal court and may signal increased interest on the part of state officials in exercising their data protection authorities to address cybersecurity incidents.
On January 25, 2019, the Illinois Supreme Court unanimously held that a plaintiff does not need to allege any actual injury or damages to successfully state a claim under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., 2019 IL 123186 (Jan. 25, 2019) (a copy of the opinion is available here). A violation of the statute by itself is sufficient to state a claim, even if no breach or misuse of the biometric information or identifier has occurred. Because BIPA includes stiff liquidated damages for violations, the court’s ruling is likely to lead to renewed interest by the plaintiffs’ bar in class action suits alleging BIPA violations. (more…)
On December 28, 2018, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released a four-volume cybersecurity guidance document for healthcare organizations. The publication, “Health Industry Cybersecurity Practices: Managing Threats and Protecting Patients” (HICP), is the result of a government and industry collaboration mandated by the Cybersecurity Act of 2015. The HICP is not limited to individually identifiable health information but instead covers organizations’ enterprise-level information security more generally. HHS describes the publication as “practical, understandable, implementable, industry-led, and consensus-based voluntary cybersecurity guidelines to cost-effectively reduce cybersecurity risks for healthcare organizations of varying sizes.” Notwithstanding their voluntary nature, these HHS-backed cybersecurity recommendations are likely to serve as an important reference point for the industry. (more…)
On December 14, 2018, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) published in the Federal Register a request for information (RFI) titled “Modifying HIPAA Rules to Improve Coordinated Care.” The RFI seeks public input on a broad range of potential reforms to Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) regulations with a focus on enhancing care coordination. Though only a preliminary step on the path to potential regulatory reform, the RFI’s scope is significant, as is the opportunity it affords stakeholders interested in sharing early input as HHS considers reforms to key health information privacy requirements. (more…)